Talk:Massive open online course

Material to add

I'm copying these from Talk:Massive open online course/Archive 2

• parking a good source.
• Good Guardian link on moocs and privatisation http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/apr/29/massive-open-online-courses
• Although I've archived it, there may still be something in the table of opportunities/challenges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Massive_open_online_course/Archive_1#Opportunities.2FChallenges_-_a_suggested_table
• Looking for some academic articles on mooc history: one article in the 'Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language' http://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej64/int.pdf, a French https://translate.google.com/#fr/en/http%3A%2F%2Fsticef.univ-lemans.fr%2Fnum%2Fvol2012%2F13r-cisel%2Fsticef_2012_cisel_13rp.html 'sticef' article (g'translated), the http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MOOCs-and-Open-Education.docx CETIS report 'MOOCS and HE' (.docx) - which makes too much use of Wikipedia as a source, and the JIME article http://jime.open.ac.uk/article/2012-18/html Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility - which similarly relies far too much on Wikipedia as a source. There might be some bits in some of those to incorporate though
• Criticism of many moocs in current instantiation http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/05/06/essay-suggests-moocs-are-losing-their-original-worthy-goals
• [1] interesting questions
• MOOCs: A Systematic Study of the Published Literature 2008-2012 http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1455/2531
• OER - a historical perspective http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/4915/ Will attempt to look at some of these links soon, should have lots of useful content/be useful for citations
• New report from UK Govt BIS (Business Innovation Skills) "Office The maturing of the MOOC: literature review of massive open online courses & other forms of online distance learning" https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/massive-open-online-courses-and-online-distance-learning-review Looks very good and covers a) some of the debates which should be better stated on the article page here, and b) provides some sourcing for some things (e.g. the precursors section & whether MOOCs are a continuation of online/distance learning). I'll put this as further reading in the article
• Looks like some scholarly articles emerging recently, eg Ebben, Maureen, and Julien S. Murphy. "Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: a review of nascent MOOC scholarship." Learning, Media and Technology 39.3 (2014): 328-345.
• http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/us-mooc-platforms-openness-questioned/2002938.article
• http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=60169 EdX goes Open Source
• http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/sweating-the-details-of-a-mooc-in-progress/43315 description of mooc design
• http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=60194 Does Europe need its own mooc
• http://moocnewsandreviews.com/ - reviews and news on moocs
• http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/04/19/despite-courtship-amherst-decides-shy-away-star-mooc-provider just parking
• Educause is a pretty good source http://www.educause.edu/search/apachesolr_search/mooc?filters=sm_cck_field_super_facet%3A%22EDUCAUSE%20Library%20Items%22

Sjgknight (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article clearly needs a lot of work, going well beyond implementing some of the suggestions above. As a start, I've just done some reorganising and a bit of cutting to reduce redundancy in the current article in my sandbox. I'd like to copy this version over to the main article (is there a template to make such a proposal?) and see if anyone has thoughts/wants to continue those edits, it is very much a work in progress but the current article so clearly needs works I'm taking the WP:BOLD line... User:Sjgknight/sandbox/Massive online open course. Sjgknight (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and done this, the sandbox history shows the incremental changes. Any thoughts @Ronz:@Smallbones:? Sjgknight (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for following through with this. More than a few steps in the right direction!

I'm still concerned about the use of primary sources, non-independent sources, self-published sources, and outright linkspam. --Ronz (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm partly looking for validation/sanity check(!) and to get some of the editors I know have contributed and had concerns about the article but who have mostly disengaged a bit/given up hope (me included) re-engaged. E.g. your edit just now. I also think the shape of the article now makes it at least a bit easier to go through and clean up 'as you go' where there was a lot of structural stuff to do before (some of which is still true). So clearly clean-up is still an issue, any other key things? Sjgknight (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad to have you working on this!

Give the topic, I think it is safe to assume we'll have much better sources available to use in the future. Until then, we do the best we can with what research we can find, along with the often-gushing articles promoting this relatively new medium for education. Hopefully we can keep the outright (self-)promotion at bay. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section should discuss the drop-out rate (and the challenge to the figures): www.katyjordan.com/MOOCproject.html, https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/mooc-completion-rates-below-7/2003710.article, www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/dcs/people/.../daniel_onah_edulearn14.pdf, http://mfeldstein.com/the-most-thorough-summary-to-date-of-mooc-completion-rates/; www.edcentral.org/pay-attention-supposedly-low-mooc-completion-rates/ 195.166.150.98 (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLD ... it is already under Massive open online course#Completion rates though Sjgknight (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Without a counterpoint, the last line in the second paragraph is an opinion and presents a negative bias. Please delete: "Robert Zemsky (2014) argues that they have passed their peak: "They came; they conquered very little; and now they face substantially diminished prospects." or add a statement or describe the position of those Robert is arguing with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:C001:265A:75DC:BE8D:7923:740A (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Second Life TOS 2.3 Predatory

Why would a bona-fide use case, like MOOC, want to deploy a predatory vendor, like Linden Lab? There are non-predatory choices available...

Second Life TOS 2.3 violates Berne Convention for Protection of Literary + Artistic Works http://zvon.org/law/r/bern.html#p~9

Remedy > Endorse Education Grid Intellectual Property Policy http://mediagrid.org/policy/Media_Grid_Intellectual_Property_Policy.pdf

20:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)84.140.244.227 (talk)

The creator of Second Life now says in 2015 > Philip Rosedale: I was wrong with Second Life https://www.facebook.com/groups/quality.immersiveworld.journalism/permalink/954221431315089/

21:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)84.140.244.227 (talk)

Mogul

I don't think that this site is a MOOC but someone has put it on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darabaf (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Relevance Criteria

What does it take for a MOOC provider to be recognized as notable? O.tacke (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)