Should we build our own course/community? #9
Comments
|
Can we? Yes. Should we I don't know, I can see advantages to either. In terms of hosting content (lessons videos etc it shouldn't be any/much more difficult. But we'd also have to have some solutions for interaction (like a forum?) which again isn't hard but maybe more to think about. Is there a list of requirements that we need for hosting the MOOC? Then we can decide how many of the boxes we could tick ourselves? |
|
They are called individual blogs and webmentions works great.
…On Sun, May 27, 2018, 9:00 AM Alexander Morley ***@***.***> wrote:
Can we? Yes. Should we I don't know, I can see advantages to either. In
terms of hosting content (lessons videos etc it shouldn't be any/much more
difficult. But we'd also have to have some solutions for interaction (like
a forum?) which again isn't hard but maybe more to think about. Is there a
list of requirements that we need for hosting the MOOC? Then we can decide
how many of the boxes we could tick ourselves?
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#9 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKC-pnvV_hs8ZzpytsinET4IZFyjKOMUks5t2qNQgaJpZM4T6qDZ>
.
|
|
I think one of the plans is to work with others who are working on building an open science forum atm, although I'm not sure how prrogress on that is going. But if we could build our own forum still, that would be amazing.. Would that sort of thing be possible to plug in to the newer site @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman or way too much work? Looking at requirements, there do seem to be some basic ones, but nothing too difficult (looking at eg this). @BieTanjade does a check list of sorts for basic MOOC requirements exist anywhere? |
|
My 2 cents... I think there is a difference, though obviously not a complete split, between functionalities required to run the MOOC (i.e. which participants need to participate in to complete the course) and functionalities which would sustain a community beyond/around the MOOC itself. For the latter, I'd say it's especially important to consider to what extent we'd want to facilitate such community building around the MOOC (with e.g. a separate forum etc) vs. to what extent we'd want to tap into and enrich existing community activities with activities stemming from the MOOC (e.g. by integrating with an existing forum ;-) ) For the former, it would indeed be good to start sourcing a list of requirements (also in consultation with the people developing the modules) and then see if and how these would need to be part of the hard infrastructure of the MOOC itself or can be more distributed or integrated in what's happening elsewhere. To make this very concrete (still focussing on the forum idea): if the MOOC is offered as a course for cohorts with a set start and end date, and part of the assignments is to discuss things (like assigments) within the cohort in a forum-like structure, that might be best served by a MOOC-specific forum. If, on the other hand, there is continuing/self-paced enrollment and participants are encouraged to participate in broader discussion, then integration/coupling to an external, existing forum might be more suitable. Having said all that, there seem to be some nice GitHub repos for forum implementation in GitHub pages :-) |
|
Thanks, Bianca! Yeah, the instructions out there seem pretty simple in terms of building the actual site itself (eg here), and this is something I'm learning myself atm too. My idea has always been to hae this running as a continuous, self-paced program for each module. I know there's the Ask Open Science 'forum', but is there anything else similar do you know? @mrchristian might know more about that. But I would much rather tap into existing platforms in this regard. In terms of technical functional requirements, good idea. From what I can see from my angle, the only real technical issues would be video hosting, as well as perhaps having an environment in which code could be run - but this might be beyond any MOOC provider atm! Besides that, cross-modular aspects such as having final quizzes and badges/certificates are important. |
I think there are enough out of the box solutions for both of these now not to worry too much about them :) |
|
If you wanted to deploy your own instance of the Open edX MOOC platform, it's about to become a lot easier. I've learned from my friends over at IBL Studios that they are contributing a production-ready image of Open edX to the AWS Marketplace. Look for OpenIBL. Open edX is the open-source learning platform developed by edX with contributions from Stanford and powering many MOOC sites around the world. And I have some shiny new toys to integrate course content from Jupyter notebooks, into Open edX. I'm really excited about these developments. See below. _________ copied from a post on the jupyter-education Google group_____
The idea is that an instructor (like me) writes the course first on Jupyter notebooks. These are like a computable textbook, and of course all openly licensed and available on GitHub. Then she wants to make an online course or MOOC. But she is not planning on making a video-based MOOC, of course. She will integrate the content from the notebooks, and then add assessments, discussions, etc., to craft the learning sequences. The Jupyter viewer permits adding the content into the course with simply the URL to the public notebook. You can add a whole notebook, or sections of it, using Here's a demo showing how it's used to add content into a course: https://youtu.be/K8jhWgQnxvI My latest course, “Get Data Off the Ground with Python,” used the new XBlock In Open edX, each Section of the course corresponds to one notebook (one full “lesson”). To provide a way to interact with the notebooks fully, I'm embedding Binder buttons within the course.
