My assessment about edcmooc

I decided to assess one course, E-Learning and Digital Cultures, in which I participated, first with my own words and how I remember the experience. Then I check my posts about the course and add something if important things had fallen out of my memory. The final part consists of building the Footprints of the course according to the research project, but it comes later.

The edcmooc course lasted four-five weeks (Jan Febr 2013) and consisted of the following parts:

Block 1 Utopias and dystopias: week1 Looking to the past, week2 Looking to the Future

Block 2 Being Human: week 3 Reasserting the Human, week 4 Redefining the Human

Week 5. Final Assessment and Peer Gradings, Research about the course.

Edcmooc was one of the Coursera products and used its platform, discussion forums and peer gradings. The resources for every week were short videos, recommendations about articles and lectures and facilitators’ hangout. The four facilitators were working at Edinburgh University, Scotland, and they worked as a team, for instance wrote a blog jointly, participated in Hangouts together.

My free assessment about edcmooc is very positive. The students were excellent, active and supportive. They made a Google group and offered their findings, shared their discoveries all the time. The facilitators were active and relaxed, the atmosphere was full of joy and laughter. The facilitators were interested in us, the participants, and wanted to receive all kind of feedback. The content was easy to follow, the videos were short demos about digital life. I had a feeling that I could step into a new digital world, to participate in an exciting journey. I blogged and commented on others’ blogs, followed the discussion forums when I wanted and followed the extra Google group. I tried Google+ because I got help with trying it. There was a week when we could send images to Flickr, it was extra, perhaps, but very nice. I did not study all of the content but I did not care. I learned a lot, I used Prezi in my Final work first time in my life. I admired other participants’ digital artefacts and published some of them in my blog. I liked a discussion Forum named Age 60+ and blogged about it.

The assessment is very positive. Now I read my posts and check if I forgot something important. I wrote 19 blog posts during the course 27.1.-6.3. The posts included more facts about positive happenings but not anything quite new compared to the previous text. Perhaps the concept ‘digital viking’ is worth mentioning. It is an example of other participants’ ideas which greatly inspired me. From the content I chose the parts dealing with human interaction and I asked the basic question: Have we always, sometimes or never been human? I used the demo videos and lectures in my post.

I did a summary of the results of what I’ve learned during edcmooc (my blog post 4.3.) .


I wonder what I could add to this description by using the Footprints with its clusters and factors?

This image is more about my learning outcomes, while Footprint factors help to describe the pedagogy, learning dynamics. I spoke about it in my first summary in this post.

Critical factors from my point of view seemed to be these two: The activity and high digital literacy of other students inspired me. And the facilitators, I trusted their expertise. These factors made my success and maintained my motivation and activity during the course.  What else can I find? This is an exciting journey…


Trying to define my expertise in fslt13

I was very eager to begin my participation in fslt13 week 0. I wrote two blog posts and commented on some forums. I enjoyed the first sessions. Then came a pause: I began to think about my expertise. What could I give in order to help or support my co-learners?

It was easier to recognize what I cannot offer: I do not know the British universities and their assessments or grades. Most of our expert participants live in UK, Oxford, London etc. They know these practices, so I may leave this side to them. I also recognized the difference between fslt13 and my way to act as an online teacher. I did not use any strict schedules or small groups. I gave the freedom to participate when the students wanted, when the time was suitable for them. I even gave the freedom to select their topics. Some people did their assignments at the beginning of their studies, some at the end. Every assignment was very personal and I did not care about the style or correctness of their texts. The diversity was great and I used to be a flexible 24/7 teacher. I cannot wait that this is the case in fslt13, this course is more normal or usual: topic of the week is clear and there are deadlines.

I have to find my expertise on a general level. I have participated so many different MOOCs that I know the process. My former blog posts based on my former experiences. I know that some chaos, uncertainty and disorientation belong to the orientation phase of MOOCs. But I began to ask myself on week 1 that who wants this knowledge of mine? I read again the arrival lounge discussions and found many different expectations.

One group of students aimed to learn to teach better, new skills and techniques. Some wanted to learn more from higher education and enhance their competitiveness. – I used to work in teacher education but teaching is contextualized and depends on the culture. So I am not sure how I could help these people in their career building.

