Well Markus, I don't know whether I see MOOCs in quite the same way but I'm certainly "watching this space". I think I am more interested in what might be unique to MOOCs than what they can't do effectively (yet). In a way they just represent a way, as you say, to make some online learning more accessible to many more people. But I think there are other things to consider: they represent one aspect of "openness" within the global education sector (open access); they offer a social learning experience at a scale not witnessed before; the whole issue of how assessment will operate in open environments will evolve over time & I suspect new innovations will emerge that may surprise us; there is a growing diversity of learning platforms & MOOCs a just one innovation among many; MOOCs also represent a form of "open education resources" which is a movement that I think will become a growing influence throughout education; & 15 years or so ago the media was hyping the end of bricks & mortar education as we know it -- well, yes, it's changed but it is also resilient . The current hype is just a cyclical formula the news media use to get our attention. Also, just because something has "open" in its name doesn't mean that its openness has a broad meaning. If you look closely into many so-called open initiatives you will find that specific protocols are defined & need to be adhered to for the openness to happen.

Hi Jon, thank you for your answer. I agree that most things manifest differently than expected and maybe that is an opportunity. As open source software played out very differently than expected it was still successful in many ways. I hope to see a similar trend in MOOC's, maybe allowing for more openness. But maybe in the end it depends on what teachers and students demand and are able to offer or am I too optimistic?

Hello Markus, I agreed with your statement that MOOC’s are a good way to teach basic classes, but I wonder whether at the opposite end, MOOCs wouldn’t be also valuable to teach very specialized subjects when professionals do not have the opportunity (time, distance) to follow a refresher course or need to expand their knowledge for a new job for example. Concerning cheating I wouldn't cut down this experience and its possible emerging innovations as Jon pointed out just because of fear of cheating

Until a few weeks ago I had not heard of MOOCs and then I read an article in the NYT. I think that teaching some subjects could benefit from MOOCs especially at the basic level and allowing those for whom a place at university is not possible because of location or lack of money, is not a bad thing. Students could do their first year as part of a MOOC. This would save them thousands of pounds, dollars, Euros or whatever currency they use and it would give people the chance to find out if academic study is suitable for them before going to university. There are too many people who could learn so much more, than circumstances have allowed but a full degree without the rigour of academic review and with the obvious possibility of cheating, would be a problem. Like Valerie I would say that being given the chance to increase someone’s knowledge should not be determined by academia’s worry over cheating. The universities could give credits towards a degree and this is beginning to happen in some American universities but to get the full degree the student should need a original piece of work that is rigorously checked for cheating.

I have also asked similar questions about MOOCs. So much so that I have now enrolled in a MOOC - 'E-Learning and Digital Cultures' on https://www.coursera.org/course/edc

Having worked in Africa for close to a decade, MOOCs offer education for the price of an internet connection. Together with the peer-support MOOC students experience, makes for exciting shifts in the reach education today has. I see education heading towards a more open source model, I am quite certain there will always be the 'Microsofts' and 'Apples', but, I am happy to see 'Linux' rising.

Here's a pretty even handed overview of MOOCs in a blog post by Audrey Watters titled "The Year of the MOOC". One thing she points out is that there seems to be different types of MOOCs: xMOOCs and cMOOCs. As with any topic, as we discuss it we should be aware of the differences within the category. Here's the link to her post: http://www.hackeducation.com/2012/12/03/top-ed-tech-trends-of-2012-moocs/

Hi Peter thx a lot for this link it was very interesting to read and a very good pointer.

The one thing that's often left out of the conversation on MOOCs is the range of skills necessary to actually make any kind of progress through them. I'm concerned that effective participation in a MOOC requires such a high level of digital and information literacy that many people will struggle to even engage with the process. Participants need to find, filter, aggregate, summarise, synthesise and share sometimes quite technical information on a subject that they're unfamiliar with.

The argument is often made that MOOCs will be useful for people who don't have access to formal higher education. However, I would suggest that the people who don't have access to formal higher education are also the people most likely to lack the necessary technological skills to engage effectively in the course. Are we setting up a learning environment that further disadvantages the people who are most often touted as being able to benefit from the approach? Note that I have no data to support this idea, it's just a thought.

I'm not suggesting that MOOCs have no place in teaching and learning. On the contrary, I believe that they represent a major step towards exploring the potential for technology to assist in scaling up teaching and learning relationships. If we want to seriously consider the concept of "education for all", I think that MOOCs (or something very much like them) will have a central role to play. However, I do think we need to be cautious about advocating for MOOCs without taking a critical view.