This is the Graded Jupyter Notebook XBlock, allowing an instructor to create a graded sub-section in Open edX based on an nbgrader-instrumented Jupyter notebook. The instructor uploads the assignment notebook (instructor version after setting auto-graded cells with their score values), uploads a Here is a demo of the XBlock usage: https://youtu.be/SwRAs8_FIdo and here is a post on the blog of or tech partners. I'm so excited about this and I can't wait to create more courses with it! Announcements: I realize for this MOOC maybe the coding awesomeness is not entirely needed. But still ... I thought you'd be interested in exploring the possibilities here. |
|
If it helps, The Carpentries uses GitHub Pages, Zoom, Etherpad, Jupyter, etc. Here are our lessons hosted on GitHub: Software Carpentry |
|
Check out the course I built and am teaching https://edu305.jgregorymcverry.com I juts build a static site and everyone runs their own blog. I touch no user data and use an rss reader. |
|
This is all very useful, thanks @labarba @libcce and @jgmac1106. The agony of choice! Do you have any idea which is easier perhaps for someone who isn't too familiar with the tech? I can handle GitHub pages just about, and am learning HTML, and Open EdX seems like it might be a bit complicated to get set up. |
|
I go with this design. I static website and then let people pick a blogging patform of their choice and connect through RSS. It is how #ds106, #rhizo16, #clmooc do it. It is also, in my beliefs the most open approach and you never have to hold on to user data. Now in my dream world these would all be done on a blogging platform that has the microformat2 mark up so really cool readers using emerging technologies could one day be used. Can also spin up a multi-user Known site. Those are super easy and super friendly for the least technical to the most. One idea would be to have the canonical link of the course and then give each user a subdomain with your platform of choice so you can have better access to analytics though now you are responsible for hosting user data. |
|
@Protohedgehog the good news is that we (The Carpentries) can lower the barrier to working with GitHub via our lesson material and we have templates that can help streamline the process. Also, we have an active community that would likely be interested in the MOOC. In fact, I think we just had a session on Open Science MOOC at CarpentryCon. I'm biased though 😃 |
|
Oh wow, that would be epic! Do you think a 'How to use GitHub' manual could be added here? This was always the risk of working primarily through here, and it would be great to lower that barrier as much as possible. |
|
Sorry for being quiet over this. Just a few more weeks before I crash into summer.
As I have said in the past: the main reason for choice of platforms like Coursera or Edx would be reaching a wider audience (Coursera for instance boasts a public of 30 milj learners). If your target audience is not necessarily on that platform, you can build something yourself, or at least use open software.
I do strongly recommend making sure you have a community layer to the course experience. It not only improves learner retention and understanding through social interaction (if you have to explain something to somebody else, you need to understand it better yourself) but there might be interesting side effects like collaborations between like minded people, crowdsourcing, "citizen science" (well, in this case perhaps simply open science... ) and many more.
It is crucial to have some community guidelines which manage expectations and set some value standards (but we have those already) and you will want to appoint a few volunteers to emoderate the community and keep it lively. I believe I shared some tools & insights for this already.
