Coursera and edX MOOCs: Interface and user experience comparison

Following up on the previous blog entry discussing my ongoing experience with massive open online courses (MOOCs), this entry will discuss my perceptions on the differences between the interfaces of edX and Coursera.

edX and Coursera are promoted by world's top universities like Stanford, Harvard, MIT, UPenn, Berkeley. These universities spend a lot of effort trying to ensure their course materials are easily accessible to their students. Therefore, it is only fair to expect that they would take care to provide the best available user experience on their MOOCs, from a vast range of backgrounds. It is also clear that the platforms and material are still evolving, as can be expected in a field only a couple of years old.

Courseware and Pedagogy: 
Both Coursera and edX depend on a mix of videos, slides, text and readings for providing material to students. These materials are organized by weeks, which are roughly representative of the weekly material covered in their on-campus versions.  Each week's material is accompanied by some assignments and short questions and answers, to allow the students to gauge their own understanding. There are some differences in the nature of assignments, but since I am taking very different kinds of courses, the differences might be course-specific rather than platform-specific.

Student Verification (Valid only for Coursera):
Coursera's Signature Track, which provides a certificate of completion and transferable credits, requires validation of the student's identity through a government-issued document, a webcam photo and a typing sample. I found the system pretty simple, but I wonder how many corporations and universities will accept this certification. The system will evolve, but it is fairly straightforward.

Length of videos: 
The most substantial feature which I did not expect was the length of the lecture videos. Coursera has videos of only 15 minutes each, while MITx's courses tend to be only around 5-8 minutes each, vastly shorter than the 1 to 1.5 hour lessons for these courses on campus. Each week's lecture sessions are split into 5-6 small videos. These short durations perhaps indicate the length of attention spans more than any technological limits.

Quality of materials:
 Needless to say, the quality of materials from the world's top universities like UPenn (Wharton), MIT and Toronto is top flight. However, having studied at one of these institutions, I can compare with the material we used to prepare for on campus. The main difference is in the readings. It seems that the MOOCs presume that their online students, their 'diaspora', will rely only on videos and slides, rather than text. Except the Philosophy course which provides some theological readings, the courses do not expect students to read much beforehand. This could be a feature from research on how students engage online.

Homeworks and assignments:
Both platforms, Coursera and edX, have assignments that the students need to complete. Coursera's signature track, which will issue a transferable certificate, actually checks my identity every time I submit a homework. This system will definitely increase its acceptability, though I'm not sure how robust it is.

Rest comparisons for the next blog post!

Informal Teaching and Online Learning: Experience of this fall.

This is the fall of learning and teaching for me, after years. I have started taking three Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) this fall. MOOCs are the latest innovation in online teaching, pioneered by the world's top universities like Stanford, MIT, Harvard, UPenn, Berkeley, etc. These courses provide access to their course material, in curated fashion, from the same professors.

1. Introduction to Financial Accounting with Coursera (signature track): The introductory accounting course from Wharton School of Business.
2. Behavioural Economics in Action with edX  (From Univ of Toronto's affiliation with edX, TorontoX)
3. Introduction to Philosophy: God, Knowledge and Consciousness with edX: MIT's introductory philosophy class, 24.00, on edX
   
   
   Alongside, I have initiated an informal course in Engineering, Economics and Regulation of Electric Power Systems at my unit in the World Bank, based on the OpenCourseWare Material for this graduate level course at MIT. 
   This blog will document my experiences in this period of learning and teaching for the next few weeks, till around December, when all these courses end.  
   
   The courses I am studying are either of deep interest, or are filling in gaps in my education thus far. The course I am coordinating at my workplace is an overarching course which all
   Between edX and Coursera, I have registered on two mutually-independent (and perhaps competing) platforms delivering online education. This decision was less driven by a specific choice to test two systems, but more by the attractiveness of courses being offered.
   
   Financial Accounting: The financial accounting course is a hard-core business and management education subject. While I do not necessarily need accounting certification for my work, sometimes I feel lost not knowing adequate accounting. I also feel that amongst all the different areas taught in a business school, accounting is the only valuable skill (with all due respect to my MBA friends, but then most of my friends with MBAs know my feelings for that degree anyway). Since I never did (and don't intend to do) an MBA, I missed out on accounting skills. So, to overcome this shortcoming, I decided to learn accounting on my own. Since it was apparent that my interest in this course is likely to flag given its famously tedious nature, I signed up for the Signature Track in Coursera, making this the only paid course. This track provides validated and verified credit for students who complete homework assignments and pass exams, scoring a certain minimum. The system verifies the identity of the person appearing for homeworks and exams using a very interesting multi-factor identification system, which I will write about separately. Paying a certain amount of money, a not insubstantial sum of $49, has ensured that I stay on track and am regular with my courseload. And this discipline, stemming from a sunk investment, typifies implementation of suggestions from another course, Behavioural Economics!
   
