E-Learning-Inclusivo (Mashup)

Nice visual and nice summarising as well

A insightful and thorough critique of why peer grading in the humanities won't work. Jonathan Rees is a professor of history himself who uses peer assessment in this classes a lot certainly is the right person to pass judgement (note the difference between assessment and grading, the former is formative, the latter summative). And it is negative. Indeed, he argues that if this practice were to catch on, it suggests grading (in the humanities) is easy, while in actual fact it is through careful comments and not the grades per se that people learn. Actuallly, I think this applies quite generallly. It is through reflection that you learn deeply, good feedback helps you reflect more deeply and a grade isn't good feedback. (@pbsloep)

Un artículo en The Hindu con información sobre Coursera (su orígenes, los cursos que imparte,su modelo educativo...

También trata en general de los MOOCs y su futuro...

Interesting article, but the author may have missed the boat entirely.  It is nice to be benevolent, but there is a commercial opportunity to drive online learning that dwarfs other purposes of learning.  Employment will be the driver of learning, and eLearning will play a greater and greater role in recruiting, career development, retention, and every other aspect of employment.

If you read this scoop alongside the previous one on edX, you'll see that MOOC platform providers are becoming creative about ways to monetize the platform. Now they are trying to make money from certifying that a particular user actually is the user they claim to be.  As Alastair formulates it, if you can't make money from the content, then it needs to come from the layer of services you offer on top of that. This, of course, is a familiar model in the open source software world, where, for example, the virtual learning environment Moodle is free, but you need to pay if you want to have it installed or maintained for you; or the various UNIX variants are free in principle, but installers that put the operating system on your computer come at a price.

It is sensible model, from the point of view of the learner and the platform provider. The learner gets a cheap course and can decide what services to add. Platform providers get access to a stream of income. I am not so sure, however, what participating universities make of it. They are used to recouping costs by packing content with services. If content is free and MOOC platforms provide the services, where does their income come from? I am afraid that the measly 6% or so that Coursera shares back will not be sufficient to produce high quality content. So perhaps universities will start setting up their own MOOC platforms or negotiate better deals? (@pbsloep)