The MOOC 2014 conference took place at EPFL in Lausanne Switzerland in February 2014. The catchphrase of the conference was "All you need to know about MOOCs". In the introduction, conference chair Pierre Dillenbourg asked the participants not ask "what can MOOCs do" but rather "what should MOOCs do". Some interesting observations from the conference: MOOCs for corporate and vocational training:
Currently, MOOCs are mostly developed for higher education and further education. However, the corporate and vocational training market is much larger than higher education. Several initiatives are developing MOOCs for corporate (COOCs) and vocational training (VOOC), e.g. customer training. Open question: Can MOOCs be used to teach physical skills, eg vocational skill, sport? If companies do their own testing and training, what are universities still needed for?
MOOC users:
Mostly Western countries and mostly people who already have a higher degree (master or higher): MOOC as a form of further education (but not initial education). Should MOOCs in developing countries be seen as a form of cultural colonialism or a democratization of education? How can MOOCs advance new forms of pedagogy instead of being glorified video lectures?
Novelty of MOOCs
Open question: Are xMOOCs actually different from existing eLearning platforms (besides the larger user numbers)? [Siemen's and Downes' cMOOCs differentiated themselves through their connectivist pedagogy, but what about xMOOCs?]. Suggestion: Go beyond the university-semester model -> Trend towards shorter courses (as people don't have much time).
The conference presentations offered a plethora of new terms: SOOCs and BOOCs (Small and Big open online courses (Is a MOOC with fewer participants still a MOOC?), COOCs (MOOCs for corporate training), VOOCs (MOOCs for vocational training), pMOOCs (project-based MOOCS), DOCC (Distance open collaborative course), etc.
Assessment:
How can success be measured in MOOCs? An example from Proversity (UK): To prepare job applicants with job specific skills, applicants take a MOOC and then go through an assessment in which they have to apply that knowledge in job-specific scenarios. If they did well, they will go through an online job interview process. Peer review vs peer assessment
Certification/ Accreditation:
New forms of awards are needed. Gamification of education: badges. Currently, no university or employer accepts MOOC credits, but some allow complementing with on-campus courses to get credit. Some (few) employers recognize MOOC certificates on CVs. Trend towards certification of MOOCs by professional organizations (rather than universities).
Dropout rate
xMOOC companies (like EdX and Coursera) offer "premium track" models in which participants pay a fee in advance to get access to the final exam and get a certificate. Users in the premium track have a completion rate of up to 70% (which is much higher than regular MOOC participation). The increase could be explained by economic motivation to get your moneys worth and a selection effect as only motivated participants are willing to pay in the first place.
I created a brief overview of MOOCs in the dynamic mindmap below [Click on a term to read the attached notes in the window below].
MIT Media Lab presents a prototype for a tangible user interface. A Microsoft Kinect and a camera detect a user's hand movements and replicate them on a custom-built table with hundreds of moveable pins.
While this prototype is far from being portable, it offers a glimpse of what future tangible interfaces might look like.
A newspaper article published in "Le Temps" reports that three private schools in the French-speaking part of Switzerland are teaching creationist ideas in their classrooms. A representative of the three schools stated that "the theory of evolution is also presented, but not as a truth." Teaching creationism as truth violates the local education policies that demand that students in private schools receive an education equivalent to public schools. I find it interesting to note that the journalist found it necessary to provide a description of what creationism is "Creationism is a doctrine which, in its minimalist version postulates that the universe and living beings were created ex nihilo by God, as opposed to the theory of evolution." [I doubt that a US journalist would have found it necessary to provide a definition of creationism.] Source: "Les écoles créationnistes réveillent les autorités romandes", Friday 31 January 2014, Le Temps (Switzerland)
Topographic maps could really let you feel their topography. Image: Disney Research
We perceive variations in an object’s surface by detecting changes in friction on our fingertips. The interface simulates these variations through a series of low voltage electric currents that cause vibrations in your fingertips. In its most basic form, the system involves an insulated electrode paired with an electronic driver to create the voltage patterns. Researchers at Disney are working on a touchscreen interface that lets user "feel" objects. The interface allows you to feel properties of objects, for example bumps, ridges, textures, and protrusions.
The headset from foc.us promises to "overclock your brain using Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation" (basically a light electroshock that supposedly increases your focus). The cost of the headset is $249 (and sold out). They are currently targeting pro-computer gamers. Could that headset also be used in education?
The US Civil War Trust presents a collection of animated maps that bring battles of the American Civil War to life, complete with troop movement animations, narratives, video, and more. There are animated maps of the battles of Antietam, Gettysburg, Shiloh, Vicksburg and Chickamauga.
Prominent scientists, for example Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, promote
the idea that atheism and science are inherently linked and in support of one
another (Wikipedia list of atheist scientists). However, this essay questions the validity of using science to support
atheist viewpoints.
There are three different questions that need to be answered.
First, do you believe that a higher being (deity, God) exists? Second, if yes,
what is the nature of that higher being? Third, do you believe that you can gain
knowledge (revelation) about the nature of a higher being? See figure 1.