Another group of students wants to learn more about online learning or about MOOCs and the technologies used in them. Here I recognized many questions which I was interested in myself: the engagement, cultural effects, teaching philosophy and style. Some students told that this is their first MOOC and they want to live it through . That got me to think that what makes a MOOC? Is it the openness and the freedom to choose the tools? This fslt can be performed by following guides and deadlines and working alone just like whatever university course, is this?

The diversity of expectations and very heterogeneous students are considered as a richness in open online courses. I have a hunch that this is true in fslt13 and our students will learn quite different skills and knowledge depending on their different orientations.

We have many experienced moocers which already know online learning very well. Our list of expert participants could be much longer than it is (about 22 of 133 = registered in Moodle today). But it is not important how our roles are defined. I believe that this experimentation to use expert participants, as described in this blog of MazWaite, this will produce us some new knowledge. This is a post about my process of losing my expertise and redefining it in this context. I had to define what I am not to understand what I am. Sometimes I wish I were more simple (simpler does not sound right, I am not sure..)

Now I am going to follow Icehockey, Finland against Sweden, our favorite enemy.

What did I learn from #edcmooc peer gradings?

My final assignment can be found in this Feb 27 blog post. This time I will analyze the feedback I got from the ‘official’ peer gradings and other comments. The inspiring quality of #edcmooc can be identified in the way that students shared their digital artefacts all the time, before the dead line and after it. The official gradings were written into Coursera platform, other comments to my blog, FB group and my FB timeline.

I copy first the criterion (2 = achieves this fully or almost fully ) and then the gradings of peer 1,2, and 3.

The artefact addresses one or more themes for the course and suggests that the author understands at least one key concept

My peer graders agreed with this statement.

Peer 1 explained that ” I found this addressed a Utopian view into a human entering the digital world. While mentioning technology a lot of it was about new world, blogging environments and social networking – many of which are themes that echo across the course’s weeks of materials. I think the author has taken concepts such as humans in the digital world and addressed them clearly in their artifact.”

Peer 2. ” I could see the link between considering the nature and scope of one’s online identity can be related to engagement with digital education, and having a sense of being human and oneself. So the artefact asked some interesting questions about fear of online spaces, confidence to experiment, and fearlessness in wading into new spaces. I liked the idea of being a digital Viking – a nice metaphor. Yes, the author understands at least one key concept from the course, and expands upon the ideas of human interaction and identity.”

Peer 3 used the concepts given and agreed with it, I suppose he/she is not native English speaker.

The artefact has something to say about digital education

Again the peers agreed with the criterion and showed excellent understanding. I have to admire them.

Peer 1. “While there’s no direct link to education, you can see they have been a self-paced learner during the process and so on a personal perspective it addressed education.” and peer 2  “Indeed, I think it does engage with digital education, although I didn’t feel the artefact explicitly drew attention to the many dimensions of digital education with which it could have expanded upon, the notion of online identity seems broadly connected to digital education”. and peer 3 copied the criteria as such.”

The choice of media is appropriate for the message

Peer 1. “The media used (Prezi) worked well, it drove me through the ideas neatly and provided a narrative. The whole thing got me thinking, parts like ‘try a new technology’ made me think of how some people want to explore, break, tweak technology and others want things that ‘just work’ or to pick up one new thing at a time – this is a reduced demand, but still a very normal way to approach things.”

Peer 2:  “Choice of media seems good – though now wish I’d seen something other than Prezis – as I did one and now I think I’ve made a mistake.” (I could not follow which mistake ?)

Peer 3 “The choice of media is appropriate for the message”

The artefact stimulates a reaction in you, as its audience, e.g. emotion, thinking, action

Peer 1 “I enjoyed this artifact, thanks for sharing it &* thanks for making it personal. The artifact clearly expresses an individual who has been avatared into the digital world, perhaps with some reluctance but also what’s most important is they have seen acceptance into this new environment.

Peer 2: “I didn’t feel a strong reaction to it, perhaps because I feel that as adult educators having an online identity should be par for the course. But it’s good to be reminded that many educators are nervous and anxious about engaging with the online world, and therefore perhaps there are mature students who also share such anxieties.”

Peer 3: “Beautiful made. Triggers me ‘thinking’ (criteria 5): what’s my opinion and emotion?”

Peer 2 commented that  “My impression is that this artefact raises a good point about the lack of comfort human beings with frailties and shyness might experience when thrust into the online world for education, for participating in global or local issues and projects. It had a nice narrative, and a strong thread linking the points raised together.”

The comments from other forums were very warm and supportive:

  • I enjoy your presentation a lot Heli. Digital but very human at the same time and a very warm message;o)
  • I liked being reminded of how our identity expands when we go virtual.
  • It is very intellectual, but has a personal angle that makes it easier for me to understand.

New ideas I got from my daughter: voice or music was lacking. I had no time and competence for doing this. And my Peer 1  assessed that “The journey was very personal and as such; the reflections would be focused around the individual and the person how they have gone through this.” Yes it was personal but the interpretation was not.

My self reflection: I did the artefact in a hurry and I surprised how well it was received. The content I chose from my earlier works, all the images were saved  in my computer. The idea of Digital Viking came from the course participants.  The content is a mix and could be organized better. My energy went to training Prezi, which I did not know and it didn’t obey my fingers at all. I deleted all my doings on Monday evening and began to plan a new presentation on Tuesday ; Wednesday was the dead line day. The presentation seems better than I believed, I had a feeling of chaos. The most important insight is that Prezi tells narratives, stories, and I can make the order to follow the story. It is much better than only ‘text and images’. I took a step forwards in using new devices and I am proud of this step. My identity is empowering … thanks to all my peers!


Learning outcomes for #edcmooc

The course edcmooc is ending: we have assessed each other and  got the feedback. It is good to ponder the assessment issues, I always do when a course is over. There are numerous ways to assess learning but no simple ways. I deal with following three ways:

1. The facilitators evaluation in their blog and the two hangouts.

I took my heading from Christine Sinclair, her blog post, . I have appreciated the team blog “Teaching E-Learning and Digital Cultures” – it gave a connection to our facilitators thoughts and feelings. I liked to compare their view to my own and usually I agreed with the writers. So happened this time: Christine was pondering how complex are the outcomes, not easy to define. The creativity is fantastic and enjoyable, it has no limits. Only some outcomes can be recognized immediately and it would be fine to check the outcomes after a year.

The team blog also gave facts and quantified information about the happenings during the course. It helped participants to reflect.

2. The peer grading was planned to be rather simple. We had to assess these five components: The artefact

  1. – addresses one or more themes for the course
  2. – suggests that the author understands at least one key concept from the course
  3. – has something to say about digital education.
  4. The choice of media is appropriate for the message.
  5. The artefact stimulates a reaction in you, as its audience, e.g. emotion, thinking, action.

This seems to work when we had only 0-1-2 points to give. The descriptions and arguments were more important than grades and showed how the co-learner had understood the artefact. They are the real feedback.

On this course participants begun to publish their artefacts in different forums and got much feedback in FB group and their blogs’ comments. The assessment was rather public, and it was considered natural. Only the three *official’ evaluators were anonymous.

3. Self assessment goes through the course and the other reflections only mirror it.

Here I try to describe three levels of reflection. I have tried to reflect after many courses, look for instance Oct 2011 “Three years blogging, learning journey” . This time I have a hunch that  I’ve really learned better than ever,  and I want to show it.

I have basic skills and motivations and many meta-skills for learning. It is possible to participate, I don’t frustrate too much about the amount of knowledge and different devices , I know that so it must be. I do not believe that clear rules were a good way to help students, the disorientation must be experienced and a new way must be built up from choice to another. You cannot find yourself by obeying other people and following clear rules. Everyone has feelings of loneliness on massive open courses.

But how could I describe the new and broader  perspective of e-learning and digital cultures. Gardner Campbell had a lecture about real vs fake changes. I have the feeling of real change just now, how wonderful it is to open eyes and understand more deeply  what is going on and see own limits. I have believed that humanity is true and simple goal. No, we have never been human said Steve Fuller. I didn’t know the many possibilities of posthuman and transhuman worlds. I have learned some new content and attitudes, no doubt.

I have learned participation too. This course has many excellent students who built FB group, Twitter chats and wikis. It seems that the idea of MOOC has developed a new generation who really is self directive and uses the technological possibilities. There were models to follow, friends to ask help. For instance Chris at the beginning and Fran Monaghan in the forums, she followed new questions there and answered to many co-learners. The facilitators are not alone, every student can be a facilitator.

This edcmooc was a great experience, the facilitators were excellent models and so were the peers. I learned a lot, time will tell how much. I am not sure anymore what should be the object of assessment: individual student or the course at a whole? Perhaps I should describe the new networked learner?


My final digital artefact #edcmooc

This is the last Wednesday to post your artefact. I did it at the moment “Submission due on Wed 27 Feb 4:00 pm (11 hours, 19 minutes)”. I am tired and happy. My work seems like a child’s homework if I compare it to others, so I do not compare. If you check this vimeo in JuBo’s blog, you understand what I mean. I am at the very beginning of digital expression. I write and combine some photos of my one, but I am interested in metaphors and visualizations.

My theme is Empowering in virtual context and I use myself as a case. I have lived through this empowering process about twenty years, not easy but enjoyable. I am glad that I found edcmooc and I wanted to participate until the end. No doubt that many discussions continue after this course.

There is neither voice not music in my presentation and I do not dare to add them. I am afraid to break all down. There is a link to “We are the Vikings” in YouTube, which I found during this course. It makes me empowered, the idea of digital viking is great.

Identity empowered

Blog story – practicing Prezi #edcmooc

I have never used Prezi and wanted to practice it. It was not easy at all, but I did this story of this blog.

There was an active period at the beginning of the course edcmooc. I wrote a blog post gathering interesting blogs and a new network began to live. Digital viking -concept inspired me greatly and – again – I found new friends. I was happy about my post emergent learning and the comments I received. Other blog posts are more ordinary stories, I was not so enthusiastic myself .

The visits come all over the world, USA and UK come after my own country Finland. The list of cities is interesting. Australian people are active in two cities. The sources, ways to find my blog, are Twitter, Facebook and the course news etc.

This prezi is funny but I have to leave this and begin to plan my final assignment, a digital artefact. I think I’ll not use Prezi 🙂 I copied the code for embedding but it was only a link address. I am not sure if here is any sense in my doings.

another try to embed the story



My image to #edcmooc Flickr stream

I love the way how our course edcmooc is organized. We have very heavy texts to read and reassert our humanity, world shaking texts – and simultaneously we are asked to throw our images to Flickr: whatever we want, no rules or directives. So I went to Flickr after three years and it recognized me. It is very relaxing to look at photos, which co-learners put there. Here is mine:

I was walking on that snowy road and the question rose to my mind. We have very clear seasons in Finland and it has something to do with our minds. Just now we are waiting for a sunny day, I don’t remember when I have seen the sun, always cloudy.

My favorite film on third week is ‘They are made out of meat”. I really love it. Connected to lectures asking if we ever have been human, these are shaking my childish optimism. And one harm still: I am made out of meat but bones too. Yesterday I got a new medicine which cares the worn little bones in my neck and the medicine makes me feel very tired. But I have no time to be sick, I want to participate #edcmooc 🙂

Learning from the future as it emerges #edcmooc

Human learning has been my favorite topic in this blog from the  beginning. Now I meet this topic on edcmooc, which recommends a lecture of Campbell Gardner: Ecologies of Yearning. I studied psychology at a university since 1964- and know the learning theories, first behaviorism and then its critics. In the 1970’ies we Finnish university students learned to know Bateson and his three levels of action/consciousness. We wanted be revolutionary and change the old frames and build up something new, our own perspectives. So does every generation and believes that it is the very first time. That’s life and so it must be, I suppose.

It was good to meet Bateson again. The challenge is the same and the goal to think differently, is it nearer now? In my eyes, it was most convincing that the lecturer spoke at his edges, he was after something new, he was teaching himself via the many text slides. I loved the sayings: we don’t see things how they are – we see them how we are. Human learning is very limited without self- awareness. I do not like the way how Bateson’s double binds are transferred to education in a simple way. People were laughing at paranoids and other fool people, oh no. If a child meets these impossible double bind situations, its is not a right place to laugh at. It could be better to speak about stacked loops only: how many levels of one’s learning the student is aware.

The next phase in this way is in 1980’ies reflection-in-action and on-action (Schön). Kitchener and King built a Reflective Judgement Model, which opened my eyes again. They used concepts as Quasi-reflective reasoning and reflective reasoning. They described the continuous development from one frame to another, from narrow to broad, from concrete to abstract and so on.

What is the learning that is going on during this edcmooc? is not a question which can be easily answered. Many people have been thinking about it since the first moocs and I participated in a research meeting in autumn 2009 for the first time. One of the best research articles, I think;  are written by Roy Williams and Jenny Mackness. They are developing a dynamic description about learning and I was happy to meet Roy in one of our edcmooc discussion forums ‘metaphors for opening education’. I put one image here, this describes learning in CCK08 and I can recognize some parts of it.

The dimensions are explained in their publications in IRRODL (March 2011 and October 2012). Trust and Risk can be seen here, also Campbell Gardner spoke about ‘feeling homely enough’. Both are needed, fear and safety.

I have printed the articles of Roy and Jenny in order to read them well, but the moment has not yet come. Actually. it is not a lack of time, it is lack of my understanding – how on earth do they build up this map of learning landscapes?

I am sure that during edcmooc many great descriptions about learning will appear and become published in different ways. This course has the right atmosphere, climate for supporting creativity. I am surprised how well this course is working. We have people enough so that diversity does not turn to like-mindedness. We can listen to each other and be curious about the differences we have. It is great to participate on this course.

At last I want to refer to one of my older posts: Dreaming about deeper learning, Apr 22nd 2012. There is a seven minutes video where Otto Scharmer says the words which I wrote to the heading of this post: Learning from the future as it emerges. Stop downloading the same stuff, observe, explore the future by doing something. Open mind, open heart, open will – a road less traveled. Please listen to Otto Scharmer.

I have to add here a link to another digital viking, Asbjörn. I have a feeling that his blog Digimatik deals with same questions as I try tto handle here. Actually, we schould explore how Bateson and Scharmer connect with digital viking lifestyle or mindset?


Fantasy and science fiction: peer feedback

My course of Fantasy and science fiction is ending this weekend and it is time to analyze my experiences. I had to work very hard during these eight weeks. All the novels were new to me (never read those books in English) and I work slowly when I use English. Now I am tired and happy. The course worked well: our teacher Eric Rabkin is brilliant and the student community learned to support each others. This time I will handle the feedback I got from my peers. How did it function as a source of learning?

The feedback was organized so that everybody got feedback from four randomized, anonymous peers every week (after sending the feedback to four others). Peer feedback was guided to handle two aspects in the following way:

FORM here refers to matters of grammar, usage, and structure. Are the sentences grammatically correct? Are the words properly used? Is the exposition and argument laid out clearly? An ideal response would note one aspect of Form that the writer does well and would profit by continuing and one aspect of Form that the writer would profit by improving in ways you make clear.

CONTENT here refers to matters of insight, argument, and example. Does the essay show a deep understanding of some aspect of the work or of a pattern that one can see in the work? Does the argument make sense, feel persuasive, and reveal the significance of the insight or insights? Are there concrete details from the text that support the argument and that we come to understand more powerfully because of the argument? An ideal response would note one aspect of Content that the writer does well and would profit by continuing and one aspect of Content that the writer would profit by improving in ways you make clear.

I was used to use peer feedback in my work as a teacher educator. Peer learning was a normal part of our work and useful practice to our students, who were becoming teachers. It was not a big step to me to use peer feedback and I did not miss direct assessment from the professor.  His feedback was in the videos. My problem was to believe too much on my ability to write and think in these literature studies. I had to use my knowledge of the human mind (psychology and education). I had used English language in my own studies, reading books, writing some articles, but during last years only blogging and twittering.  I was not sure if it is wise to study literature in English, but I decided to try what happens.

In the first diagram you can see our program and my grades (form, content +the sum) and the number of peers, from which I got feedback. Minimum is two and maximum could have been 6. My best is 4 and I agree with that.

It was very important to receive straight and honest feedback at the beginning of the course. The grade (number) is only a short way to describe the level; the qualitative feedback showed me my typical mistakes and weakness. All the four peers told that in my first essay:

“The title was not explored by the writer. The essay is basically a summary of the novel and In my opinion, the ideas are not linked. This theme is very interesting and could be better explored.”

” the exposition and argument are not clear. The writer didn’t explore the subject proposed. There is no thesis or development of ideas. There is no progression, only the gathering of information and facts presented in a descriptive manner.”

I had to agree with their assessment after re-reading my essay in a critical mind. This was perhaps the most important moment of my studies. I am grateful for the long feedback and good advices about what I should do better.

I concentrated better on my second week and begin to receive more acceptable notes. Nobody suspected me about plagiarism (the discussion in the forums was plenty). I had mistakes enough and I original themes almost every time. I was proud to hear that

“Your thesis was different, and new, so you get points for originality.”

“Gosh, now I’ll always think of Poe’s characters while reading yet another rant on the forum. Possibly imagining fellow students chasing each other with an ax. An improvement!”

“The essay is interesting and ‘thought-provoking’.”