Tanja
…________________________________
From: Jon Tennant [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 1:17 PM
To: OpenScienceMOOC/Main
Cc: Bie, T. de; Mention
Subject: Re: [OpenScienceMOOC/Main] Should we build our own course/community? (#9)
Oh wow, that would be epic! Do you think a 'How to use GitHub' manual could be added here<https://github.com/OpenScienceMOOC/Module-5-Open-Research-Software-and-Open-Source>? This was always the risk of working primarily through here, and it would be great to lower that barrier as much as possible.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#9 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ad5TnG_u4kr3Lsg5mm5J2YdbjJe7NwdUks5t4SLHgaJpZM4T6qDZ>.
|
|
@Protohedgehog if you did go the GitHub Pages route, would a pre lesson module geared toward contributing/participating in the MOOC via GitHub be the way to go? GitHub's collaborative features might help with participation and continued sustainability, that might be a benefit to the OS MOOC? Here are some recent stats about GitHub as well https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/github-statistics/. |
|
I think that might be a nice idea, yes. Something like this would be perfect I think http://mozillascience.github.io/working-open-workshop/github_for_collaboration/ |
|
After today, this discussion might look quite different ;-) #github #microsoft |
|
Ha, yeah, I was just looking at that too.. I don't think it affects things too much, does it..? |
|
Well... it might affect our desire and willingness to use GitHub as a platform, is all ;-) |
|
It's an interesting dilemma as some people in the open science community are fine with using the Google suite of tools for a variety of purposes. Personally, I've been comfortable with working with these tools as long as there is a way to port your data easily to another service. Even if that is the case, a number of services make it very difficult for you to leave by way of their convenient service offerings. Having said all that, there are already a wave of tweets from people saying they'll be leaving GitHub (and going to GitLab). But going back to your initial question @Protohedgehog about the platform, and I guess we got bogged down in the tools conversation, but I think my point was that The Carpentries community is the real platform to work with, to help with OS MOOC. Again, there were some people presenting on it at CarpentryCon 😃 |
|
OK, neat. Is there any way to get our hands on those presentations at all? Maybe we should shift to email too to discuss this further - want to get me at [email protected] ? :) |
|
Hey folks! So, now content has been built (finally..), does anyone have any thoughts on this? Or the content itself. Formats are markdown and iPython, so pretty flexible with what we can do. |
|
That sounds good to me @Protohedgehog and just wondering if this can be a use case for an OER lesson we are considering for Library Carpentry (I'll email you about shortly). I'm also going to tell people in the Carpentries Slack channel that this is live and feedback is welcome. |
|
Awesome, thanks Chris!! 👍 |
|
Hi, I'm joining the conversation a bit late. I'll try to not repeat what others have said before but pardon me if it happens. I think @BieTanjade has a good point saying that "the main reason for choice of platforms like Coursera or Edx would be reaching a wider audience". I'll add to that that using a third-party like EdX would also avoid us to think about the following things :
On the other hand, hosting our own platform will give us more control on the content :
As @labarba mentionned EdX is based on a free and open source software called OpenEdX. More precisely, it is release under the AGPLv3 license. The Free Software Foundation has a page explaining why the AGPLv3 is a good license for softwares hosted on remote servers (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html). Bonus : Did you know that Google has a contract with the pentagon to develop AI for military drones. It makes me think : Do we have a guideline on how we choose our partners? |
|
Since Coursera and edX appear again, don't forget that these are revenue-seeking platforms. Coursera is for-profit, while edX may be non-profit but is fiercely focused on making revenue. They are not open platforms and they are going to require paid certificates. You can't even do the assessments for free in most courses now. Also note that to put a course in either platform, you'll have to go through a partner institution. To be an edX partner, institutions pay a large "entry fee"—it used to be half a million dollars just to get in the door. I don't know what the running fee is today. Coursera enters into revenue-sharing agreements with universities. In both cases, there are long contracts to be signed. Also, I hear from course authors that both Coursera and edX try to mess with the course, giving direction to steer course design for optimizing revenue, often with disregard to learning or community experience. |
