2. Application: sharing and collaboration; open your
own “think session”
PROS CONS
Changes are highlighted and old Cost for a school is at least $10 per
copies retained for easy INDIVIDUAL per MONTH – for a
recovery collaboration site.
Live chat available No verification of content shared
Available on mobile devices No note of research verification as
an education tool
3. Mindmeister met someone’s requirements as an education tool, but
I don’t see anything in the features that make it particularly geared
towards education. Its use is for collaborative projects – which can
occur in education, but based on the price for the features there are
other options I would go with first.
Content is not monitored for accuracy or academic standards
Research touted is all about ease of interface use, not
educational effectiveness.
Decision: I would NOT buy it
4. Calibrated Peer Review by
molsci.ucla.edu
Application: submit an essay, see examples of low, medium and high quality
essays written by the instructor, rate instructor essays and get feedback on
accuracy, then review and rate peer’s essays
PROS CONS
Reduces grading burden in large Requires a license
classes, allowing essays to be used
Time consuming – writing the essay
“Calibration” by rating professor’s then reading calibration essays then
essays actually rating peers
Allows students to think critically Instructors depend on inconsistency
and learn about how their work is in ratings to flag any issues
assessed
5. Calibrated Peer Review by
molsci.ucla.edu
Calibrated Peer Review is a good idea, but the implementation is still being worked out.
It is sufficient but the students are not excited about using it. The interface (at least in
2010) was very basic – but the latest version says a school’s IT dept. has the ability to
alter it. The 2010 version I used had an early 1990’s graphics feel and for my
generation of students who grew up with more graphic interfaces, this was a definite
distraction. If you’re working on a site for several hours, you don’t want it to be drab.
There is also the “several hours” aspect – it is a lot of work from the students and they
didn’t feel they got much out of the experience for the effort they had to put into CPR.
Instructor sets the standards for essays and the leeway in rating students are given
Academic publications and research supporting the method
Decision: I would continue to look for alternatives, but this is a
sufficient option.
6. Application: video-discussion based online learning
PROS CONS
Free access to courses No 1-on-1 with instructor
Classes of people from many Discussion forums can generate an
backgrounds / countries overwhelming amount of content
Lectures/activities not limited Unknown value in the employment
by time or geography market
7. MOOCs have amazing potential to bring education to a massive audience and to expose more
people to areas they wish to gain familiarity without paying tuition. Right now, college credit
isn’t available –and I don’t think the process is at a point where it is equivalent to college course
learning. BUT I admit, that may because it’s a new format of learning to me and as people
become more familiar with the process, they’ll be better able to utilize MOOCs. As a MOOC
student, for solo coursework the anonymity and free cost mean I disengage instead of pushing
through when I have trouble. I learn by conversation, not discussion boards and miss face time
with an instructor. However, with team-based courses, I feel like I have an obligation to my
teammates to not disengage and I keep motivated when I struggle. From a teaching stand point,
I would miss the feedback from my students’ faces and assignment grading. However, right now
I see MOOCs as more of an “outreach education” program – and as an instructor there is no
greater platform than through MOOC teaching.
Instructor sets standards of lectures and assignments are peer-reviewed/ computer graded
Academic professionals create the classes
Decision: Take one: YES! Develop one: Go for it!