My ‘favorite weakness’, lack of clarity and logic, was not easy to take away and leave. Sometimes I succeeded in the form and forgot the content, and sometimes on the contrary. Comments like these followed me up to the end:

“The first paragraph and the final sentence of the essay are completely unnecessary; the rest of it is well expressed.”

“Your two questions in the intro are excellent questions, either one of which would have resulted in a full essay. Your essay, though, did not fully examine either of these questions”

“The argument is not very clear Please stick to one argument and explore it completely.”

I did not know how difficult it is to write a coherent essay with 320 words. Now I am more aware of my weaknesses in thinking and writing. These peer assessments were given anonymously and it made possible the honest speech. My learning curve is smooth as the following diagram proves.

I received 30 assessments and everyone was written seriously and honestly. It was easy to agree with the feedback. My language was assessed bipolar from poor to good without any mistakes. The students came from different cultures and many had English as Second Language (ESL), so the ability to assess grammar must differ. It was fine to receive advices from experts, an example here.

“Overall a good effort. ‘An utopia’ should be ‘a utopia’. The rule is that if a noun begins with a consonant sound you precede it with ‘a’. Utopia begins with the consonant sound ‘Y’ (as in youth’) and not the vowel sound of ‘Y’ as in ‘any’; so the phrase should be ‘a utopia’.  Also, watch your lack of the word ‘the’. For example ‘women in Herland’ should be ‘the women’, ‘comprehend all issues’ should be ‘comprehend all the issues’, ‘overcome obstacles’ should be ‘overcome the obstacles’ and ‘at least two of three’ should be ‘at least two of the three’. Comma placement in this sentence, ‘the male visitors had an opportunity to learn, too, and their minds etc…’ should be ‘the male visitors had an opportunity to learn too, and their minds etc…’ In general, these were minor issues.” Thanks for teaching me.

I got a positive  experience about peer learning during this course; it really worked to me. Perhaps I did easy mistakes to correct in my language and my writing as well. Perhaps the best literature students did not receive relevant comments, I don’t know. Some were disappointed which can be seen in the discussion forums.  My background as a teacher,  a feedback expert, surely helped me. I considered peer feedback as a normal behavior and an excellent source of learning. I am happy about participating this course and I’ll blog more about other aspects of my learning. Thanks to you all!


Fantasy and Science Fiction

A new episode in my life in the internet is going on; I study literature on the course ‘Fantasy and Science Fiction. The Human Mind. Our Modern World’. This is my third week on the course and I am writing my essay about Edgar Allan Poe today. I took a break in writing and came here to tell why I am committed to these studies. All important things are excellent:

  • the course is well organized and it  helps to proceed in learning and monitoring with other participants
  • the expert Eric Rabkin loves literature and languages and us, his students. I can feel it when watching his videos.
  • the learning environment / platform is clear and everything works there, no problems at all
  • the best parts for learning are 1. writing an essay after reading the material and choosing the theme and 2. giving feedback to the fellow students about their essays anonymously (randomly selected four students)
  • receiving the feedback, which the students write to me, listening it and pondering on it

It is obvious that learning needs structures, rules and guidance. Following the pedagogical structure I can find my strength and creativity. I am guided to “write to enrich my intelligent, active, attentive fellow students”, so I have to do my best. I have to focus and find the perspective which I can offer as enrichment to them. The essay must be short, only 300 words, so I have to select the content carefully.  I have to respect others as our teacher respects us – the atmosphere is one of the most important things in open online studies.

I was astonished that I learned so much about the peer assessments, which I got from the four fellow students. The assessments differ greatly but I can learn from everyone. Someone corrects my English, someone the  structure of my essay. It is useful to know what leaves unclear to readers. I have already learned a lot, for instance to focus my sayings  better, to say more clearly what I mean, and do not trust that the reader can guess my meanings.

This course reminds me about my experiences as an online teacher. I have found the same principles while teaching online myself and now I can see their effectiveness on a global online course. The studies are well organized. Human development needs guidance to emerge, it needs supporting structures and challenging assignments. Lisa Lane shared in her blog a definition of three kinds of MOOCs: networked-based, task-based and content-based. This ‘fantasy and science fiction’ course is both task-based and content-based, but it is still more: it is based on emerging learning process. It supports the students’ learning process from simple to higher, more complex levels. This improvement is the aim of all online teaching and learning. Have we lost this simple truth and have to find it again and again?