Benutzer Diskussion:Birkenkrahe/HWR-MBA-BIS-INTM/MOOC

Hier ist ein interessanter Artikel, ganz frisch...zu MOOC--msb (Diskussion) 06:48, 14. Feb. 2013 (CET)

Und hier ein aktueller Clip zum "inverted classroom" — die Methode, die wir im Unterricht auch ein paar Mal im Ansatz verwendet haben, und der mit MOOCs didaktisch zu tun hat (siehe Artikel).--msb (Diskussion) 19:09, 17. Feb. 2013 (CET)

Und hier ein Einstieg in "Udacity" als Fallbeispiel (blog)--msb (Diskussion) 23:39, 21. Feb. 2013 (CET)

---

Please put your Sprint Reviews on this page for my (process) feedback! Assignment was to put the first review here by March 3. Cheers!--msb (Diskussion) 12:03, 4. Mär. 2013 (CET)

---

First of all, missing Sprint review is my fault. Because of my absence on the last seminar day I did not quite get the concept of the sprint reviews. Just discovered, what it means, when I reviewed the topics of the last course day last night. Nevertheless I put up a short description of the first sprint now, so we can base the next sprint on it (il)

"Another Remark: I am not comfortable with using real names in public space, so I i will refer to us only as TP, OH, IL, and AC which left) (il)"

• OK, no problem; you may recall that I strongly recommend to remain anonymous on this Wiki!--msb (Diskussion) 22:33, 9. Mär. 2013 (CET)

1st Sprint Review

What did we do

More than 4 weeks ago (march 10, 2013) we did basically structure our topic and assigned tasks to every member of the group. AC set up our own private wiki at Wikispaces, as we felt not comfortable to discuss rough ideas in a wiki open to the public. When our group structure changed as AC left the group, we had to reassign the topics, which we did basically at march 26, 2013. As some topics overlap, we had to discuss structuring the responsibilities again on Sunday 3, 2013. I (il) had to admit that I am late for the business model part, as I am struggeling with that one.

Next goals

We decided upon finishing the texts in this sprint, and discuss the topics and ideas further for the next sprint. Last sprint will be dedicated to optimizing the joined work.

Conclusions

We did learn lot about MOOC. But when the first hype will have faded, it seems, MOOC somewhat depends on the details of the individual course concept.

Personally I also learned that it is very difficult (for me) to work on a term paper without actually meeting to discuss ideas in person (TZ lives in another country OH and IL are traveling al lot). The brainstorming and creative process is very much left out when exchanging things in writing, I feel. I do not yet know how to solve this. And it seems to me, this is a question which is also posed in MOOC enviroments (il)

---

• Thank you for adding the review— better late than never! I presume you don't mean March 10, but February 10, 2013? Your lessons learned in the course of putting together this little essay seem indeed relevant for the future of MOOCs, since modern learning very often takes place in project mode and for MOOCs, relationships between participants are likely to remain virtual for the course of the program. in this Sprint review, I don't discuss content issues normally, but if you wish specific feedback, please. Otherwise, the agile approach usually requires that the goals (a.k.a. task lists) are written down in more detail. I trust that you have them. Without such a subdivision of goals (in their sense of user stories) it is very difficult to get anything done and it is easy to fall into an old project management trap, whereby the goals are "adapted" to the project plan AFTER the fact (only to create a paper trail). In agile project management, the idea is that goals are granular enough and practical enough to be followed through. Or if they cannot be followed through, reflection needs to set in— you give a good example of that at the end of your review! so, motor on— and please, do submit a second review by Monday, 11th of March as agreed in class. In this second review you could be a tad more specific how you intend to spend the last week of the project & how you intend to solve your communication problem—there is of course no method that will make up for time not put into the work; and when you need to communicate, you (anyone) must make time for doing so...Thank you! --msb (Diskussion) 22:33, 9. Mär. 2013 (CET)

---

2nd Review

What did we do

At the second step each member of the group prepared his part of work and we merged all parts together. Before the conf call on skype (10th March) each of us had to read the work of other members and during the 2,5 hour discussion we exchanged the views and comments.

Next goals

Each member of our team has to make the changes in his/her text by 11th March and TP is supposed to write a summary of all essay. On Tuesday (12th March) we have to make a third review and make some corrections of grammar or stilistic errors. Then all essay will be copied to a word file and each of us will add the footmarks and bibliography on the last page. So by Friday (15th March) we expect to be able to submit the final work

Conclusions

As usually, team work require exchange of ideas and looking for concensus, as we sometimes find the points we do not agree. But this is normal in each group assignment and it's an interesting experience. Both IL and OH are inexhaustible source of good ideas

---

• Well done! If you check the discussion forum in Moodle, or my notes here the wiki, you will find that you can automatically insert and order the footnotes and references. It's very easy, please check it out! Links: all links will automatically appear at the end of the PDF printout of the wiki. You do NOT need to show any separate link (as a URL). Hide them! Otherwise there are many really interesting ideas and I'm looking forward to reading your final paper!--msb (Diskussion) 10:57, 11. Mär. 2013 (CET)

Comments on the group essay

I am writing (rather dictating) these comments as I read your online essay with the printed version open as well. This is a kind of usability test of your essay: my remarks are not complete but hopefully indicative, understandable and useful! This critique is an opportunity for you to get input regarding important aspects of scientific work using your thesis as an example.

I enjoyed reading your introduction though I immediately felt that you were too easily seduced by commonplace statements and for concept that is (at least in its current incarnation) as new as the MOOC, you needed to declare your terms and most importantly state a clear research question (I couldn't find any). Otherwise there is enough journalistic writing about your topic already! Next up your paper would be improved by a section, no matter how short, on your methodology: how do you intend to proceed and what sources did you use, which method to separate good from bad information etc. Your section "benefits of MOOC" falls straight from the sky: it's not clear to me as a reader where this list comes from, if it's complete or how you are going to make use of it. The overall impression of your paper as a group effort could be improved by ending the main sections (for example the historical outline at the start) with a short summary stating what you have achieved so far. Likewise a new chapter could begin with a statement of what you intend to achieve. In that way, the gaps in the style and content between different contributors can be better bridged. But this trick is also useful if you write a paper alone. — As I read on, I was still interested in the facts that you bring to the table but I felt too often as if you were trying to sell me something. The graphic in section 3.4 is very interesting but given that it is graphically not very challenging it would have been better If you had re-created it and adapted it to the paper. Also, I could not find a proper explanation for the content in it. Otherwise the overall structure of your paper is pretty good and holds it together until the end. I'm unsure about other scientific aspects for example completeness; this is largely because you're not open about your methods as I already pointed out (journalists do not need that even though the better journalists do provide this information; only brochures don't because their purpose is to sell something and not to inform or enlighten). Your summary does not really seem to summarize your main findings, rather it seems to give a summary evaluation of your topic that could have been written without the rest of the paper. I may be wrong about that but to prove the opposite you need a separate section before the summary, customarily called the discussion section, where you discuss your results in the light of your research question (which you did not state) in order to prove or disprove your hypotheses (which you also did not state though you clearly have some). In science reflection is key! I hope these remarks may help you when you prepare future essays or for your MBA thesis!

Please feel free to ask questions here if anything is not clear! Thank you for getting on board with the Wiki and this group work and for reaching the goal line on time and with good content!--msb (Diskussion) 22:20, 7. Mai 2013 (CEST)