All good points, Michael - digital literacy skills need to be developed & can only be acquired with practice. But I'm also inclined to think that the skills you point out as being necessary will be better supported over time as the human-computer interfaces get easier & more intuitive to navigate & the online scaffolding improves. So, this is another challenge to good design -- making sure that "learning" (by those who attend) is still at the forefront, not just the "free" course content "delivered online". I'm optimistic that as the digital infrastructure keeps evolving so, too, will good learning design

@Jon: Agreed. The HCI is going to be key in how we interact both with each other and with machines, and the more we can trust algorithms to find what we need, when we need it, the more powerful learning spaces will become. Google Now is a simple example of what's in store for us. Wearable devices, integrated with deeply personal information (e.g. location, search history, online interactions, social graphs, etc.) will go a long way towards negating the challenges I highlighted in my initial response.

Taking a MOOC right now and so far its been very interesting; the presenter/instructor has done an excellent job. Not ready to give the final verdict (evaluation) and identify the course content until the course is finished. By the way, I'm a 75 y.o. professor emeritus who taught undergraduate, medical and graduate students as well as residents for 30+ years so I have a relatively good idea about what biomedical education is about. You can't beat the cost of this method of education.

I am interested in this conversation but am unclear where the evidence comes from that MOOCs cannot be used to teach anything other than instructional. In fact the first MOOC started at Athabasca University was a connectivist MOOC and was deliberately un-instructional.

I think you are referring to xMOOCs here, which are based on different pedagogical principles from cMOOCs.

Marion

Hi Marion. Tank you for your answer. You are right to some extend it sounds like the discussion heads in that direction. Personally, I am most interested in the possible positive effects of MOOC's in general. Well I am actually not so much interested in the "intersection of Wall Street and Silicon Valley". But I think that xMOOC's are an interesting part of MOOC's in general and may yield valuable insight to some aspects. xMOOC's maybe the current hype but they also provide technology that might be useful for cMOOC's as well. When I think of MOOC's I think of new chances for people to learn and receive something to prove their success. The way this knowledge will be communicated may vary the prove that this transmission was successful is necessary in all cases.

Michael Rowe wrote:

"The one thing that's often left out of the conversation on MOOCs is the range of skills necessary to actually make any kind of progress through them. I'm concerned that effective participation in a MOOC requires such a high level of digital and information literacy that many people will struggle to even engage with the process. Participants need to find, filter, aggregate, summarise, synthesise and share sometimes quite technical information on a subject that they're unfamiliar with"

In a previous post I mentioned that I am enrolled in a MOOC. The course is yet to begin and already scores of us have setup facebook groups, google communities, started quadblogging, formed a diigo group, swapped evernote and twitter information and a host of other tools/apps. I agree that the tech aspect can be daunting for many, but, a mooc does not necessarily mean that one has to know it all.

What has been particularly during this stage is the support newcomers or the less digitally literate have received, quickly brought up to speed on the tools available. With the high numbers of participants, there is a hivemind (24hours) one can converse and collaborate with, and get guidance on the absolute necessary tech tools needed to make the learning experience an enriching and efficient process.

This is where I see the power of a MOOC, the sense of community, formation of a 'small culture' and the type of person it mostly attracts - highly motivated or genuinely curious - a great recipe for learning.

Michael Rowe wrote:

"The argument is often made that MOOCs will be useful for people who don't have access to formal higher education. However, I would suggest that the people who don't have access to formal higher education are also the people most likely to lack the necessary technological skills to engage effectively in the course. Are we setting up a learning environment that further disadvantages the people who are most often touted as being able to benefit from the approach? Note that I have no data to support this idea, it's just a thought."

I live and work in Vietnam, many students do not have access to formal higher education, but, internet access is cheap and readily available. Approximately 60 percent of Vietnam's population is under 30 years of age, and very tech-savvy, a number of other countries in Asia and Africa find themselves in this situation.

Dear only useful for advanced scholars who want to learn new stuff. They are not very useful for juniors. They are only useful for juniors in combination with face to face teacher's guidance.

Not at all, certainly only for advantage. Scholar or studentered really interested in learning, which means great time organization, metacognitive skill, commitment, selfexigence and a great deal of construtivism