Proceedings of the inaugural construction management and economics ‘Past, Present and Future’ conference CME25, 16-18 July 2007, University of Reading, UK

This conference was an unusual and interesting event. Celebrating 25 years of Construction Management and Economics provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the research that has been reported over the years, to consider where we are now, and to think about the future of academic research in this area. Hence the sub-title of this conference: “past, present and future”. Looking through these papers, some things are clear. First, the range of topics considered interesting has expanded hugely since the journal was first published. Second, the research methods are also more diverse. Third, the involvement of wider groups of stakeholder is evident. There is a danger that this might lead to dilution of the field. But my instinct has always been to argue against the notion that Construction Management and Economics represents a discipline, as such. Granted, there are plenty of university departments around the world that would justify the idea of a discipline. But the vast majority of academic departments who contribute to the life of this journal carry different names to this. Indeed, the range and breadth of methodological approaches to the research reported in Construction Management and Economics indicates that there are several different academic disciplines being brought to bear on the construction sector. Some papers are based on economics, some on psychology and others on operational research, sociology, law, statistics, information technology, and so on. This is why I maintain that construction management is not an academic discipline, but a field of study to which a range of academic disciplines are applied. This may be why it is so interesting to be involved in this journal. The problems to which the papers are applied develop and grow. But the broad topics of the earliest papers in the journal are still relevant today. What has changed a lot is our interpretation of the problems that confront the construction sector all over the world, and the methodological approaches to resolving them. There is a constant difficulty in dealing with topics as inherently practical as these. While the demands of the academic world are driven by the need for the rigorous application of sound methods, the demands of the practical world are quite different. It can be difficult to meet the needs of both sets of stakeholders at the same time. However, increasing numbers of postgraduate courses in our area result in larger numbers of practitioners with a deeper appreciation of what research is all about, and how to interpret and apply the lessons from research. It also seems that there are contributions coming not just from construction-related university departments, but also from departments with identifiable methodological traditions of their own. I like to think that our authors can publish in journals beyond the construction-related areas, to disseminate their theoretical insights into other disciplines, and to contribute to the strength of this journal by citing our articles in more mono-disciplinary journals. This would contribute to the future of the journal in a very strong and developmental way. The greatest danger we face is in excessive self-citation, i.e. referring only to sources within the CM&E literature or, worse, referring only to other articles in the same journal. The only way to ensure a strong and influential position for journals and university departments like ours is to be sure that our work is informing other academic disciplines. This is what I would see as the future, our logical next step. If, as a community of researchers, we are not producing papers that challenge and inform the fundamentals of research methods and analytical processes, then no matter how practically relevant our output is to the industry, it will remain derivative and secondary, based on the methodological insights of others. The balancing act between methodological rigour and practical relevance is a difficult one, but not, of course, a balance that has to be struck in every single paper.

Massive Open Online Courses on health and medicine: review

Background: Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have become immensely popular in a short span of time. However, there is very little research exploring MOOCs in the discipline of Health and Medicine. This paper is aimed to fill this void by providing a review of Health and Medicine related MOOCs. Objective: Provide a review of Health and Medicine related MOOCs offered by various MOOC platforms within the year 2013. Analyze and compare the various offerings, their target audience, typical length of a course and credentials offered. Discuss opportunities and challenges presented by MOOCs in the discipline of Health and Medicine. Methods: Health and Medicine related MOOCs were gathered using several methods to ensure the richness and completeness of data. Identified MOOC platform websites were used to gather the lists of offerings. In parallel, these MOOC platforms were contacted to access official data on their offerings. Two MOOC aggregator sites (Class Central and MOOC List) were also consulted to gather data on MOOC offerings. Eligibility criteria were defined to concentrate on the courses that were offered in 2013 and primarily on the subject ‘Health and Medicine’. All language translations in this paper were achieved using Google Translate. Results: The search identified 225 courses out of which 98 were eligible for the review (n = 98). 58% (57) of the MOOCs considered were offered on the Coursera platform and 94% (92) of all the MOOCs were offered in English. 90 MOOCs were offered by universities and the John Hopkins University offered the largest number of MOOCs (12). Only three MOOCs were offered by developing countries (China, West Indies, and Saudi Arabia). The duration of MOOCs varied from three weeks to 20 weeks with an average length of 6.7 weeks. On average MOOCs expected a participant to work on the material for 4.2 hours a week. Verified Certificates were offered by 14 MOOCs while three others offered other professional recognition. Conclusions: The review presents evidence to suggest that MOOCs can be used as a way to provide continuous medical education. It also shows the potential of MOOCs as a means of increasing health literacy among the public.