|
Shockingly, I don't have half a million dollars right now. And anyway, even if I did I would give it to you all instead of spending on Coursera or edX.. I'm not sure if anyone saw this, but TU Delft (Netherlands) just launched an Open Science course on edX here: https://www.edx.org/es/course/open-science-sharing-your-research-with-the-world I really hope they didn't pay half a mil for that. |
|
TU Delft is ahead of the game in online learning. And, yes, they paid at least a million dollars to become an edX "top-tier" consortium member. There's also a yearly maintenance fee with edX that's probably in the order of tens of thousands (depends on the institution and number of courses on the platform.) |
|
Another thing: Coursera and edX may have millions of registered users, and yes that does mean that their newsletter has huge distribution. But that does not mean, necessarily, that a particular course will have many more learners. Despite what they say ... https://twitter.com/LorenaABarba/status/1004061886520942593 Their catalog is so big now, that individual courses get lost in the forest. So it still rests in the course authors or home institution to reach an audience. |
|
OK, awesome, thank you so much for your insight as always @labarba! And congrats on the 8k enrollments. So, we don't have half a mil, but what we are in the process of setting up is an (EU-wide for the moment) Exeuctive Institutional Board of sorts, that will help with delivery into grad schools. Btw, the first draft for Module 5 is now available in Jupyter Notebook format..! https://github.com/OpenScienceMOOC/Module-5-Open-Research-Software-and-Open-Source/tree/master/content_development#in-ipython-notebook-format |
|
@labarba thank you very much for these clarifications on EdX. I suspected there were conditions for the partnerships, but I never thought they were so out of proportion! With that in mind, hosting our own platform makes more sense. |
|
The funny thing is that so many universities pay the big bucks to be "in the club" with MIT and have others tell them how to do online. I think the low-tier affiliation with edXis $250k entry fee. UTexas Austin injected about $5 million! |
|
From my holiday address in the Ardennes some quick points:
* Yes Coursera and EdX are both for profit no matter what they claim, they just have different business models The price for entrance in EdX is still 500K last I heard and that is foreboding enough for Leiden to have begged off twice now. Coursera doesn't have an entry price but makes her money of specialisations, degrees and certificates with full knowledge/participation of university partners. Coursera currently has 32 milj learners, and even if you take into account a large percentage are probably inactive users, that still is the largest market. EdX is the second largest, don't have their current numbers.
* That doesn't mean that you HAVE to offer certificates or earn money on particular courses, whether that is Edx or Coursera. We negotiate exceptions all the time, especially if there is a social mission. Note that Princeton has several courses on Coursera that are free of charge without certificate and they are still on there after 4 years.
* Yes, you need to go through partners. Coursera is accessible through Leiden (we can run you guys for free), I am sure EdX is through others.
*TUDelft is very cleverly claiming the open science space, something they feel strongly about, and there is some fierce competition in the Netherlands on this. I question whether any university should have exclusivity though, but I am not the most objective person perhaps ;).
* It is an option to offer the course in as many platforms as possible, ea on Coursera, EdX, FutureLearn Moodle and others, expand the network and make it happen. That would really open up the space.
Hope these insights help!
Tanja
…________________________________
From: Lorena A. Barba [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 5:34 PM
To: OpenScienceMOOC/Main
Cc: Bie, T. de; Mention
Subject: Re: [OpenScienceMOOC/Main] Should we build our own course/community? (#9)
The funny thing is that so many universities pay the big bucks to be "in the club" with MIT and have others tell them how to do online. I think the low-tier affiliation with edXis $250k entry fee. UTexas Austin injected about $5 million!
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#9 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ad5TnBzaAA_nNgrS_To5bbDbpQx8Tol_ks5uMxwKgaJpZM4T6qDZ>.
|
|
Thanks a lot Tanja and Lorena for your insights!
Tanja, I like the idea of offering a course on multiple platforms (as long
as they are deemed acceptable) :-) In any case, I would not be interested
in playing the prestige or monopoly game with regards to open science
education.
