tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post5974750769216072102..comments2024-02-16T08:32:46.618+00:00Comments on Donald Clark Plan B: MOOCs: Futurelearn 4 pluses & 4 minusesDonald Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00796341486328270474noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-90250719731262292182014-08-27T19:35:32.856+00:002014-08-27T19:35:32.856+00:00I signed up for a course at FutureLearn. The cla...I signed up for a course at FutureLearn. The class, not set to start for several months, did not have the texts, syllabus or anything else listed. I e-mailed the person who is teaching the class at his university e-mail, and he said the materials would be there at the time. It is now a month ot the class; I got a reminder about it by e-mail. However, there is still no syllabus or other information on the class. <br /><br />That renders a class worthless. If one doesn't know what the texts are until the class begins, one can't obtaini them for three weeks, and I am perpetually behind in these classes as a result.<br /><br />I wrote to the only contact information for Futurelearn given on its web site, a feedback e-mail address, adn got back an auto mail that we don't answer all of them - in other words noone even reads them and certainly noone responds or takes action to fix a problem that needs immediately to be solved, such as no books listed for a class soon to start. <br /><br />I looked for who the executive officers are to write them, and the "team" doesn't consist of any humans, just companies such as Skype. <br /><br />Maybe I'd do better to write to Skype and the rest of the "team" and tell them to stop funding this scam outfit. <br /><br />Yours,<br />Doravillandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10743842451775208884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-75148210886815240952014-04-11T14:46:43.172+00:002014-04-11T14:46:43.172+00:00What's the relationship between FutureLearn an...What's the relationship between FutureLearn and Leagas Delaney Ltd, listed as the parent company of FL at companies house? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-78787583001901395952014-02-02T20:55:35.027+00:002014-02-02T20:55:35.027+00:00Much appreciated Doug. I have no idea why Mike and...Much appreciated Doug. I have no idea why Mike and Simon were so reticent about the cash inputs. As you say starting from scratch on this cash basis is a tall order. As I said, the OU has some fine people, some of who take the word 'open' mor seriously than others! Thanks again.Donald Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00796341486328270474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-91935319773176832482014-02-02T20:34:03.108+00:002014-02-02T20:34:03.108+00:00I'm guessing Mike Sharples ducked the question...I'm guessing Mike Sharples ducked the question because he simply doesn't know - it's not his area of expertise. Can't speak for Simon Nelson's reasons for reticence, though - and he would know, of course. It strikes me that if a share issue is in the offing (I have no information either way about that, only going on the anon comment at the top of this thread), he would have to be very, very careful about anything he said about funding, so the safest course would be to defer questions.<br /><br />I'm fairly sure the funding to date is all public, though. OU financial statements for 2013 show total share investment in FutureLearn Limited of £2.5m as of 31 July 2013 (<a href="http://www.open.ac.uk/foi/main/expenditures" rel="nofollow">accounts here</a>, go to 2013, top of p 58), and Companies House (free web access) shows total share capital as of 20/12/13 of £4m, as the first (anonymous) comment said.<br /><br />On the BBC thing, if I've understood it right, it's definitely not a BBC project in any way, and the BBC is not even a partner in the affair. FutureLearn is a standalone company, and is organised very much on an agile startup basis, separate from all normal OU processes and procedures. I don't know all of the FutureLearn staff, but I'm pretty sure they're not all ex-BBC. <br /><br />I was pretty alarmed when they announced they were building something new from scratch - it's a tall order to make anything that fast that scales. Simon Nelson's previous big-ticket experience was on iPlayer - which isn't learning (but they brought Mike Sharples and others in for that), but was developed fast and does scale. And he and the team he built have delivered, much to their credit.<br /><br />On the design ... it's not quite my cup of tea either, but it does seem much of a piece with a lot of modern design. (Think iOS 7, Microsoft Metro, Quartz, etc - I'm sure 'look good on an iPad' was a key design requirement.) And heaven knows it's easy to make a learning platform a complete dog's breakfast with the entire kitchen sink on screen competing with what you're trying to learn.<br /><br />(I'm an OU academic in the same dept as Mike, but have no special role in FutureLearn - all this is based on what I think is public information. And for the avoidance of any doubt I'm writing herein a personal rather than an official capacity.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-29442492376379839912014-01-31T11:05:41.215+00:002014-01-31T11:05:41.215+00:00Thanks.On peer review - there's lots of experi...Thanks.On peer review - there's lots of experimentation and innovation here and I'd agree that much of the current peer review is a bit hokey. However the Futurelearn 6 people review (don't assess) system seems quite good. there's a big diference between peer review an dassessment. I also think that this will get a lot better. Evidence from Mazur and others show that there is promise here and it's worth persevering. To be honest I'd rather forge ahread with machine marking, even on essays - which is what EdX are looking at.Donald Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00796341486328270474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-87353968510923491922014-01-31T03:38:31.836+00:002014-01-31T03:38:31.836+00:00Honest piece, Donald.
I'll swerve the funding...Honest piece, Donald.<br /><br />I'll swerve the funding controversy (I'm not a British taxpayer anyhow), but instead will add my 2-cents' worth that I don't see peer review as a plus.<br /><br />Of course it's probably necessary given the "M" in "MOOC", but having experienced peer review in moocs, I get the sense of the blind leading the blind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-90652683613797067992014-01-28T22:24:49.325+00:002014-01-28T22:24:49.325+00:00Fair enough.
Everyone's passing the buck on f...Fair enough. <br />Everyone's passing the buck on funding. Strange that I know what Coursera, Udacity and EdX have invested yet no one will tell me how much of my own money (as a taxoayer) has been invested in Futurelearn. It's odd as it will have to come out eventually. There's a great deal of suspicion about this investment and the role that the Department played in all this.<br /><br />Still think what they needed was not a Radio guy from the BBC with no learning or online learning experience. Neither is he a 'company builder' namely entrepreneur. That's the difference between the US and other platforms and Futurelearn - real entrepreneurial and experienced leadership. However, it may result in something quite innovative - just not seen it yet. As we both said - it's early days.Donald Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00796341486328270474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-62784306435936255212014-01-28T22:11:12.751+00:002014-01-28T22:11:12.751+00:00Thanks for your response Donald, and I regret if m...Thanks for your response Donald, and I regret if mine seemed prickly- you gave a balanced, considered and encouraging perspective. One which I felt was worthy of consideration and response. And indeed further clarification:<br /><br />1. I did not comment on whether FutureLearn funding was public business, I was suggesting such questions were directed to the funding body- the OU. FutureLearn employees do not determine the OU's investment strategy. But your observation on the annoyance factor is definitely noted.<br />2. I know a little about software houses despite (or maybe because of), being a marketing type ;) Saying the BBC team had some skills not typically found in a software house does not set them above all software houses. It just means that the software is secondary to the learning experience for FutureLearn- it is a means not the end. And the OU did not ask the BBC to build the FutureLearn platform- they asked a proven digital leader (who had worked at the BBC) to build a company to do so.<br />3. I didn't mean to imply you could not debate the 'oddity' of our courses! Just that I'd probably not debate it myself but welcome seeing it play out and no doubt inform our journey.<br />It's great to see the discourse and I again thank you for your part both in the debate and as a FutureLearner :)Tania Duartehttps://futurelearn.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-49011291624246896372014-01-28T19:50:20.998+00:002014-01-28T19:50:20.998+00:00Hi Tania
Thanks for the comments.
1. There should...Hi Tania<br />Thanks for the comments.<br /><br />1. There shouldn't be any opacity about the fact that the OU fully fund FutureLearn. The OU is best placed to discuss their funding strategy. <br /><br />The problem is that there is opacity. I know and stated that it was fully funded by the OU. If there's no opacity, let’s discuss it. How much was invested in the first round – was I much out on £2 million and how much needed to be raised on the next – another £2 million? I personally asked Simon Nelson and Mike Sharples about the level of initial funding and both declined to answer. How much was invested into the private company by the University? Not sure what you mean by the second sentence? That it's none of our business? It's public money.<br /><br />2. There is absolutely no link between the 2 BBC projects you mention and the talent and approach here. Nobody here was remotely involved in them. What some of the team did develop were podcasts, BBC iplayer, and digital radio. These projects achieved significant recognition from outside the BBC, and were undoubtedly innovative. They required far more leadership, vision, and instinct for the experience of millions of people than you would typically find within a software house. <br /><br />I wasn’t suggesting that it was the same people but precious few would agree that the BBC is a hotbed of good software project management. In fact, it’s quite famous for being the opposite. This is a learning platform not a podcast delivery or replay platform. And to set BBC software developers above all software houses is a step too far for me. I assume you’re a marketing/PR person (not sure – a guess). That’s OK but I’m not sure that you know enough about these platforms to make this rather outrageous claim.<br /><br />3. Less than six months from launch, we already start courses every week, but are still building up frequency. I think I'd leave it to the thousands of learners enjoying our courses to debate how odd they are ;) <br /><br />Really? This is a debate - it's a blog. And yes. I’m one of those Futurelearn learners ;)<br /><br />4. Our design aim is to be simple, clean and uncluttered unlike many LMS that don't necessarily aid the learning experience. But yes, we are still in Beta and many new features have yet to go live...<br /><br />Fair enough - a lot of this is subjective but I'm reflecting what a number of people have observed. And your last point is exactly what I said, I quote, “Again. To be fair, it’s early days.”<br /><br />Slightly prickly response if you are a PR person! Listen. I'm a huge supporter of the OU and wish Futurelearn the best of luck but it is important that it is transparent in its finances, as this has annoyed many. There's only one organisation in the UK that would ask the BBC to build an online learning platform and that's the OU - believe me it's a weakness not a strength. Thankfully there's enough good people at the OU to keep things steady. It's an old tale this one! Best of luck.Donald Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00796341486328270474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-31606014850203983712014-01-28T19:02:00.786+00:002014-01-28T19:02:00.786+00:00Hi Donald,
As a new addition to the team at Future...Hi Donald,<br />As a new addition to the team at FutureLearn I'd like to pass on thanks for your support and encouragement. <br />I can also clarify a few points.<br />1. There shouldn't be any opacity about the fact that the OU fully fund FutureLearn. The OU is best placed to discuss their funding strategy. <br />2. There is absolutely no link between the 2 BBC projects you mention and the talent and approach here. Nobody here was remotely involved in them. What some of the team did develop were podcasts, BBC iplayer, and digital radio. These projects achieved significant recognition from outside the BBC, and were undoubtedly innovative. They required far more leadership, vision, and instinct for the experience of millions of people than you would typically find within a software house.<br />3. Less than six months from launch, we already start courses every week, but are still building up frequency. I think I'd leave it to the thousands of learners enjoying our courses to debate how odd they are ;)<br />4. Our design aim is to be simple, clean and uncluttered unlike many LMS that don't necessarily aid the learning experience. But yes, we are still in Beta and many new features have yet to go live... <br />We hope you enjoy watching this space, and again thank you for your appraisal.Tania Duartehttps://www.futurelearn.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-18296815939145788952014-01-28T13:32:06.393+00:002014-01-28T13:32:06.393+00:00http://bit.ly/1b0p9B5http://bit.ly/1b0p9B5Donald Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00796341486328270474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-9476880955487992862014-01-28T13:27:35.934+00:002014-01-28T13:27:35.934+00:00Donald, the link expalining why you are not a soci...Donald, the link expalining why you are not a social constructivist is not working.I'm interested in reading your thoughts on this - could you point me in the right direction please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-23771119187743845302014-01-28T12:51:33.574+00:002014-01-28T12:51:33.574+00:00Another view, which I sort of agree with, is that ...Another view, which I sort of agree with, is that the procurement was amateurish, companies selected on 'who knew who basis'. I can confirm this as no serious e-learning company was chosen. Project management was also woeful and projects went way over budget. The whole project was out of control when it was canned. I have some interesting stories from the people who worked on some of the projects - completely shambolic.Donald Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00796341486328270474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-29313279684831341352014-01-28T12:36:49.350+00:002014-01-28T12:36:49.350+00:00Hi John
Have to disagree on this one. I trawled m...Hi John <br />Have to disagree on this one. I trawled my way through much of the content and it was one awful mess - lots of fly-by-night companies producing TV style, inappropriate content. Only one course I saw, on student finance, had any worth. I documented my views at the time. Incidently I met one guy last year who had made a coll £2 million, who now lives in a luxury villa in Zanzibar on his BBC Jam profits. http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=bbc+jamDonald Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00796341486328270474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-38483272651424041622014-01-28T12:31:46.997+00:002014-01-28T12:31:46.997+00:00You have right on your side with regard to the BBC...You have right on your side with regard to the BBC's failed DMI Project, but not with respect to BBC Jam, the failure of which had nothing to do with the quality of the content produced and everything to do with a cabal of commercial content providers who frightened the life out of a pusillanimous BBC management and senior civil servants in the Department of Education at the time.John Connellhttp://iamlearner.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-46157967231274498752014-01-27T18:59:13.665+00:002014-01-27T18:59:13.665+00:00Absolutely share your doubts on partner line-up fe...Absolutely share your doubts on partner line-up featuring OU and BBC. Only project I ever resigned from had them as two of three partners. OU technology side was OKish, but BBC approach to project management and marketing nothing short of disastrous. Did not have first clue about how education worked, how the money moved, or the likely timelines in what is a conservative sector with annual cycles. Hugely optimistic projections based on zero understanding saw an excellent project crash and burn before it made any impact. Then they left the excellent content to rot rather than lose face by releasing for others to use. Hopeless... Sad thing is that they have some brilliant educators & project guys at the Beeb too, that they don't allow to get involved... a double whammy!TonyParkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16544815368362846848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-90088345574733196732014-01-27T14:25:01.675+00:002014-01-27T14:25:01.675+00:00Sounds right. I believe the first tranch was £2m t...Sounds right. I believe the first tranch was £2m thn subsequent money essentail as likely to have run out by now and no real revenue as yet.Donald Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00796341486328270474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077063.post-55212241609636154852014-01-27T13:56:39.794+00:002014-01-27T13:56:39.794+00:00F/L funding? try £4m from the OU (at least... see ...F/L funding? try £4m from the OU (at least... see companies house filings) and a pending share issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com