MOOCs (esp. those with certificates)--Which ones are worthwhile, and are they worth mentioning?

[horse.renoir]

Specific to this field, what are people's experiences and opinions when it comes to both pursuing and reporting MOOC-type experiences and/or online education resources such as lynda.com? Which do you find credible (if any)? Which have you seen people report? Which do you think would be worth reporting? Do you have any experiences with classes you'd recommend?

For instance, I have many random self-taught experience working in Python and other similar languages, and specific programs such as PsychoPy. Basically, I know how to do stuff but I've no formal training and I'm not looking/can't afford to take a formal course. I have a lynda.com subscription (and have access to iTunes U) and am thinking of getting some certificates of completion (or whatever whichever source dubs them) in Python and other stuff I'm interested in.

Which do you think would be more important to report on a CV and the like--the certificate of completion, a portfolio of my completed projects (e.g., I developed a novel version of the Stroop task for a specific research project), or both?

FWIW, I've tinkered with Udemy and have already decided against them. If you look at their process of vetting instructors (or, rather, lack thereof) and their being hellbent on maximizing profits, it doesn't lend any credibility to Udemy whatsoever...assuming they had any to begin with.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nessa34]

At what level are you talking about? It may be helpful for applying for post bac jobs and the like to list a certificate of completion or something, but after that it's more about if you can get things done with what you know. So if you programmed a stroop task, then that is more important. But I wouldn't put that on a cv specially, just that you have proficiency in python, etc.

 

[PsychBiker]

It took my a minute to figure out what a MOOC even was, which by the way is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course

 

[researchgirl]

I've participated in some about online teaching / college teaching / etc. that I've found to be interesting and helpful, but I've never thought about putting them on my CV. If I still had a "skills" type section on my CV (which I do not) and I learned a skill from a MOOC I think I'd list the skill; I don't think I'd list the course or certificated from it.

 

[cara susanna]

Generally, academics seem to mostly dislike them so I'm not sure it would help a lot.

 

[WisNeuro]

At the moment, I'd leave the MOOC stuff off. There are so many, and no one knows how to judge their quality just yet.

But, some of those other skills are worth mentioning if they are relevant. I was applying to psychophys labs, and I had experience in E-Prime and some coding, and AFNI experience from my time in a lab. Those things are worth mentioning, as long as they are applicable to where you are applying.

 

[horse.renoir]

At the moment, I'd leave the MOOC stuff off. There are so many, and no one knows how to judge their quality just yet.

But, some of those other skills are worth mentioning if they are relevant. I was applying to psychophys labs, and I had experience in E-Prime and some coding, and AFNI experience from my time in a lab. Those things are worth mentioning, as long as they are applicable to where you are applying.

This has been my gut feeling about it and how I've approached things thus far, but thought it'd be useful to get confirmation. It seems most others share my thoughts.

E-Prime is a great example. I've a good deal of experience using and tinkering with the guts of programs in E-Prime (which, sorry if you liked it, but what a TERRIBLE program!), and while it requires a good sense of broader programming principles and therefore doesn't really seem to be a skill not worth mentioning, it's also used in such specific instances that I wonder about the best method to communicate such proficiencies to a broader audience. In sum, it's a skill worth mentioning that you have (even if you're just talking about the broader technical acumen), but what is the best way to communicate that to various parties? It seems that demonstrating specific projects (a "portfolio" for lack of a better term) is the easiest way to go, but it still leaves something to be desired.

Slightly off track of this post, I feel like, especially in the clinical realm, it should be increasingly important to demonstrate some technical skills beyond knowing how to point-and-click in the GUI of SPSS. Sure, you don't need to be an IT specialist, but IMO it's disconcerning that generations of researchers are still being created who don't know how to troubleshoot the technologies they're using to conduct their research. Knowing how to write good SPSS syntax or R/SAS/M+ code should be an absolute minimal requirement. Maybe I've not seen a representative sample of what programs are currently requiring of students, though. Just my $0.02.

 

[Chyby]

I would also list the skills I've learned from the MOOC courses. If they don't believe me I can prove it since I've learned them. I've learned a lot from MOOC because the quality of university teaching is a complete disaster in my city.

Academics don't like them probably because anyone can join a course like that. You don't get to a thorough admission process. Each course I took had quizzes with possibility to retake them (sometime even 100 times). Therefore, you can retake them until you get a statement of accomplishment. Not to mention that you can always ask for someone else to answer or use Google/books. So you can cheat just to have another paper/diploma added to your CV. Or you can be fair, really learn something from that course and add it as a skill if it's relevant.

 

[Ollie123]

I think it depends what level you are at. For undergrads, I think it makes perfect sense to mention. Though as others have said, I think I'd just list the skill rather than how you got it.

By the time you get to internship, post-doc, job, etc. I think it is unnecessary. Its less about the particulars and more about having the general capacity to get things done and figure things out on your own. Unless it is specifically mentioned in a post-doc advertisement, it doesn't seem worth mentioning. If you do reasonably technical research and are productive, it will be assumed you are generally a competent person and thus able to learn new software if necessary to get things done.

RE: E-prime itself, I think we're talking about the lesser of evils. None of the software out there is great. Superlab is too rigid, DMDX is too finicky and a pain to interface with modern psychophys, etc. Straight Matlab offers the most flexibility but even an expert will take 10x longer to create a new program as it would using other software. Haven't played with Psychopy yet, but have heard the same complaints.

My biggest concern across the board is timing...unless you REALLY go overboard with the programming they can all be quite clunky since many OS's like to grab resources at inopportune times. My grad advisor still ran a 1990's DOS based program for that reason, but it might be the least user-friendly thing in the history of the field (yay assembly language!). Usually not a big deal unless you are looking at very early evoked potentials or other things where a couple milliseconds can make a big difference.