SPOC?...another facepalm moment

OK, it's early in the morning, and I am reading my news, so I am generally going to be crankier, or more prone to have a "get off my lawn attitude," but this is just ridiculous.   The most recent facepalm moment in the world of education comes from somewhere near Cambridge, MA where a local MOOC platform is getting its start. I was reading a story on Inside Higher Education while coming to work this morning about Stanford joining edX.  I think this is pretty awesome because edX is a non-profit, and as such I can see more Openness, and willingness to be open, as part of a non-profit, rather than a venture backed system like Coursera.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think venture-backed systems are bad, I just have a feeling that they just won't be as open.

As I am reading, I come across this new term: Small Private Online Course (SPOC). Huh?  C'est quoi ça?  Well, I had to follow the link to find out! The link wasn't particularly helpful since it just spelled out the acronym and didn't provide a reference.   I honestly think this gold rush to name things needs to end.  SPOC?  Do you mean a traditional online course?  Traditional online courses are Small, and Private (i.e., not open!)  Are SPOCs free?  In such case should they be fSPOCs? or should be they SPOFCs?  It's the same silliness we see with the name "LOOC" (little open online course), which I dislike with the same kind of strength :-)  What is "little" anyway?  I've been saying for a while that "massive" is really just a matter of perspective.  A course that has more pre-requisites and a higher barrier to entry will, be definition, have fewer participants.  A course that is an introductory level course with few, or no, pre-requisites will be open to a more volumous amount of students and therefore will be "more" massive.  I don't think that the Massive in MOOC is absolute, but rather it is relative!

So, please, can we not call invent new names for things that already exist just for the sake of making a name?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Academic Facepalm (evaluation edition)

Image
Back in December, I was searching for the #tenure hashtag on twitter.   There was some discussion (probably stated by Jesse Stommel 😜) which prompted me to search for this #hashtag out of curiosity to see what was tagged.  Along with heartwarming stories of people who've just earned tenure (a nice perk right before the winter break!), there was this wonderful tweet specimen... I'm not gonna lie.  IT BUGS ME. It bugs me as a learner.   I've always completed course evaluations and I tried to give honest feedback to the professor.  If the course was easy, hard, just right, I wanted them to know.  If I was appreciative, I wanted them to know.  Yes, sometimes I've half-assed it and just completed the Likert scale with a "loved the course" comment at the end, but many times I try to be more concrete about the feedback. It bugs me as a program manager. I am the individual who sets up, collects, and often reminds students, about the course evaluations.  M
Read more

Discussion forums in MOOCs are counter-productive...well, sort of...

Image
The other day I was reading this blog post on why MOOC forums are counter-productive .  I was really thinking hard about this and my initial inclination is to agree. Forums, in MOOCs, are  counter-productive. But, as with most things in life, there is a big asterisk here. If we look at how MOOCs are setup, and by MOOC here I mean xMOOC since that's what most people think of, the discussion board is one big crazy mess. Coursera has done something interesting in crowdsourcing thread relevancy by allowing people to up-vote or down-vote threads, but at their core these discussions are setup like every other discussion forum out there in traditional education: There usually is a prompt that people will answer, and answers can be repetitive as well, so when you are the 1000th poster to a question prompt and you see that others have answered something similar to your answers, what is the motivation to wade through many, many, many similar answers in order to find the subtle contextual
Read more

Latour: Third Source of Uncertainty - Objects have agency too!

Image
Continuing on my exploration of ANT, and asynchronous and indirect dialogue with Latour - this blog post will cover the third source of uncertainty, which according to Latour, is that Objects have agency too! As with the previous blog posts, I've pulled out quotes from the book that seemed interesting, or that I reacted to in some way, and I am responding to them here. no tie can be said to be durable and made of social stuff (p. 66) This quote seems to continue Latour's assertion that there is no such thing as "social" or "social stuff" and that "social", or the meaning of needs to be negotiated and better understood.  It also continues the thought that social can only be seen from the actions of its actors, the traces they leave behind, and that these bonds are not durable because they need continuous reinforcement. I guess Social is a perishable item. Left to its own devices, a power relationship that mobilizes nothing but social skil
Read more