Figure 1: Nature of God decision diagram
The first question (nature of a higher being) can be answered in
three different ways:
Theism: Belief in the existence of a higher being
who is responsible for the initial formation of the universe and continues to
causally interact (personal God). As a theist deity continues to interfere with
the world, the actions of a theist deity can be experienced (Religion with
revelation).
Deism: Belief in the existence of a higher being
who is responsible for the initial formation of the universe only, but does no
longer interfere (impersonal God). As a deist deity no longer interacts
with the world, the deity itself cannot be experienced (Religion without
revelation).
Atheist: An atheist is a person who is certain that
no deities exist (strong/hard atheist). An atheist rejects the existence of deities and holds the
position that there are no deities.
The second question can be answered in two
different ways:
Gnostic: Belief that one can gain knowledge of the nature and existence
of a higher being.
Agnostic: Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the word “agnostic” in
1869, defined it as: “Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence
of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively
the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend
conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.“ An
agnostic believes that nothing can be known of the existence or nature of
deities (or of anything beyond material phenomena). An agnostic is a
person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Answering the two basic questions allows for
several combinations (See diagram). For example, Christians are (typically)
gnostic-theists (belief that there exists a personal higher being that
interacts with the world and that one can learn about the nature of this
deity).
Many prominent scientists label themselves as
atheists, but does science provide a basis to for atheism? Can a person, in his
or her role as a scientist, know about the nature of deities (that are
transcended = above natural principles) based on scientific evidence?
The answer must clearly be no. From a (simplified) epistemological point of
view, science constructs falsifiable models that aim to explain repeated observations
of phenomena in the natural world. By definition, science does not and cannot
make statements about “super”-natural phenomena (phenomena that are outside of
the laws of nature). The method of science only deals with the natural world. Statements
about the existence and nature of deities lay outside the realm of science and
scientists. Science does not provide the tools for gnosis (revelation). A
theistic view would be in conflict with scientists' understanding of natural
processes, as a theist deity could causally interfere and therefore alter
natural processes at will, which could be empirically observed and tested. As
science cannot make statement about supernatural deities, it does not support
atheist viewpoints. I think the only possible position for a scientist is agnostic.
Only agnostics hold the view that we cannot know about deities - because it is
a question outside of the realm of science.
The Dutch philosopher Baruch
Spinoza asked an important fourth question: What do we mean by “God”? Spinoza disagreed
with Descartes about the duality between mind and body and concluded that
everything that exists in Nature (=everything in the universe) is one and the
same reality. Therefore, as everything is subject to the same set of rules, “God” is no longer an entity outside of the
system. “God” and “Nature” become synonymous terms. Spinoza viewed “God” not as
an entity outside of nature (super-natural) but as an emergent property of the complex
system of nature itself. Spinoza’s God is the embodiment of all intricately
connected laws of nature. From this viewpoint, scientists could be considered
religious knowledge seekers as they study the patterns of nature (aka “God”) (See
figure 2). Not surprisingly, many scientists since the enlightenment shared
Spinoza’s views of God, including Albert Einstein. Einstein said “I believe in Spinoza's God who
reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who
concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” (New York Times,
April 25, 1929).
Figure 2: Spinoza's God
Spinoza’s view of God even aligns with
hard-core atheists like Richard Dawkins. Richard
Dawkins argued that he is an “atheist” because in his work as a scientist he
(so far) never needed to add “God” as a variable to explain a natural phenomenon.
In Spinoza’s view, “God” is not an external variable but all variables
combined. It can be assumed that most self-proclaimed
atheists would not have an issue with Spinoza’s view of God but only with the
idea of a personal God (theism) (who can meddle with humans and natural laws at
will). Most “atheists” would therefore be more accurately described as
“anti-theists”.
This essay concludes with two statements. First,
whenever you make a statement about “God” you should disclose in which role you
are making this statement: As an individual you are (and always should be) free
to believe whatever you like. However, if you make a statement in your role as
a scientist, then you are bound to falsifiable statements and evidence. Science,
by its very definition, does not provide the tools to prove or disprove the
existence or non-existence of supernatural deities. Astrophysicist Neil
DeGrasse Tyson describes himself as an “agnostic”. E.O. Wilson stated "I would even say I’m agnostic because I’m a scientist. Being an agnostic means saying, dogmatically, that we will never be able to know, so give it up." (Source). Even Richard Dawkins doesn't describe himself as a strong atheist but as a "de-facto atheist" (which refers to the belief that while god(s) cannot be absolutely proven not to exist, their existence could be provisionally described as extremely improbable) [which aligns with the view of science]. When talking about
supernatural deities, the only position a scientist can take is agnostic. An
agnostic answers the question “Is there a God?” with “I don’t know because I
cannot know”. Second, when talking about God you should always clarify what you
mean by “God”: Do you consider God a personal or impersonal entity? Do you
consider God to be outside of nature or an emergent property of nature itself? Applying
some philosophical rigor (and tolerance) to religious discussions could avoid
many misunderstandings and unproductive arguments.
.jpg)