Have you experienced the problem that students submit their assignments in WebLearn, but red alert messages appear and the originality reports are never returned in WebLearn?
WebLearn is integrated with the external Turnitin service (http://submit.ac.uk). Classes and assignments are created behind the scenes in Turnitin, and student papers are submitted there via the WebLearn Assignments tool. There are three places where a problem may occur with the WebLearn-Turnitin integration, plus other issues to check (see point 4 below):
- Creation of the class in Turnitin – this happens when the WebLearn maintainer creates a new assignment and saves it. If you see a red alert message when trying to save an assignment, do not ignore it! It means that the creation of the corresponding class in Turnitin has failed, and originality reports will not be returned. (See flowchart below as to what to do about it.)
- Syncronisation of the class roster between WebLearn and Turnitin – this may fail if there are people in the WebLearn site with external accounts, who have not entered their first name, last name or email address. This may cause all submissions from the site to fail. (See flowchart below as to what to do about it.)
- Upload of student papers – if a red alert message appears alongside a single student’s name, the file that they submitted may be too large, or of an unacceptable file type. There may also be problems within a PDF file, such as text embedded as images, or embedded fonts from a package such as LaTeX. (See flowchart below as to what to do about it.)
- Other things to check:
- The title of the WebLearn site must be longer than 5 characters
- Do not use the ‘Duplicate assignment’ facility in WebLearn – this may cause a problem with duplicate assignment titles in Turnitin
- Do not use an assignment title previously used in the same WebLearn site – this may cause a problem with duplicate assignment titles in Turnitin
Please see this flowchart for more details about what to do in the above situations:
Turnitin Originality Reports not being generated_flowchart
Contact the WebLearn team at firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions about your particular WebLearn assignment.
In late January I wrote here and here about the US Treasury Department, through the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), blocking access to Coursera courses by students in Syria, Cuba, Iran and Sudan (also see Kris Olds article here and IHE article here). The reason for the decision appears to be that MOOCs were classified as educational services instead of informational materials. At the time, edX was permitted to operate in those countries based on their reliance on getting licenses approved by OFAC, whereas Coursera was relying on a broad interpretation by OFAC. edX president Anant Agarwal even posted on a blog a somewhat congratulatory note:
At edX, we are pleased to announce that no one, in any country, is blocked from taking one of our courses, and we have never blocked students from receiving education on the edX platform because of where they live.
EdX has worked for many months with the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets and Control (“OFAC”) and the U.S. State Department to determine how we can assure that no one in any country is blocked from taking an edX course.
Now comes word that edX has been forced by OFAC to block access to several courses for students in Cuba, Iran and Sudan. From The Harvard Crimson late yesterday:
Due to federal regulations, edX plans to block students in Cuba, Iran, and Sudan from taking an upcoming online course on aerodynamics and modern aircraft design, according to a blog post written by edX president Anant Agarwal on Monday.
“We are deeply sorry to have to block any student anywhere from taking an edX course,” Agarwal wrote in the post. “This is completely antithetical to the vision and foundational values of edX and all [massive open online courses]. We will continue to work diligently with the U.S. government until every student, from any country in the world, can take any course they choose on edX.”
The course, entitled “Flight Vehicle Aerodynamics” and taught by MIT faculty, covers advanced physics and aircraft design. It is scheduled to begin classes on March 5.
edX will now have to block IP addresses from these three countries within the specific courses. It is not clear why Syria is not included in the list.
Coursera, for its part, recently hired Google’s Director of Legal for several product lines as the new General Counsel. It is not clear whether this hire is directly related to their recent problems distributing the courses in Syria, Cuba, Iran and Sudan, but the hire should help them navigate the growing problems with foreign operation.
In my opinion, these rulings (first the broad interpretation for Coursera then the specific license interpretation for edX) indicate that the US Treasury Department intends to regulate MOOCs and other online education ventures based on student location. Just as the for-credit online education world is having to deal with State Authorization rules based on the state residency of students, now open education has to consider the country of residency for students.
At least based on government regulators in the US, anytime and anywhere access to education might become less of a reality.
The post edX forced to block access to students in Cuba, Iran and Sudan appeared first on e-Literate.
Check out Map of the Internet 2.0. by JaySimons on @deviantART http://t.co/agRQZhsDEu
2014年3月2日 シリーズ：Victorious Jesus ~勝利のイエス~ （マタイによる福音書のシリーズ） part2-5「イエスのように赦し愛する」 メッセンジャー： 大窪秀幸牧師 / Pastor Hide メッセージノート： http://www.lighthousechurch.jp/message.html 日曜礼拝時間： １１：００〜１２：１５ ライトハウスキリスト教会 大阪府堺市堺区砂道町3-6-19 http://www.lighthousechurch.jp
The New Yorker published an article yesterday titled “A MOOC Mystery: Where Do Online Students Go?” which tried to explain low MOOC completion rates by comparing the situation to the General Educational Development (GED) exam. Right off the bat, the article conflates MOOCs with “online students”. MOOCs are but one form of online education, and a very recent one at that. Worse, however, is that the entire basis for the article is quite flawed – GED results do not give much insight into MOOC students patters, and it turns out there is not much of a mystery in the first place.
The hook in this article seems to be the coincidence of two numbers [emphasis added]:
When the Times declared 2012 the “Year of the MOOC,” it seemed, in the words of the paper, that “everyone wants in,” with schools, students, and investors eager to participate. But, as can happen in academia, early ambition faded when the first few assessments were returned, and, since then the open-online model appears to have earned an incomplete, at best. An average of only four per cent of registered users finished their MOOCs in a recent University of Pennsylvania study, and half of those enrolled did not view even a single lecture. EdX, a MOOC collaboration between Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has shown results that are a little more encouraging, but not much. And a celebrated partnership between San Jose State and Udacity, the company co-founded by Sebastian Thrun, a Stanford professor turned MOOC magnate , also failed, when students in the online pilot courses consistently fared worse than their counterparts in the equivalent courses on campus.
Some of the problems encountered by MOOCs echo those of an earlier model of alternative learning. Last month, the General Educational Development exam, or G.E.D., was replaced by a more challenging computer version. Like MOOCs, the G.E.D, which has been around since 1942, is partially an attempt to save time and money in education, and to extend opportunity to students outside the traditional classroom. As a marker of high-school equivalence, it holds the promise that an entire academic career can be distilled into the knowledge required to pass a five-part exam.
But according to a September, 2013, American RadioWorks report, of the forty per cent of G.E.D.-holders who go on to college, fewer than half complete more than a year, and only about four per cent earn a four-year degree. The additional rigor of the redesigned exam might not be the solution. The military tried a similar approach when, in the nineteen-seventies, it raised the G.E.D. scores required for entry. Even then, G.E.D. applicants quit or were thrown out of the service at a higher rate than enlistees with high-school degrees.
Get it? Oh, the possible conclusions we can draw now that we’ve established this remarkable insight!
There might be just a few problems with this analogy, however.
- The GED is targeted at high school students who did not or could not complete their high school education and graduate; MOOCs appeal for the most part to working professional adults who already have at least a bachelor’s degree (according to the same U Penn Study cited by the New Yorker, an “overwhelming 83 percent already have a two-year or four-year degree, the study showed” and “44 percent have advanced degrees”).
- The “half” and “4%” numbers in the GED study are based on whether or not they got a four-year college degree; other several pilot programs, MOOCs offer no credit towards a degree.
- The GED is an official government program to grant a credential; MOOCs are based on open education in that anyone can sign up, and for the most part the learners do not care about certificates or any acknowledgement of completion.
- The GED is a test – passing the test is the point, not learning; MOOCs are learning opportunities – for the majority of learners, access to educational content is the point, not testing.
- The SJSU / Udacity courses were not MOOCs – they were non-massive, controlled access online courses.
Before we go on, let me point out that I am not making an argument that MOOC completion rates are a non-issue, nor am I arguing that MOOCs are solving higher education problems. What I am pointing out is that the New Yorker is basing its whole article on a faulty analogy.
Not only is the analogy flawed, but the focus on course completion in MOOCs in this simplistic fashion is also flawed, as was pointed out as the #1 takeaway in the HarvardX / MITx study linked by the New Yorker article:
Takeaway 1: Course completion rates, often seen as a bellwether for MOOCs, can be misleading and may at times be counterproductive indicators of the impact and potential of open online courses.
The researchers found evidence of large numbers of registrants who may not have completed a course, but who still accessed substantial amounts of course content. Across the 17 MITx and HarvardX courses covered in the reports, 43,196 registrants earned certificates of completion. Additionally, another 35,937 registrants explored half or more of the units in a course without achieving certification.
The author does acknowledge later in the article this exact flaw in the basis for his own article:
But students may go into an online course knowing that a completion certificate, even offered under the imprimatur of Harvard or UPenn, doesn’t have the same worth. A recent study by a team of researchers from Coursera found that, for many MOOC students, the credential isn’t the goal at all. Students may treat the MOOC as a resource or a text rather than as a course, jumping in to learn new code or view an enticing lecture and back out whenever they want, just as they would while skimming the wider Web.
But by this point, the author has already drawn several conclusions from his pithy insight, so who cares about context at this point?
If the New Yorker wants to explore the MOOC mystery, it turns out that it’s not such a mystery at all what is happening with MOOC students, or at least there is a fair amount of recent and ongoing research into the subject. Here is a graphic that captures some of the MOOC student patterns that is in alignment with more formal studies at Stanford and MIT.
But even better, it turns out that the U Penn study was actually presented at the MOOC Research Initiative Conference. That’s right – an entire conference based on real research into MOOC student patterns. From e-Literate TV, we have a YouTube channel populated with interviews with the MRI conference grantees – there’s a ton of insight available there. Here’s one in particular where Michael interviews Martin Weller from the Open University about their research data:
Unfortunately, I’m sure the New Yorker article will get plenty of airplay. I just hope more people ask some tough questions before jumping into the resulting debates.
Update: I should point out that several of the author’s conclusions about MOOCs have real merit, especially the need for more social interaction as well as MOOCs being incomplete but having potential. These points can be lost, however, by the faulty analogy and setup.
The post A response to New Yorker article on ‘A MOOC Mystery’ appeared first on e-Literate.
Instructors making innovative use of CourseWork are encouraged to apply for the 2014 Teaching With Sakai Innovation Award (TWSIA). This international award goes to an instructor making exceptional use of Sakai (the system upon which CourseWork is based on), recognizing innovation and excellence in technology-supported teaching, academic collaboration, and student engagement. (See winners from 2012 and 2013 )
Award categories include:
- Higher Education: Face-to-Face
- Higher Education: Fully Online or Hybrid Course
- Project Sites & Other Uses of Sakai
Closing Deadline: April 4, 2014
Each applicant will submit an in-depth description of the innovative teaching method, practice or strategy submitted and how it addresses the award criteria.
Winners will be announced in May and recognized at the Apereo (previously Jasig-Sakai) Conference in Miami, Florida, June 1-4, 2014. Registration and travel expenses will be partially subsidized for award winners.
For more information, visit http://www.apereo.org/twsia
ebooks 2014 @ucldis looks super interesting, https://t.co/ljEdOZEQLZ Bit about integrating ebooks and online learning<--paging @wilm
The Apereo Open Academic Environment (OAE) project team is pleased to announce the fourth major release of the Apereo Open Academic Environment; OAE Cardinal or OAE 4. In fact, the team has been so busy that 9 different releases have already taken place under the Cardinal umbrella, which means that the latest version is 4.3.0.
OAE Cardinal's main new feature is push notifications, providing real-time UI updates for activity relevant to the user or activity happening in the context the user is currently looking at. Next to that, OAE Cardinal also adds OAuth support for the REST APIs, activity feed and caching improvements, new UI translations and much more.Changelog Push notifications
Prior to OAE Cardinal, it was necessary to refresh the page to see any changes that have happened since the page was loaded, which caused people to not immediately notice changes or be able to react to new activity. User testing and user feedback also showed that people almost expected immediate updates to be part of a collaborative system like OAE.
The introduction of push notifications addresses this in a very seamless way, providing real-time UI updates for activity relevant to the user or activity happening in the context the user is currently looking at. Some examples of push notifications in action can be seen in the following screencast:
Push notifications use websockets under the hood to push updates to the browser, which is a technological foundation that will be useful for many other features to come. Performance testing these push notifications turned out to be quite a challenge because of the websocket readiness of performance testing tools, but we're pleased to say that we've been able to contribute significantly to the websocket support of Tsung, our performance testing tool of choice.OAuth
It is now possible to authenticate with the OAE APIs via OAuth 2's "Client Credentials Grant". This new authentication mechanism provides much easier programmatical access to the APIs without sacrificing security. After creating an OAuth Client, it can be used to interact with all the OAE APIs on behalf of the client's owner.UI translations
OAE Cardinal now has complete translations for the following new languages:
- Swedish (thanks to Måns Ramberg from Research Research)
- Hindi (thanks to Udaya Ghattamaneni from Marist College)
A number of activity feed improvements have been added to the OAE Cardinal release. Thanks to push notifications, activity feeds will now immediately reflect any actions taken by the current user. For example, files uploaded will be shown in the activity feed straight away, without having to refresh the page, dramatically improving the navigational experience.
Improvements have also been made to the number of activities that show in your activity feed from people you follow. Any private items that the current user is not involved in, will no longer be surfaced. Even though those items were correctly not accessible when clicking through, it removes the potential of exposing something and reduces the amount of activity updates received.Email throttling
A number of precautions have been put in place to avoid people receiving too many email notifications for actions taking place in the system. This is only the first step in a number of improvements that will rationalise the OAE email notification behaviour further down the line, including the introduction of email notification preferences and aggregation.Caching improvements
Improvements to the production build script have been made, ensuring that subsequent builds will not conflict with each other in terms of files cached in the browser. This will make sure that all files are correctly cached, but still correctly refreshed when necessary.Try it out
OAE Cardinal can be experienced on the project's QA server at http://oae.oae-qa0.oaeproject.org. It is worth noting that this server is actively used for testing and will be wiped and redeployed every night.
The source code has been tagged with version numbers 4.0.0, 4.1.0, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.2.0, 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.3.0. The latest version can be downloaded from the following repositories:
Documentation on how to install the system can be found at https://github.com/oaeproject/Hilary/blob/4.3.0/README.md.
The repository containing all deployment scripts can be found at https://github.com/oaeproject/puppet-hilary.Get in touch
The mailing list used for Apereo OAE is email@example.com. You can subscribe to the mailing list at http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/oae-dev.
Bugs and other issues can be reported in our issue tracker at https://github.com/oaeproject/3akai-ux/issues.
Project-Based Learning Finds a Champion in New Documentary http://t.co/CnmLUldtgb Movie trailer: http://t.co/s1cIuVkfcK