Page 1 of 2 (29 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 28 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 10524
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Posted: Fri, Aug 26 2016 3:50 AM

Thank you for the free course, NT156. However, the Requirements would cost me over $1000 mainly because many of them are only available as part of a much larger package. If a course requires certain resources, they should be made available for individual purchase.

This is similar to being given a "free" St Bernard puppy Stick out tongue

Posts 3174
Whyndell Grizzard | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 26 2016 4:56 AM

The Mobile Ed courses are all this way- even if their free- cost $600- 100 to make them fully functional

Posts 1246
David Mitchell | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 26 2016 6:33 AM

I've watched a number of courses without doing the associated readings, and I still got quite a bit of value from them. (a future version of the Courses Tool may even let you turn off some or all of the readings so that they don't even show up)

David Mitchell
Development Lead
Faithlife

Posts 10524
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 26 2016 1:47 PM

David Mitchell:
I've watched a number of courses without doing the associated readings

Then, they should not be labeled "Requirements". I understand the different between "Suggested Reading" and "See Also" in the MEd Courses, but the terminology in the course description is misleading and incorrect. Those resources are not "Requirements".

To me, it is also poor—maybe even less than smart—marketing. If I am looking to purchase a course and see "Requirements" totaling several hundred dollars—in addition to the cost of the course itself—I may pass.

Posts 1083
Myke Harbuck | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 26 2016 4:34 PM

Jack Caviness:

David Mitchell:
I've watched a number of courses without doing the associated readings

To me, it is also poor—maybe even less than smart—marketing. If I am looking to purchase a course and see "Requirements" totaling several hundred dollars—in addition to the cost of the course itself—I may pass.

 

I could not agree more. I think the term "suggested reading" or "supplemental reading" would be much better (although I do concede that it should be required reading, because the course isn't technically a completed course without reading the content that the course developers included in the curriculum - its just an issue of terminology, not content), and would reduce some hesitation that may exist with a potential mobile ad consumers.

Myke Harbuck
Lead Pastor, www.ByronCity.Church
Adjunct Professor, Georgia Military College
Mac OS 10.13.6 High Sierra, Mid 2015 iMac, 2.5GHz i7, 32 gbRAM, 1tbSSD

Posts 2212
Damian McGrath | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 26 2016 4:40 PM

Jack Caviness:
Then, they should not be labeled "Requirements". I understand the different between "Suggested Reading" and "See Also" in the MEd Courses, but the terminology in the course description is misleading and incorrect. Those resources are not "Requirements".

I would like the "suggested readings" and "see also" listed on the product page with the accompanying asterisk for not owned resources. I would like them divided like this in the plan details of the courses.

It would be helpful to see also the number of times they are referenced in the course.

All of this data seems available in the documents on the faithlife group page.

Posts 10524
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 26 2016 5:36 PM

Damian McGrath:

Jack Caviness:
Then, they should not be labeled "Requirements". I understand the different between "Suggested Reading" and "See Also" in the MEd Courses, but the terminology in the course description is misleading and incorrect. Those resources are not "Requirements".

I would like the "suggested readings" and "see also" listed on the product page with the accompanying asterisk for not owned resources. I would like them divided like this in the plan details of the courses.

It would be helpful to see also the number of times they are referenced in the course.

All of this data seems available in the documents on the faithlife group page.

Thank you for completing the thought I started—but left unfinished—and for the additional recommendations.

Posts 3024
SineNomine | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 26 2016 6:19 PM

Jack Caviness:
David Mitchell:
I've watched a number of courses without doing the associated readings
Then, they should not be labeled "Requirements". I understand the different between "Suggested Reading" and "See Also" in the MEd Courses, but the terminology in the course description is misleading and incorrect. Those resources are not "Requirements".

I've taken a number of postsecondary courses over the years without doing some or all of the Required Reading, typically not to any meaningful detriment to my learning (or final mark). At the same time, plenty of the Required Reading that I have in fact done contributed very little to my learning and even less to my final mark. Some Required Reading is worth doing, some isn't, and the percentage of each varies dramatically by course. I have never had any particular reason to expect different from MEd, especially when one doesn't have to do assignments, which is almost the only reason why Required Reading is ever actually required to succeed in any course whatsoever.

Posts 10524
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 27 2016 2:55 AM

SineNomine:
I've taken a number of postsecondary courses over the years without doing some or all of the Required Reading, typically not to any meaningful detriment to my learning (or final mark).

Maybe so, but that was not my point in this thread. To call certain resources "Requirements" and then taking them available only as part of a large package is not good marketing. They are not required for the course, and they are not called requirements within the course. The terminology should be consistent.

To someone who does not know about "Suggested Reading" and "See Also", it appears that the "free" course will actually cost several hundred dollars to complete. To replay that Requirements are not actually required misses the point.

Posts 1012
EastTN | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 27 2016 3:55 AM

I have a dumb question.  When a Mobile Ed course is included in a base package, have the packages been structured so that they include all of the required resources for the course?  That would seem like a natural thing to do in order for the base package to really hang together.

Posts 15
Joe Griffin | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 27 2016 4:39 AM

You can buy the resources individually already.

Posts 1699
JoshInRI | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 27 2016 5:21 AM

Jack, your puppy note made me chuckle out loud...thanks for that this morning.

Posts 1012
EastTN | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 27 2016 6:00 AM

Joe Griffin:

You can buy the resources individually already.

