SOBA: How are MOOCs Changing Science Education? > December 10 2012 > 4PM - 5:30 PM ET

Wed Dec 5 20:20:45 EST 2012

To Norma Jean....   If I had known you were in that course we might have
been able to collaborate!  I can still send to you the 2-page rather dense
review of applicable probability theory I drafted for myself<g>.

I will grant, however, that people not used to the level of notation and
intensity of computation needed would likely have been unable to cope.  The
profs were foolish to expect, if they did, that irrespective of specific
knowledge of probability theory, using abbreviated examples and failing to
refer people to review material appropriate to the needs of the course,
would suffice.  Again, even for me with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics,
without regularly using the particular techniques, I had to organize my own
review of what was needed.  I at least had the background to be able to
quickly do that, but its not fair to expect people without advanced math
skills to be able to fill in the gaps the same way.  Despite some warnings,
the math skills prerequisite was simply understated.

By the way, do you happen to know what the score distributions and survival
rates actually  were?  I seem to recall that the for-credit group was
pretty small compared to the total size.  I vaguely recall that only
something like maybe 12,000 really finished all the requirements -- but I
have not tried to go back and look this up.  I suspect it was fairly brutal
-- but I do hope and believe that it was possible for people without
advanced math skills to obtain a lot of insight and understanding of the
main concepts.  I don't condone torturing people and don't consider having
advanced math skills any measure of general intelligence or personal
worthiness. Besides, I've met far too many people I judged or was forced to
conclude were smarter than I am in various ways.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Norma Jean Hewlett <hewlett at usfca.edu>wrote:

> The Stanford AI course was the first mooc I took, and like Steven, I
> found  that it required more math than I know. I used Kahn videos to try
> and catch up. I guess that could be considered "research" tho I never
> thought of it that way.
>
> I spent a lot of time watching Kahn videos, and there were very helpful.
> It also gave me a good perspective on what they can and can't do. They're a
> wonderful online resource, but far from the educational wonder that some
> people seem to think they are. (I've always wondered just how much those
> people have actually watched any and/or used them to learn something.)
>
> Jean Hewlett
> University of San Francisco
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Steven E. Patamia, Ph.D. <
> patamia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Continuing with Jean's line of thought....
>>
>> The Stanford AI course occasionally referred interested students to other
>> sources, but I have no doubt that many students ended up doing brush up
>> reviews or, in some cases, quick courses in probability theory.  Even for a
>> physicist, unless you are a particle physicist or in some other sub field
>> where standard probability calculations are part of the rigor of what you
>> do,  it  would be, as it was for me, necessary to do a quick review of
>> basic axioms and theorems that were going to be used a lot in the course.
>>  In such event, it is handy to go online and find -- guess what! -- online
>> tutorials or course handouts authored by profs who teach probability theory
>> courses.  The actual AI course lectures assumed way too much about how
>> facile students were in probability theory and sometimes even made outright
>> mistakes that would confuse and mystify a student with a weak background.
>>  All this demonstrates that once you are online because you lack access to
>> campuses and research libraries in the real world you are also vulnerable
>> to the lack of library resources unless your can also gain access the
>> *them* online.
>>
>> This is a serious problem in the hard sciences and engineering and I am
>> sure a different flavor of it exists for other fields.  Research and
>> specialized libraries remain a practical necessity for advanced work and an
>> absolute necessity for any research on its own or connected directly to
>> advanced coursework.  Having full access to scholarly literature is
>> absolutely crucial to enabling the penetration of MOOCS or even less
>> broadly accessed online coursework.
>>
>> Again, the publishers are the impediment to open access.  They are also
>> bankrupting library services even in large institutions not to mention
>> small ones.  In short -- they are the enemy.  They make obscene amounts of
>> money publishing research already paid for by others and tying up what
>> should be public knowledge with private rights.  There is push back, but
>> its a tough problem to solve.  The publishers are smart and even vicious at
>> times and they realize that they are fighting for their lives.  Scholars
>> are not very brave about circumventing the private publishers and some are
>> not easily convinced that in the new age you don't need those publishers to
>> cement your reputation.  This is the defining battle of open access -- and
>> it needs to be fought much harder than it has been.  Those publishers --
>> most of them foreign -- even have friends and lobbyists that promote laws
>> to protect their long term interests.  I for one think this is a crime
>> against taxpayers and the citizens of the planet.  Publicly funded
>> sholarship should not be forfeited to private interests.
>>
>> I better get off my soap box for now....
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Norma Jean Hewlett <hewlett at usfca.edu>wrote:
>>
>>> I definitely think that if you want to understand what moocs are about,
>>> the way to do it is to enroll in a few.
>>>
>>> During the past year, I've taken 6 moocs in varying online formats. With
>>> one exception, none of them required any outside reading or research. Most
>>> only required watching lecture videos and perhaps completing some related
>>> projects.
>>>
>>> The one exception is GamesMooc, where the badge I want requires playing
>>> a number of online games, learning to share information via several
>>> different online formats, and reading or viewing a great deal of online
>>> material related to using games in education.
>>>
>>> All of the moocs I've taken so far have been on subjects related to
>>> computer science, business, or education. One of my goals for the coming
>>> year is to try one or two that are about traditional humanities subjects
>>> such as literature or history. I'm thinking those will probably involve
>>> more outside reading and possibly some original research.
>>>
>>> Jean Hewlett
>>> Librarian, Santa Rosa Campus
>>> University of San Francisco
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>> Steven E. Patamia, Ph.D., J.D.
>>
>>  ============================
>>
>> To unsubscribe: http://bit.ly/web4lib
>>
>> Web4Lib Web Site: http://web4lib.org/
>>
>> 2012-12-05
>>
>
> ============================
>
> To unsubscribe: http://bit.ly/web4lib
>
> Web4Lib Web Site: http://web4lib.org/
>
> 2012-12-05
>

-- 
Steven E. Patamia, Ph.D., J.D.
Personal Cell: (352) 219-6592

============================

To unsubscribe: http://bit.ly/web4lib

Web4Lib Web Site: http://web4lib.org/

2012-12-05
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.nd.edu/pipermail/web4lib/attachments/20121205/0a4378ee/attachment.htm>