Enjoy your holiday (waves from the Atlantic)!
Bianca
Op do 2 aug. 2018 om 21:26 schreef Tanja de Bie <[email protected]>:
… From my holiday address in the Ardennes some quick points:
* Yes Coursera and EdX are both for profit no matter what they claim, they
just have different business models The price for entrance in EdX is still
500K last I heard and that is foreboding enough for Leiden to have begged
off twice now. Coursera doesn't have an entry price but makes her money of
specialisations, degrees and certificates with full knowledge/participation
of university partners. Coursera currently has 32 milj learners, and even
if you take into account a large percentage are probably inactive users,
that still is the largest market. EdX is the second largest, don't have
their current numbers.
* That doesn't mean that you HAVE to offer certificates or earn money on
particular courses, whether that is Edx or Coursera. We negotiate
exceptions all the time, especially if there is a social mission. Note that
Princeton has several courses on Coursera that are free of charge without
certificate and they are still on there after 4 years.
* Yes, you need to go through partners. Coursera is accessible through
Leiden (we can run you guys for free), I am sure EdX is through others.
*TUDelft is very cleverly claiming the open science space, something they
feel strongly about, and there is some fierce competition in the
Netherlands on this. I question whether any university should have
exclusivity though, but I am not the most objective person perhaps ;).
* It is an option to offer the course in as many platforms as possible, ea
on Coursera, EdX, FutureLearn Moodle and others, expand the network and
make it happen. That would really open up the space.
Hope these insights help!
Tanja
________________________________
From: Lorena A. Barba ***@***.***
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 5:34 PM
To: OpenScienceMOOC/Main
Cc: Bie, T. de; Mention
Subject: Re: [OpenScienceMOOC/Main] Should we build our own
course/community? (#9)
The funny thing is that so many universities pay the big bucks to be "in
the club" with MIT and have others tell them how to do online. I think the
low-tier affiliation with edXis $250k entry fee. UTexas Austin injected
about $5 million!
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<
#9 (comment)>,
or mute the thread<
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ad5TnBzaAA_nNgrS_To5bbDbpQx8Tol_ks5uMxwKgaJpZM4T6qDZ
>.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#9 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMjCmqHsPDGCaOrfF4bXhHewm1bTQXRuks5uM1JngaJpZM4T6qDZ>
.
|
|
Thanks @BieTanjade @bmkramer and @labarba for your insight! So, the solution then, it seems to me, is to simply push this through institutes that have existing EdX instances then, right..? I have no issue with this course being offered through multiple instances/platforms too - the wider it's shared and used the better! |
|
I'm ambivalent about the idea of fracturing the community across several platforms. |
|
Ah yes, I hadn't considered that, good point. Hmmm. |
|
Hi, What is the preferred non-exploitative platform, maybe that is what should be focused on first. OS MOOC could work in a way that it prioritizes certain channels, but also ensures the content: curriculum, text books, videos are easy to use or be ported to other channels. My vote would be not to use any channel which has an exploitative business model, as I think IMHO OS MOOC should not be endorsing these practices, like EdX, Coursera, etc. Personally I like things like https://www.freecodecamp.org/ Its part non-profit, but maybe also a commercial enterprise, hard to tell as they're not big on transparency. But they have a non-profit donate page https://donate.freecodecamp.org/ Re: the big MOOC suppliers. I did some research on this area back in peak-MOOC times, 2012, with Gary Hall of Open Humanities Press The initial MOOC wave was very much tied to financial interests of US Unis and the ongoing student debt crisis. MOOCs were and maybe still are seen as a way to get BRICS nations to pay lower fees for accreditation to Ivy League schools and other unis, all as a way to mitigate potential US student fee shortfalls. The whole thing is very cynical and tainted by outdated, and damaging, ideologies of the marketization of education. In light of this history and also thinking about what Open Science can be and its benefits, I would think it's better to make a clean break and be thinking about a new form of social contract, and cooperative and multi-stakeholder organisational and economic models. Onward and up Simon |
|
I'm such a dunce. I forgot completely about this service called Eliademy: https://eliademy.com/ Has anyone came across this before? i spoke with the founder a while back, and it seems to tick all the boxes. I can look into setting up module 5 as a pilot to test this out, if anyone thinks it's a good idea. |
|
Another one to consider is https://about.citiprogram.org/en/homepage/ which universities in the US are using for research ethics and compliance/responsible conduct of research training. Some universities like Duke have done a good job of integrating/requiring responsible conduct of research training: https://medschool.duke.edu/research/ethics-integrity-compliance/responsible-conduct-research-program. Some of the areas that RCR training includes which might also be covered by the OS MOOC: Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing, and Ownership - Research Misconduct - Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship - Mentor / Trainee Responsibilities - Peer Review - Collaborative Science - Scholarly Integrity. Maybe another option? |
|
Wow. A lot of people have made good points! I think having a comparative table with all the platforms (including self-hosting) we know of versus a list of values, technical needs, etc. would help a lot. |
|
This is a class I am currently running. It requires no platform...unless you consider RSS a platform |
|
Hi Bianca, and others who replied since then.