   Behavioural Economics in Action: Physics and Mathematics deal with physical phenomena, but use the crutch of idealized imaginary worlds to make analysis and education easier. In physics, these idealized entities are the 'blackbody' and the 'particle', which make analysis easy. In Economics, the Homo Economicus (Econ) is an all-rational, infinte-horizon-calculating, non-emotional being who makes only rational decision. This Homo Economicus is definitely not human. Humans make mistakes, lie to others and themselves, form habits, get excited and afraid, have impaired decision making facility and are generally inferior to the imaginary Econ in making economic decisions.  Moreover, most people do not even know that their decisions are flawed due to cognitive biases!
   However, all economics is studied assuming Humans are Econs, making a lot of assumptions and conclusions questionable due to their flawed assumption of an Econ actor. Behavioural Economics attempts to unravel the patterns and habits that humans use to make decisions, in an attempt to scientifically understand how humans make decisions.
   This field is of intense interest to me because I believe a lot of policy making and governance can be improved if there is better understanding of people's cognitive biases.
   
   Philosophy: 24.00 is MIT's basic philosophy course for undergraduates. I am taking this course to give me a basic, academic understanding of philosophy, which should make me more receptive when I study philosophy on my own. I want to have the nuts and bolts to understand basic philosophy, so I grasp more from higher level books we all tend to jump to.
   
   Apart from these courses I'm studying as a student, I am also currently facilitating the study of a comprehensive graduate level course at my unit. This MIT OpenCourseWare course covers the gamut from basic engineering, economics and regulation of the power sector. My unit has staff from a variety of backgrounds, from engineers to economists to MBAs. While we all work on the energy sector and help our clients tackle daily micro and macro issues, almost all of us have some shortfalls in our energy sector knowledge. This course should help my colleagues who are engineers get a better grasp of the economic underpinnings of regulation and it should help my economist colleagues understand the engineering better. And perhaps, the MBAs will get a little of both! (I'm so going to get beaten up by my MBA pals, it'll not be funny)
   
   The next few blog posts will be my commentary on the learning and teaching experience. Join in my journey if you want.
   Stay Tuned!

My perspective on the man-made reasons of the Uttarakhand flood disaster

Even though this disaster was brought about by an extreme rain event which could be symptomatic of climate change effects (8 times the highest expected rain in a day, 20 days before schedule, in geologically unstable valleys), the real causes of the destruction lie in the typically Indian situation of

• poor governance; 
• inadequate enforcement of local building and development laws and by-laws due to local politics; 
• exponential rise in religious tourism from an emerging middle class that is intensely religious; 
• and most importantly, haywire river training and management, with very little long term thinking. 

In my mind, the only effective remedy of the situation has been frequently identified, but which is never effectively applied: improved local governance. This state, like much of north India, has been traditionally a strong society, with a weak state, as explored in detail in Sh. Gurcharan Das's new book, India Grows at Night. Whether it be building by-laws to avoid riverbeds and floodplains or laws around disposal of muck from hydropower sites, the enforcement is weak and often over-ridded by politically connected individuals, who consider the formal State a mere irritant at best and an adversary at worst.

The climate change effects of worsening adverse rain events, more rain in lesser time, can be handled if there is social agreement (resulting in political consensus) on how to run the state to avoid further such disasters. However, like always, the political bickering has already started, without any consensus on how to handle these issues.

Even though this disaster was brought about by a weather event, the failure of the state in preemption and response is not any different from similar failures from those in the Nirbhaya gangrape case, the frequent terrorist attacks, the slowing growth, the policy gridlock or rampant general misgovernance. The state of affairs can be remedied not by technological solutions, but by a consensus for a stronger state. This call for a stronger and more effective and responsive state can be seen in the recent quasi-political movements led by Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal, who seem to be reflecting the political wishes of an emerging middle class. However, this demand is currently being thwarted by the entrenched polity, which is responsive to the traditional richer farmers of the country and the Delhi elite. However, this elite can only delay the takeover of power by the emerging middle class, not deny it.

Recently, I wrote a response on someone's FB status after the Amartya Sen article in the New York Times on Why China is ahead of India. I'd like to copy it here: Culture, work ethic, attitude and a value system that places personal integrity over personal benefit are usually derived from a common societal belief system, a 'Higher Ideal', if you will.
This system can be based on religion in many countries (eg Israel and Saudi Arabia); common ethnicity in some other countries (eg Japan, Germany, Poland, China and most African countries); the Constitution in the US and Ataturk's Turkey; Communism in several erstwhile Communist countries or shared experiences from a recent turmoil (post-War Korea and perhaps now Sri Lanka).
Would it be fair to say that India (and perhaps South Africa, Indonesia and Brazil as well) misses out such a common thread, unlike most other World powers? Forcible secularization of the State in a deeply religious country after Independence and an inadequately trusted Constitution mean that, as a people, we don't have a higher ideal to believe in. And money steps in to become that ideal! Hence the for-sale politicians, the for-sale bureaucrats, the for-sale regulators and the for-sale Railway Board members!
Does the answer lie either in a more representative Constitution or a State more representative of the country's religious beliefs?