Hi Don,

Thanks for your compliments - we are on the same hymn-sheet with regards to
enhancing education for all, which the essence of MOOCs in terms of sharing
knowledge aims to achieve, even if technologically they are not truly
"open."

I think the point you raise about the length of the lessons from the Khan
Academy is important. I try to keep my e-learning 'objects' to no more than
5 minutes, as even I find it difficult to pay attention to my own materials
after I have edited them and listened to the final version once! This
example on YouTube cannot compare to your production in terms of getting
access to "the expert":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnvPv6lKEU

But the problem with e-learning has always been production cost. Someone of
your stature can reap a lot of benefits from the costs invested in a MOOC
of the quality you produced. But I would hope that others would at least
use some editing package to present slides like I have done above in place
of a video of someone speaking at a lecture! :-)

Social media platforms come and go - so unless something is done to make
so-called MOOCs portable, they could be lost in the ether!

Jonathan Bishop





On 23 December 2013 23:19, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Thank you Jonathan
>
> (Now i can take your comments seriously)
>
> Thank you for the thoughtful comments.   I agree with some and have a more
> nuanced view of others. But I think we agree about all the important
> points.  Here is my response:
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Jonathan Bishop
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> ...
> >
> >
> > 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 t
> >
> > hat had not already been considered in this 1995 book by your
> > eminent colleague :-)
> >
>
> I've never claimed (nor have any of the MOOC folks I interact with claimed)
> that there is any new technology here. The major newness is the wide
> availability and ease of access and use of this course material.  Hell,
> the Kahn Academy simply films someone in front of a blackboard, and they
> have revolutionized teaching of elementary and mid-level math and now other
> sciences.
> https://www.khanacademy.org/
>
> The Kahn Academy's real power lies in the fact that their videos are short,
> so students can find the ones that cover the difficulty they have been
> having and then review it as many times as necessary.  In other words,
> modularization and ease of access are the key technical aspects and having
> lots of content is the key pedagogical point. Also,because the units are
> small, it is very simple to revise them when they get feedback.  Revision
> of this sort is is difficult in most courses and the detailed feedback
> required to discover the need is absent in most courses
> (including traditionally taught ones).
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> I hope so. The goal is not to push any single technique for education. The
> goal is to have available a diverse set of tools and methods, so students
> can select what best fits their needs. Different domains will require
> different educational methods. Different student needs will also require
> different methods.
>
> In ten years, I hope that MOOCs, if they still exist, will look very
> different than they do now.
>
> As for hype, that is a social disease. I ignore it.
>
> thanks for your thoughtful comments.  I hope my replies are satisfactory.
> We both share the same goal: better education.
>
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------