I agree on the futility of playing the monopoly/prestige game. That doesn't seem in the spirit of Open Science and I very warmly recommend staying away from such a pissing contest. Lets instead peruse the TUDelft material and use what is valuable in the spirit of Open Educational Resources.
My personal preference would be to gain as wide an audience as possible. We can be principled and not use platforms with a business module but what would that gain us, except purity to the cause? If we specify that they will not earn money of our specialisation/course then that is the bottomline and there is nothing nefarious in offering it on FutureLearn, Moodle, Iversity, Canvas, Coursera and EdX at the same time. We do not need to be exclusive, on the contrary, lets spread the word.
The goal is to reach as many scientists as possible, right? Then sticking to obscure platforms with no audience does not make sense, at all. We need to be sufficiently opportunistic to make an impact. A combined audience of over 40 mil people (80% academics) is nothing to sniff at.
Tanja
________________________________
From: Bianca Kramer [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 9:52 PM
To: OpenScienceMOOC/Main
Cc: Bie, T. de; Mention
Subject: Re: [OpenScienceMOOC/Main] Should we build our own course/community? (#9)
Thanks a lot Tanja and Lorena for your insights!
Tanja, I like the idea of offering a course on multiple platforms (as long
as they are deemed acceptable) :-) In any case, I would not be interested
in playing the prestige or monopoly game with regards to open science
education.
Enjoy your holiday (waves from the Atlantic)!
Bianca
Op do 2 aug. 2018 om 21:26 schreef Tanja de Bie <[email protected]>:
From my holiday address in the Ardennes some quick points:
* Yes Coursera and EdX are both for profit no matter what they claim, they
just have different business models The price for entrance in EdX is still
500K last I heard and that is foreboding enough for Leiden to have begged
off twice now. Coursera doesn't have an entry price but makes her money of
specialisations, degrees and certificates with full knowledge/participation
of university partners. Coursera currently has 32 milj learners, and even
if you take into account a large percentage are probably inactive users,
that still is the largest market. EdX is the second largest, don't have
their current numbers.
* That doesn't mean that you HAVE to offer certificates or earn money on
particular courses, whether that is Edx or Coursera. We negotiate
exceptions all the time, especially if there is a social mission. Note that
Princeton has several courses on Coursera that are free of charge without
certificate and they are still on there after 4 years.
* Yes, you need to go through partners. Coursera is accessible through
Leiden (we can run you guys for free), I am sure EdX is through others.
*TUDelft is very cleverly claiming the open science space, something they
feel strongly about, and there is some fierce competition in the
Netherlands on this. I question whether any university should have
exclusivity though, but I am not the most objective person perhaps ;).
* It is an option to offer the course in as many platforms as possible, ea
on Coursera, EdX, FutureLearn Moodle and others, expand the network and
make it happen. That would really open up the space.