Massive Open Online Courses and sustainability

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have become very popular among learners millions of users from around the world registered with leading platforms. There are hundreds of universities (and other organizations) offering MOOCs. However, sustainability of MOOCs is a pressing concern as MOOCs incur up front creation costs, maintenance costs to keep content relevant and on-going support costs to provide facilitation while a course is being run. At present, charging a fee for certification (for example Coursera Signature Track and FutureLearn Statement of Completion) seems a popular business model. In this paper, the authors discuss other possible business models and their pros and cons. Some business models discussed here are: Freemium model – providing content freely but charging for premium services such as course support, tutoring and proctored exams. Sponsorships – courses can be created in collaboration with industry where industry sponsorships are used to cover the costs of course production and offering. For example Teaching Computing course was offered by the University of East Anglia on the FutureLearn platform with the sponsorship from British Telecom while the UK Government sponsored the course Introduction to Cyber Security offered by the Open University on FutureLearn. Initiatives and Grants – The government, EU commission or corporations could commission the creation of courses through grants and initiatives according to the skills gap identified for the economy. For example, the UK Government’s National Cyber Security Programme has supported a course on Cyber Security. Similar initiatives could also provide funding to support relevant course development and offering. Donations – Free software, Wikipedia and early OER initiatives such as the MIT OpenCourseware accept donations from the public and this could well be used as a business model where learners could contribute (if they wish) to the maintenance and facilitation of a course. Merchandise – selling merchandise could also bring revenue to MOOCs. As many participants do not seek formal recognition (European Commission, 2014) for their completion of a MOOC, merchandise that presents their achievement in a playful way could well be attractive for them. Sale of supplementary material –supplementary course material in the form of an online or physical book or similar could be sold with the revenue being reinvested in the course delivery. Selective advertising – courses could have advertisements relevant to learners Data sharing – though a controversial topic, sharing learner data with relevant employers or similar could be another revenue model for MOOCs. Follow on events – the courses could lead to follow on summer schools, courses or other real-life or online events that are paid-for in which case a percentage of the revenue could be passed on to the MOOC for its upkeep. Though these models are all possible ways of generating revenue for MOOCs, some are more controversial and sensitive than others. Nevertheless unless appropriate business models are identified the sustainability of MOOCs would be problematic.

“Action Research into Pre-sessional Students' Differentiation of Assessments: Using Findings to Improve Courses”

Conference proceedings papaer in Whong, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 BALEAP conference: English in a globalising world: English as an academic lingua franca,. Bern: Peter Lang.

Elderly learners and Massive Open Online Courses: a review

Background: Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have become commonplace in the e-learning landscape. Thousands of elderly learners are participating in courses offered by various institutions on a multitude of platforms in many different languages. However, there is very little research into understanding elderly learners in MOOCs. Objective: We aim to show that a considerable proportion of elderly learners are participating in MOOCs and that there is a lack of research in this area. We hope this assertion of the wide gap in research on elderly learners in MOOCs will pave the way for more research in this area. Methods: Pre-course survey data for 10 University of Reading courses on the FutureLearn platform were analyzed to show the level of participation of elderly learners in MOOCs. Two MOOC aggregator sites (Class Central and MOOC List) were consulted to gather data on MOOC offerings that include topics relating to aging. In parallel, a selected set of MOOC platform catalogues, along with a recently published review on health and medicine-related MOOCs, were searched to find courses relating to aging. A systematic literature search was then employed to identify research articles on elderly learners in MOOCs. Results: The 10 courses reviewed had a considerable proportion of elderly learners participating in them. For the over-66 age group, this varied from 0.5% (on the course “Managing people”) to 16.3% (on the course “Our changing climate”), while for the over-56 age group it ranged from 3.0% (on “A beginners guide to writing in English”) to 39.5% (on “Heart health”). Only six MOOCs were found to include topics related to aging: three were on the Coursera platform, two on the FutureLearn platform, and one on the Open2Study platform. Just three scholarly articles relating to MOOCs and elderly learners were retrieved from the literature search. Conclusions: This review presents evidence to suggest that elderly learners are already participating in MOOCs. Despite this, there has been very little research into their engagement with MOOCs. Similarly, there has been little research into exploiting the scope of MOOCs for delivering topics that would be of interest to elderly learners. We believe there is potential to use MOOCs as a way of tackling the issue of loneliness among older adults by engaging them as either resource personnel or learners.