Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) collect valuable data on student learning behavior; essentially complete records of al student interactions in a self-contained learning environment, with the benefit of large sample sizes. […]
• […] 76% of all participants were browsers who collectively accounted for only 8% of time spent in the course, whereas, the 7% certificate-earning participants averaged 100 hours each and collectively accounted for 60% of total time.
• Students spent the most time per week interacting with lecture videos and homework, followed by discussion forums and online laboratories;
Abstract: MOOCs (massive open online course) is a disruptive innovation and a current buzzword in higher education. However, the discussion of MOOCs is disparate, fragmented, and distributed among different outlets. Systematic, extensively published research on MOOCs is unavailable. This paper adopts a novel method called blog mining to analyze MOOCs. The findings indicate, while MOOCs have benefitted learners, providers, and faculty who develop and teach MOOCs, challenges still exist, such as questionable course quality, high dropout rate, unavailable course credits, ineffective assessments, complex copyright, and limited hardware. Future research should explore the position of MOOCs and how it can be sustained.
Within open practice one of the fears and pitfalls is verification of the information and/or the source of the information you are tapping into. We're going to make mistakes, even the great and the good misquote or show a little bias, but this is a useful resource to minimise slips. Filled with reminders and discoveries for challenging and verifying information sources in social media with useful links to tools to help.
This paper proposes variations around the themes of Peer Observation of Teaching and Professional Conversations as tools to investigate the use and reuse of OER by teachers. It reports on two qualitative studies on the use and reuse of OER by language teachers at the Open University UK. Teachers use LORO (loro.open.ac.uk), an open repository of OER for language teaching, to select their teaching resources.
The number of fake journals and conferences has soared as scientific publishing has shifted from a traditional business model to open access on the Internet.
"The dark side of open" is used in this article to describe the phenomenon of 'fake' journals made more possible by a world of open publishing. As credible scientists have not been immune, this illustrates a possible danger of not maintaining a peer review process of some sort. It might raise a question about the need for specialist digital literacy training. Do even seasoned professionals need assistance with developing the 'crap detection' skills needed in literature research in a world awash with opinions? ,
Separately, could this phenomena, rather than 'democratising' scientific publishing, result in entrenchment of current publishing institutions and power if we are left floundering in a sea of available journals but a time-consuming search to find credible papers?
Although primarily looking at teaching content generated in schools, this blog raises questions for practitioners at all levels regarding ownership of their lesson plans and designs and the right to share openly/sell this work. Is this a discussion we need to be formally raising with colleagues and bosses? Are their teachers who want to share openly who are being prevented by their employers from doing so?
Adequate licensing and attribution of scholarly work in the digital age have presented many issues for scholarly and publishing communities. While many open access advocates consider Creative Commo...
CC-BY or not to CC-BY? That is only one of many questions plaguing not only institutions, but individual contributors to knowledge. This article helps to clarify what the various Creative Commons licences signify and their possible implications and unexpected consequences.
From the current gathering of evidence by the UK parliament around the adoption of 'gold' open access versus 'green' open access, this is from Stephen Curry. This submission gives pause for thought about whether the ultimate solution is implementable without global consensus and the possible cost to the UK HE sector. (thanks to Seb Schmoller for the tweet that sent me here)
Major new bill mandating open access introduced in Congress
A new bill mandating OA to federally-funded research was just introduced into both houses of…
For non-US readers you might want to skip the acronym-laden beginning! The bullet points midway through give a clear listing of the open access bill introduced into Congress. Of interest from a UK perspective is the fact that they are seeking 'green open access' rather than the 'gold open access' being advocated in the UK. The prime difference between them is succinctly noted in the bullet points.
forgot who steered me to this - pity as I owe them thanks!
Lengthy but leads through the logic of why this approach is necessary and then gives very practical step by step tips and suggestions. The criticism of curation as offten merely an aggregation is valid (she says, scooping it...!) and it is perhaps time for pointers for taking it to the 'next level' for even casual would-be curators. I'll be working through this. Repeatedly.
This draft paper offers some evidence of the style of some interactions on some types of MOOCs. Regrettably, it offers them as though representing all interactions and all types of MOOCs and does not recognise the differences in pedagogy/heutagogy of the widely varying courses now available. Indeed, it does not describe the original cMOOCs though it does draw on a lot of the literature which has arisen from and around cMOOCs and applies this without qualification to xMOOCs.
Within those constraints, however, is there something here to consider about the style of interaction of participants on these xMOOCs and also the potential role of xMOOCs in other societies?
The recent emergence of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) has sparked agitation in the academia especially in Western Europe and North America. Constraints raised by MOOCs vary depending on prof...
The title says MOOCs but the blog says a lot more! A reminder that massive and open are not new. Bernard suggsts some of the old models to achieve the first two points in the MOOC acronym might be tweaked and re-deployed to broaden accessibility.
Another submission to the UK parliament on the topic of 'green or gold' open access: Any blunter in its criticisms of the Finch report and it would be impolite. A passionate argument for the needs of small to medium enterprises (SME) as regards choice of open access (OA) policy.
Note: NIH is the National Institute for Health in the UK
BIS is the government department for Business, Innovation and Skills
The Finch Report is a study commissioned by the UK government on how to make access to results of taxpayer-funded scientific research free of charge, without compromising on researching and reporting standards.
(Again, thanks to @sebschmoller for the tweet about this)
While recent policy developments have made huge strides for open access publishing, there is still great uncertainty over how the transition will play out. Stephen Curry distills the key questions ...
From September last year, this summary is of the views and commentary of leading open access researchers and writers on the adoption of the open access policy announced by UK Research Councils in 2012. Gives an overview of how the discussion has shifted from the push for open access funding policies to arguments around the details of such a policy. Influences and tensions in the debate are noted. The author is a research scientist.
This is useful as an outline of how we got from there to here on open access arguments. It sketches out concerns about the UK's current position. Issues that still need to be considered - such as how 'gold' access costs to the researcher will limit how often they can publish, what and how they publish - are raised. (though note other scoops for clarification on the point of 'researcher-pays in gold access'). It's argued that there is a possible difference in effect on poorly -funded researchers compared to well-funded researchers and that this could entrench disparities in position that are not due to academic excellence. The concern discussed is that those not well known, still getting established, undertaking less popular research, at less well funded institutions or in disciplines attracting lower funding may be discriminated against.
What is not often heard in discussions on open access is possible negatives to the unrestricted reuse of publications (with author acknowledgement) which is part of gold access. Examples offered give pause for thought, but a look at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US suggest the authors' moral rights and the nature of 'attribution' could be used to prevent some of these issues arising.