Hope these insights help!
Tanja
________________________________
From: Lorena A. Barba ***@***.***
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 5:34 PM
To: OpenScienceMOOC/Main
Cc: Bie, T. de; Mention
Subject: Re: [OpenScienceMOOC/Main] Should we build our own
course/community? (#9)
The funny thing is that so many universities pay the big bucks to be "in
the club" with MIT and have others tell them how to do online. I think the
low-tier affiliation with edXis $250k entry fee. UTexas Austin injected
about $5 million!
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<
#9 (comment)>,
or mute the thread<
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ad5TnBzaAA_nNgrS_To5bbDbpQx8Tol_ks5uMxwKgaJpZM4T6qDZ
>.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#9 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMjCmqHsPDGCaOrfF4bXhHewm1bTQXRuks5uM1JngaJpZM4T6qDZ>
.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#9 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ad5TnILSd_C-iAs_QdvgAsDZWSR0BKiOks5uM1iZgaJpZM4T6qDZ>.
|
|
I totally agree and will only add that making all the content ccby and not ccbync or ccbysa is stating that we have no problem with other people to make money with what we create 😎.
Business can be our friend.
Am 5. August 2018 16:56:30 MESZ schrieb Tanja de Bie <[email protected]>:
…Hi Bianca, and others who replied since then.
I agree on the futility of playing the monopoly/prestige game. That
doesn't seem in the spirit of Open Science and I very warmly recommend
staying away from such a pissing contest. Lets instead peruse the
TUDelft material and use what is valuable in the spirit of Open
Educational Resources.
My personal preference would be to gain as wide an audience as
possible. We can be principled and not use platforms with a business
module but what would that gain us, except purity to the cause? If we
specify that they will not earn money of our specialisation/course then
that is the bottomline and there is nothing nefarious in offering it
on FutureLearn, Moodle, Iversity, Canvas, Coursera and EdX at the same
time. We do not need to be exclusive, on the contrary, lets spread the
word.
The goal is to reach as many scientists as possible, right? Then
sticking to obscure platforms with no audience does not make sense, at
all. We need to be sufficiently opportunistic to make an impact. A
combined audience of over 40 mil people (80% academics) is nothing to
sniff at.
Tanja
________________________________
From: Bianca Kramer ***@***.***
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 9:52 PM
To: OpenScienceMOOC/Main
Cc: Bie, T. de; Mention
Subject: Re: [OpenScienceMOOC/Main] Should we build our own
course/community? (#9)
Thanks a lot Tanja and Lorena for your insights!
Tanja, I like the idea of offering a course on multiple platforms (as
long
as they are deemed acceptable) :-) In any case, I would not be
interested
in playing the prestige or monopoly game with regards to open science
education.
Enjoy your holiday (waves from the Atlantic)!
Bianca
Op do 2 aug. 2018 om 21:26 schreef Tanja de Bie
***@***.***>:
> From my holiday address in the Ardennes some quick points:
> * Yes Coursera and EdX are both for profit no matter what they claim,
they
> just have different business models The price for entrance in EdX is
still
> 500K last I heard and that is foreboding enough for Leiden to have
begged
> off twice now. Coursera doesn't have an entry price but makes her
money of
> specialisations, degrees and certificates with full
knowledge/participation
> of university partners. Coursera currently has 32 milj learners, and
even
> if you take into account a large percentage are probably inactive
users,
> that still is the largest market. EdX is the second largest, don't
have
> their current numbers.
> * That doesn't mean that you HAVE to offer certificates or earn money
on
> particular courses, whether that is Edx or Coursera. We negotiate
> exceptions all the time, especially if there is a social mission.
Note that
> Princeton has several courses on Coursera that are free of charge
without
> certificate and they are still on there after 4 years.
> * Yes, you need to go through partners. Coursera is accessible
through
> Leiden (we can run you guys for free), I am sure EdX is through
others.
