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!
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!
