User:Sjgknight/sandbox/MOOC underpinnings

Philosophical underpinnings

Connectivism OER Illich

Lack of theoretical underpinning in xmooc model?

From mooc talk page:

Illich edit conflict
I was just trying to trim down the "precursors" section - past is just prelude - when a large section of theory showed up in the same section. I'll back off for today and see what comes up. By WP rules it needs to be cited better, but that's just technical stuff that can be overcome. Some theory in this subject (beyond connectivism) would be nice. Radical theory where we are going to completely erase the university and make all learning an individual act may be a tautology or a pipe dream, I'm not that familiar yet. So let's see what you come up with. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * the Illich section is unsourced OR and very unlikely--he hated big universities and computers and never proposed anything remotely like a MOOC, which of course is controlled by big-name professors heavily funded by big money and based in giant universities. Illich was a "small is beautiful" person. A google search shows no one has made this argument. 15:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I think 'philosophical underpinning' would be better there, i.e. it doesn't matter whether he said it. I think in any case that he has been discussed in the context of connectivism e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Networked_learning#1970s . In any case, I wonder if there should be a section on philosophical underpinnings, perhaps including the connectivist theory there? Or whether the Illich reference should go into the connectivist section if there is a citation for that?  The reference to Englebert was also removed, again, should that (again) go back in?  I actually wonder if the precursor section really ought to be citing someone/something/a few things that've discussed mooc precursors...at the moment it's a bit like we're writing the history of moocs.  The 'early moocs' bit onwards looks fine to me, but I'm not sure the precursors bit is very 'wikipedia'... Sjgknight (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty much agree with Sjgknight. The older history should be really brief and handled by wikilinks. Something (perhaps the whole field) could use some closer connection to some theory, or underpinnings. I'm interested now in what's going to happen in "the second round", e.g. videos and other materials will be almost certainly be reused, making them something like the modern version of a textbook - how is this going to work out?  Related to blended and flipped learning Parking a link.
 * I've been a bit under the weather, but have intended to print this all out, take a red pencil to it, disassemble, slash-and-burn, reassemble and do a basic creative destruction rewrite. Not the usual Wiki-way, but sometimes it works .  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A reference associating Illich with connectivism http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1103

Wondering what the "cite error" means

 * Is this fixed now? Sjgknight (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)