> *TUDelft is very cleverly claiming the open science space, something
they
> feel strongly about, and there is some fierce competition in the
> Netherlands on this. I question whether any university should have
> exclusivity though, but I am not the most objective person perhaps
;).
> * It is an option to offer the course in as many platforms as
possible, ea
> on Coursera, EdX, FutureLearn Moodle and others, expand the network
and
> make it happen. That would really open up the space.
>
> Hope these insights help!
>
> Tanja
> ________________________________
> From: Lorena A. Barba ***@***.***
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 5:34 PM
> To: OpenScienceMOOC/Main
> Cc: Bie, T. de; Mention
> Subject: Re: [OpenScienceMOOC/Main] Should we build our own
> course/community? (#9)
>
>
> The funny thing is that so many universities pay the big bucks to be
"in
> the club" with MIT and have others tell them how to do online. I
think the
> low-tier affiliation with edXis $250k entry fee. UTexas Austin
injected
> about $5 million!
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<
>
#9 (comment)>,
> or mute the thread<
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ad5TnBzaAA_nNgrS_To5bbDbpQx8Tol_ks5uMxwKgaJpZM4T6qDZ
> >.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were assigned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>
<#9 (comment)>,
> or mute the thread
>
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMjCmqHsPDGCaOrfF4bXhHewm1bTQXRuks5uM1JngaJpZM4T6qDZ>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on
GitHub<#9 (comment)>,
or mute the
thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ad5TnILSd_C-iAs_QdvgAsDZWSR0BKiOks5uM1iZgaJpZM4T6qDZ>.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#9 (comment)
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
|
|
@jcolomb CC-BY-SA doesn't stop anyone to make money with what we create. It only ensure that the modifications are licensed under the same terms so it preserves the same rights to the users. IMHO, I think CC-BY-SA (or any other copyleft license) is more in the spirit of Openness than CC-BY or CC-BY-NC. |
|
Okie dokie. @BieTanjade you make excellent points as always, thank you. I have a call with the Eliademy chap this week, and will discuss the potential of running the pilot module through them. I also just want to make sure that, as @labarba says, we don't fracture the community across multiple platforms. I imagine there's a strange balance to strike between that and maximum visibility, which will require some thought. |
|
I think Eliademy basically does everything we need. It costs €50 per year for 500 users a month for confidential courses, or unlimited for open ones. I already started integrating content here: https://eliademy.com/app/a/courses/02d7338a7e Basically, all I think I need is a html file converted from the markdown source files, and then away we go.. I always get suspicious when things work out this easily. I just got off a call with their founder though and he is super supportive of the MOOC! |
|
Relevant! https://howto.p2pu.org/ - Does anyone have any experience or knowledge of this? |
|
For reference, I've started trialing this platform, and it seems to be pretty good! https://eliademy.com/app/a/courses/02d7338a7e |
|
Here is something from Howard Rheingold, about the larger P2P learning
movement:
https://clalliance.org/blog/toward-peeragogy/
…On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 1:13 PM Jon Tennant ***@***.***> wrote:
Relevant! https://howto.p2pu.org/ - Does anyone have any experience or
knowledge of this?
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#9 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADsMeEGWC3NUZW-jqj1kevNGzRqo6k6Kks5uUwFmgaJpZM4T6qDZ>
.
--
Bruce Caron, PhD
New Media Studio, 501 (c) 3
417 Samarkand Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
email me for a phone number...
|
|
Aeesome, thanks @BruceCaron! Always learning :) |
|
Cross posting from #12: Just to update on this, things are moving forward on Eliademy now! https://eliademy.com/catalog/catalog/product/view/sku/02d7338a7e There is a discussion forum there, and also anyone can be 'upgraded' to an organisation instructor (let me know if you want to be). It's also easy to link through to Slack and GitHub too. At this early stage, things are looking okay! |
http://info.p2pu.org/2014/07/21/how-to-use-github-pages-to-build-your-open-online-course-and-community/
Not the worst idea..
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: