Talk:Massive open online course

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Material to add[edit]

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

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

Rewrite[edit]

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[edit]

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)

It is definitely presenting an opinion with a negative bias, and in the end it does not immediately pertain to the definition of a MOOC. As such it should not be included in the opening paragraphs. However, it is referenced and relevant to the criticism section, so it might belong under there rather than being deleted outright. I'll go ahead and move it. 112.204.248.202 (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Second Life TOS 2.3 Predatory[edit]

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[edit]

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

Relevance Criteria[edit]

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

I too have the same question? I wanted to add information about IITBombayX, which is offered by IIT Bombay.[1][2] Since I am part of the IITBombayX team, I understand that there is a CoI. However, the MOOCs offered through IITBombayX started in 2015 and is quite popular among participating institutions.--Learn.jkmadathil (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

In general, when information is removed because "it is not notable", it's usually because an editor is expecting an article to already exist (See WP:Write the article first), and the editor is expecting that Wikipedia's notability guidelines should be met.
For inclusion in this article, it would be best to demonstrate that the provider is notable itself, and that the provider is notable within the MOOC industry as verfied by an independent source documenting the context in which it is notable. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

References

This article is a bloated nightmare.[edit]

This article is a bloated, repetitive, list-crufty nightmare. Could someone with some encyclopedic editing skills clean it up, significantly?

184.66.82.46 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Typically fewer than five percent of the students would complete a course.[edit]

Regarding pre-internet courses: Typically fewer than five percent of the students would complete a course. As far as I know, this is still correct for current courses, at least for the free ones. It might be the ones that have some charge do better. Gah4 (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Completion rate is not a good indicator[edit]

Add a paragraph in the section "completion rate" as the second paragraph. Besides some factors cause the low completion rate in MOOCs, the inequality in receiving knowledge triggered by different characters of individual also has huge influence on the consequence of completion rate. Actually, MOOC is not as fair as we expected in receiving knowledge due to the different characters of individual. Russian researchers Semenova, T.V. and Rudakova, L.M , indicate that MOOC is designed to decline the unequal access to getting knowledge (229)," but that doesn't mean different individual can enjoy the same equality in course completion rate. From their research, there are three main factors cause the inequality, which are education level, experience on MOOC and gender. The data shows that 18% high-education learners(People is studying in college or further) complete the course while it is 3% in common people. To be more visualized, about 84-88% learners who have completed the course are high-education people (236,237). Besides educational level, 65-80% learners who have completed the course are those who have at least one experience of using online learning platform comparing to 6-31% who have no experience (236,237). Furthermore, there is also difference in gender. In general, 6–7 percent more men participated than women because women are supposed to do household, which distract women's attention in learning (236,237). S[1]ZhouShen0926 (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see completion rates for free vs. non-free courses. For free courses, some might sign up with no intention of completing the course. Non-free courses should cause students to try harder, to avoid wasting money. Gah4 (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree what you talk about, but the completion rate for non-free course could be influenced by other factors such as more detailed sources, high-quality class and more helpful teaching assistant. Unless, we can do research on the same course with different prices or free, but who is going to take non-free course instead of free one. At the same time, I don't think those non-free courses can be called MOOC because MOOC(Massive Open Online Courses) should be "Open" to everyone. However, MOOC now is tend to design for high-education individual while people really need free courses can't gain high-quality courses in their language. There are over 70% courses only support English. Actually, there is another paying pattern is more interesting. You can get your money back when you complete your course, which I think is more effective to cause students to try harder.ZhouShen0926 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Before talking about the factors influence the completion rate, it is better to acknowledge the limitation of completion rate. Here is what I want to add: Completion rate is a objective indicator which can't reflect the actual gain of every learner. Because different learners who enrolled in the course have completely diverse purpose. For example, someone enroll the courses just for interest while others is going to find the extrinsic value through the course. They may drop the course if they find that course is not interest as expected or not helpful for them. What's more, some learners take the course as a pastimes (322).[2]ZhouShen0926 (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Add a new section in article "The future of MOOCs"[edit]

Since we have found many problems about the pattern of MOOCs, the future of MOOCs should be discussed either. Researchers have supposed some possible change through reflecting the situation now.ZhouShen0926 (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ emenova, T.V.1, and Rudakova, L.M.2 "Barriers to Taking Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)." Russian Education & Society. Mar2016, Vol. 58 Issue 3, p228-245. 18p. doi: 10.1080/10609393.2016.1242992.
  2. ^ Khe Foon Hew1, "Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS." British Journal of Educational Technology. Mar2016, Vol. 47 Issue 2, p320-341. 22p.