Hi Don,
I looked at the course, and have the following view of it: You are an Elder
in the field of HCI, so I would expect nothing more than the high quality
content on your MOOC :-)
I have been complaining for years about the 21st century equivalent of
brochureware - where online e-learning courses are recordings of lectures
rather than purpose built solutions for the Web. Your 'MOOC' is an
excellent example of alternative approaches, and I admit it would have been
excellent to have had it 13 years ago when I started my BSc(Hons) in
Multimedia Studies, where I studied the HCI giants, including yourself :-)
The MSc in E-Learning I did following my degree gave me the chance to look
at issues on re-us which has always been an interest of mine, and by the
end of it 'learning objects' were the thing in town. The university I
studied at - Glamorgan, now called South Wales - did a pioneering action
research project called 'Enterprise College Wales' of which many of the
materials developed are now on iTunes University. I can't see even a minor
incremental step in MOOCs than was looked at in this research.
As one of the innovators of Classroom 2.0 and eTwinning, I cannot see any
added value MOOCs can have as they offers nothing technically or
conceptually on top of the knowledge that is already out there and has been
out there since I completed my MSc in E-Learning. I can say this
confidently having co-edited the two volume handbook 'Didactic Strategies
and Technologies for Education: Incorporating Advancements!' :-)
I have right next to me a book by a certain Dr Nielsen called 'Multimedia
and Hypertext: The Internet and Beyond' - I cannot see anything in your
MOOC course that had not already been considered in this 1995 book by your
eminent colleague :-)
In my view MOOCs (and indeed other platform dependent 'apps' for learning)
are the CD-ROMs of our current era and the hype around it will look as
dated as people start to realise established mechanisms such as SCORM and
other models for enabling 'persuasive, adaptive, sociability and
sustainability' (PASS) as I coined on my MSc, will become equally as
important as they were when E-Learning became the broad brush term to label
all kinds of technology-enhanced learning.
Jonathan Bishop
On 23 December 2013 18:50, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Jonathan
>
> I will take your comments seriously ONLY if you actually look at the
> course and then complain with facts rather than tired old rhetoric.
>
> But I'll give a brief reply to each of your points.
>
> First, MOOCs are an experiment. I do not pretend they are "the" answer. But
> education is incredibly inefficient and expensive. The focus on teaching
> has taken the focus away from learning. MOOCs are especially invaluable for
> people who cannot afford a traditional education, either in time or money.
> I am certain that they will change over the coming decade.
>
> Yes, there have been many experiments in distance learning over the
> centuries. The University of Chicago started as a distance learning
> experiment (using mail). It was surprisingly successful for a lot of
> people. Britain's Open University is, to me, the most successful of all
> attempts. But it is very expensive (not for the students -- for the British
> government). But for me, the British OU is a great model. But the MOOC
> experiment is rather diffrent than the OU model.
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Jonathan Bishop <[log in to unmask]
> >wrote:
> >
> > How is a MOOC technologically any different from any open learning object
> > system, such as Hypercard and MICROCOSM? What is it other a Web-based
> > non-portable SCORM object run by education establishments?
> >
> > Now you show your true ignorance. Learning is not about technology. It
> is
> about pedagogy. Hypercard was pure technology. Do not critique the
> technology: Critique the content. Ah, but that would require you to examine
> the content.
>
> (Your comment feels as if you reviewed my new book by saying "there are
> already a lot of books out there. Why is this book any different from the
> other hundreds of millions? It has a yellow color. Is that it?)
>
>
> MOOCs are an attempt to get knowledge to people. The technology enables the
> ideas, but this is NOT about technology. Case-based, problem-based
> education has long been with us. Good MOOCs use this. But Not all do:
> Coursera and EdX use lectures (a bad idea, in my opinion). My course does
> not use lectures. It is problem-based.
>
> So, spend an hour on my course. Understand what it is for -- and what it
> does not even try to be. Then I will listen to your objections.
>
> Hint. My course is not meant to substitute for school-based training. It is
> meant to get people excited about design, or for some to brush up on their
> knowledge.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> Don Norman
> Nielsen Norman Group, IDEO Fellow
> [log in to unmask] www.jnd.org http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
> Book: "Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded<
> http://amzn.to/ZOMyys>"
> (DOET2).
> Course: Udacity On-Line course based on
> DOET2<https://www.udacity.com/course/design101>
> (free).
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|