Well, sure. My question was a bit different.  Let's say I buy Standard Gold in part because that base package includes Mobile Ed: CM328 Preaching the Psalms, and Standard Silver does not.  I would find it a source of frustration if I found that the package didn't also include the resources I needed to actually use the course.  Basically, I'm trying to understand how meaningful it is that the courses are included in the base packages.  If the required reference materials are included too, then it's arguably very meaningful.  If they aren't, and you have to buy additional resources to get full use out of the courses, then they don't do nearly as much to improve the attractiveness of the base packages. 

Posts 27558
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 27 2016 6:12 AM

EastTN:
I would find it a source of frustration if I found that the package didn't also include the resources I needed to actually use the course.

Great question... and I don't know the answer. Hopefully we can find out! 

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 927
Bill Moore | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 27 2016 6:35 AM

alabama24:

EastTN:
I would find it a source of frustration if I found that the package didn't also include the resources I needed to actually use the course.

Great question... and I don't know the answer. Hopefully we can find out! 

That is a good question. Having all the resource material is not crucial to me, but having the basic resources should be a part of the package, so it seems. 

Pas far as the free courses that come along in Logos Now, that is not so crucial. They provide a nice add on, and what I glean from the video or audio is sufficient. 

Pastor, Cornerstone Baptist Church, Clinton, SC

Posts 13348
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 27 2016 7:16 AM

EastTN:
Let's say I buy Standard Gold in part because that base package includes Mobile Ed: CM328 Preaching the Psalms, and Standard Silver does not.  I would find it a source of frustration if I found that the package didn't also include the resources I needed to actually use the course.  Basically, I'm trying to understand how meaningful it is that the courses are included in the base packages.  If the required reference materials are included too, then it's arguably very meaningful.  If they aren't, and you have to buy additional resources to get full use out of the courses, then they don't do nearly as much to improve the attractiveness of the base packages.

I checked the course, and Gold includes most, but not all of the extra reading. Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis: Interpreting the Psalms, by the author of the course, is the most notable absentee. Anointed Expository Preaching is another, as are several Wiersbe volumes.

To be honest, I often skip the extra reading in MobileEd courses anyway. If a few readings are missing, you're not going to notice too much.

Posts 1012
EastTN | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 27 2016 7:28 AM

Mark Barnes:

I checked the course, and Gold includes most, but not all of the extra reading. Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis: Interpreting the Psalms, by the author of the course, is the most notable absentee. Anointed Expository Preaching is another, as are several Wiersbe volumes.

Thanks for the quick answer - that's very helpful.

Posts 3024
SineNomine | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 27 2016 7:58 AM

Jack Caviness:

SineNomine:
I've taken a number of postsecondary courses over the years without doing some or all of the Required Reading, typically not to any meaningful detriment to my learning (or final mark).

Maybe so, but that was not my point in this thread. To call certain resources "Requirements" and then taking them available only as part of a large package is not good marketing. They are not required for the course, and they are not called requirements within the course. The terminology should be consistent.

I think you're making two points.

1. Stuff listed as Required Reading should actually be required.

2. Stuff listed as Required Reading for a particular course should be available as a bundle for purchase.

To one, I suspect that implying this policy in a strict sense would lead to many if not not most MEd courses not having any Required Reading whatsoever, just as it would do the same for most accredited post-secondary courses. (I myself am confused about why more than a small percentage of people would think that reading is required just because it's in a list that says it is, but I guess that MEd probably draws a non-trivial number of people who are not used to "Required Reading" on post-secondary course syllabi.)

A secondary problem here is that what one student needs to read in order to understand a lecture, another student does not need to read. If a professor knows or suspects that to be the case with a particular reading or set of readings, what category should s/he put it in? For one, it may be required; for another, useful; for a third, a complete waste of time. I've seen/lived through versions of that a lot in post-secondary courses too, and the reading in question is usually listed as mandatory.

Ultimately, what hermeneutic should you use, especially in a course that is (normally) not assessed, to define a particular reading as "Required"? If everyone can agree on that, then a generalized solution can be worked out. Or, perhaps, that agreement has already more or less occurred (between or among FL's instructors and FL itself) and you would like that agreement changed.

To two, I agree fully. Even if most or all of the resources in a particular bundle were not/could not be discounted, it would be helpful for people to be able to get them all (at least, all of the ones FL offers) in one place.

Posts 10524
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 27 2016 9:06 AM

EastTN:
have the packages been structured so that they include all of the required resources for the course

The point I have been making is that the "Requirements" are actually not required to complete the course and are not labeled as required within the individual course. There are two problems

1) The terminology is misleading and counterproductive.

2) Resources listed as required should be available for individual purchase, but many of them are only available as part of a very expensive package.

Posts 10524
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 27 2016 9:09 AM

SineNomine:
(I myself am confused about why more than a small percentage of people would think that reading is required just because it's in a list that says it is,

When I attended undergrad and grad schools, "Required" meant that this material was required to obtain credit for the course. The student had to certify that this reading had been completed in order to get credit for the course.

SineNomine:
I agree fully. Even if most or all of the resources in a particular bundle were not/could not be discounted, it would be helpful for people to be able to get them all (at least, all of the ones FL offers) in one place.

I don't necessarily want them available in a package for a particular course—that would be extra complication. Rather, I would like to see them available for individual sale, but at present some are only available as part of a package whose overall content has nothing to do with the course I am taking.

For instance, in this screenshot, I wanted to purchase Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, but FL says not unless you spend much more. The least I can spend to obtain that one resource is $95.00, and several others in the list are also only available as part of a package.

Page 1 of 2 (29 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS