There's an extent to which I think that innovation in MOOCs has been hampered by the business model of the providers -- the push for Coursera, edX, etc to become dominant brands. While MOOCs are open to learners, they are not an open market to academics. For instance, getting a course onto edX depends on whether an institution is a member of the consortium (and the ones in the club have a strong incentive to keep it exclusive), and within an institution, there are strategic considerations in which courses are commissioned. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- a visible MOOC serves as a marketing instrument for its institution, so of course the senior levels of the university are going to care about which they choose. But it means the goals driving the market at the moment are not only about quality of teaching, pedagogy, or innovation. And it's not like research, where the whole of the academic body is active in publishing and making advances. So we should not necessarily expect the first outcomes to be great advances in pedagogy or teaching innovation.

I suspect that will change. As it becomes technically easier and easier to create a MOOC, the barriers to entry are going to get smaller. The first phase of MOOCs seems to have been a gold rush for public attention, but I expect we'll see a second phase develop which will be more collaborative and innovative.

I don´t think we can evaluate the MOOCs as a whole... I have found some interesting evaluations referred to specific MOOCs here:

http://www.scoop.it/t/gnectera

Best regards

At the moment they have not fulfilled their promise.

I understand the arguments regarding attrition rates, need for human contact, etc., but I am a MOOC-aphile and think their best days are ahead of them. We are only in the very earliest days of this phenomenon and there is a history of disruptive technologies winning out in the end. Students will drift towards things that cost less given a choice. MOOCs have to work out accreditation arrangements and ways to make themselves pay, but this will happen. There will be blends of MOOCs and in-situ learning in the future, and universities -- as they are currently conceived (i.e., as mass market, "bricks and mortar" institutions monopolising higher education) -- in large part will not survive. Nimble, niche higher education providers/businesses will arise curating global educational experiences for the eager student of tomorrow.

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2012/12/can-universities-survive-the-digital-revolution/

I think it's a stretch to say that MOOCs have low retention rates because students' prefer human contact. I've fallen out of two MOOCs this week and it's because I'm busy at work and trying to fit the MOOCs around that. And because they didn't cost me anything, I don't feel too bad about dropping out. If I was formally enrolled in a course at uni, I'd probably think long and hard before I dropped out.

Hi James, I think the basis if your statement needs more thought. I can only really speak from my own experience of taking MOOCs and the data shared with me by MOOC leaders.

*A significant number of MOOC students already have higher education qualifications, so they will already have plenty of experience of attending university.

*The entry level to MOOCs is low for the student. All/most will join without the commitment required to attend a full time degree programme.

*I have dropped out of a few. My reasons are, didn't like the course, no time, too many MOOCs going on at once and I wanted to give one MOOC maximum effort.

*Most people who take MOOCs would never attend the host University in any case. I live in the UK and I am not going to attend a University in the USA, China or Australia.

*The comparison with full time education is spurious. High drop out rates are a characteristic of MOOCs, not a failure. They are not comparable with full time higher education.

The best way to understand a MOOC, is I think to take one. Best Wishes, Matt.

MOOCs are a form of online learning. There has been quite a lot of research into online learning over the past 25 years, but somehow, those in charge of the MOOCs seem not to have looked at any of it. Here's a short summary of what we know works:

1. Online learning works best with relatively small classes. Palloff and Pratt (2001) recommend 20 or fewer.

2. An instructor or TA has to moderate the online discourse space. Otherwise, flame wars can erupt and these can destroy a class.

3. There has to be a discourse space in which the instructor creates a learning or knowledge building community. Without a functioning online community, it is difficult or impossible to achieve deep learning.

What I've found from teaching online is that the students need to be taught how to use the online space effectively. This is best done by having the instructor model effective behaviours, which means the instructor needs to be active in the online discourse space. The instructor also needs to monitor the majority of the posts in order to keep the discourse on track, as the discourse can veer quite a bit off course otherwise.

Because MOOCs seem to have ignored all of this, at least initially (some are now including discourse spaces with social media tools,) they have been far less effective than they could have been if they had been designed properly in the first place. I expect that they will continue to produce third-rate results (at best) unless they are completely redesigned.

Reference:

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom. The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

There's an extent to which I think that innovation in MOOCs has been hampered by the business model of the providers -- the push for Coursera, edX, etc to become dominant brands. While MOOCs are open to learners, they are not an open market to academics. For instance, getting a course onto edX depends on whether an institution is a member of the consortium (and the ones in the club have a strong incentive to keep it exclusive), and within an institution, there are strategic considerations in which courses are commissioned. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- a visible MOOC serves as a marketing instrument for its institution, so of course the senior levels of the university are going to care about which they choose. But it means the goals driving the market at the moment are not only about quality of teaching, pedagogy, or innovation. And it's not like research, where the whole of the academic body is active in publishing and making advances. So we should not necessarily expect the first outcomes to be great advances in pedagogy or teaching innovation.

I suspect that will change. As it becomes technically easier and easier to create a MOOC, the barriers to entry are going to get smaller. The first phase of MOOCs seems to have been a gold rush for public attention, but I expect we'll see a second phase develop which will be more collaborative and innovative.

Its important to think clearly about what role in higher education the MOOCs fill. Academics feel threatened by MOOCs promoted as an alternative to face to face teaching and that seems to have framed the arguments I have read in the media. The true heritage may be in reviving the role of universities in outreach and providing extra mural courses and opportunities for study, but on a "Massive" and "Global" scale.

I have a MOOC-fobia. That's ever since a group of students of a long distance learning program asked me to take their place and pass the online exam for them. I have refused even if they offered me quite a substantial pay. I also know people having passed several such courses and they are still unemployed.

I guess all these issues can be solved, but there is another one that bugs me. MOOC's are cheap because they don't pay proper royalties on content provided. So they scam professors/instructors/authors with a temporary income, cashing in their future.

Even if i hate-it, the future is MOOC, unless people will get to download skills and knowledge directly in their brains. Connecting our brains to Internet is highly probable to happen during our lifetime.

The latest in MOOCs is the addition of "learning hubs" by Coursera:

http://blog.coursera.org/post/65596539008/introducing-coursera-learning-hubs-global

These are centres for students to meet and discuss course materials. I wonder how long it will be before they start to add tutors and other features of traditional classes to these physical hubs?

For my 10 cent worth i wold like to present some facts that from the start people have ignored and these are:

1. Universities are businesses.

2. Universities are in competition with each other.

3. Like any business, Universities need to protect their IP.

4. Publish your IP for all to see and you have no avenue to differentiate and thus compete.

5. From an educators perspective MOOKs are hands-off content systems.

6. Unless fully automated, realistic and dynamic interactive conversational agents are used in the delivery of MOOK content there is no actual "teaching" involved - what is the difference between reading a book?

7. Students do prefer to learn through human interaction and indeed perform better with human learning support. Some are even willing to pay more for extra help from humans when struggling.

8. MOOKs have been tauted as the new way of delivering University courses.

9. Universitys' struggle to deploy "good MOOKs" if any at all.

10. It has been rarely suggested that MOOKs might be significantly limited in there viable application.

11. MOOKs present a significant development cost.

12. Distance education is moving toward the increased use of synchronous interaction between human teacher and student. This is a segment of the University market that might use MOOKs yet we are increasingly seeing the benefits and importants of human interaction in the learning process.

In light of these points I would pose the question - in what context might MOOKs be useful to either a student or a University?

The answers to this question might lead to a more tempered and balanced use, application, treatment or discussion of MOOKs.

Cheers folks

I agree with Matt that many who take a mooc are already comfortable in the online context and as they have experience with higher education. Perhaps that gives them the skills to handle learning in a mooc which I find can be bit of an uncomfortable place to learn, and also not gaining credit means those doing these courses tend to be self starters.

I also agree with Donn that it is similar to online courses, and in these you really need to have good pedagogy to make it work. For example, some responders here have mentioned the necessity of the social aspect, and I agree. I don't think it is enough to say 'here is a forum go send a message that 5,000 people may read, and hopefully someone will reply". For most learners, that just won't work!

However I do think they will be here to stay if the pedagogy is improved or if they could be used to build courses in local contexts. For example, facilitators could used them as basis for P.D. courses in their own organisation, build a small community of learners, provide the structure the individuals might need and extra support where necessary.

So, I am waiting too, to see what happens!

Andrea

I don't think the dogged protection of IP is a way forward. That means that universities differentiate themselves only through their course content. I don't believe that for a second. There are good and bad things about MOOCs. One of the goods things is that they are making educators from all sorts of areas, reflect on their own practice. I don't think it's helpful to say: 'MOOCs are bad and the sky is falling.' Instead, it's an opportunity to say: 'What can I learn from MOOCs? How can those lessons enrich my own teaching (and learning)? How can I understand my students and potential students better through the way they interact (or don't) with MOOCs?'

Hi Helen, I completely agree. It's hard to support that argument when most research that is funded by governments and research councils has a mandated Open Access element and many universities market their research through Open Access repositories, some of which provide content for MOOCs. Material not OA is enabled through special arrangements with publishers which protects publishers copyright and that of the authors.

It's also hard to sustain in the face of the size of universities and their MOOC offering. The debate appears to be conducted in the belief that all university staff are involved in MOOCs. Of course its only a small number, and from the MOOCs I have taken many of the academic leaders and their teaching assistants are actively enjoying their "international" status, having a new area of expertise and gaining form the interaction with their students. Even indirect marketing their academic output.

While I accept that universities are businesses not every business benefit has an actual cost. The marketing benefits of a good MOOC are great. Their are universities in USA and one in the UK about which I knew nothing and now know a great deal. I am sure I share that experience with tens of thousands of others, some of whom are potential students. BW Matt

Let's imagine a future where MOOCs are ubiquitous, and parasitic businesses exist to curate educational content and provide support services (for a fee). This would, I feel, effectively bypass traditional universities -- although not in the immediate term.

Example: someone wants to study Visual Arts. One MOOC provides a solid grounding in Chinese ceramics, taught by a world expert from Beijing; another provides content in the renaissance painting taught by a world expert from Harvard, etc. This content is free, or largely free, and assessed in examination centres around the world so that one's identity could be verified -- something like how Microsoft engineering courses are presently administered.

With the money saved from not attending one university for 3- 4 years (and in the future -- thanks to MOOCs -- there WILL be no reason to remain on one campus for the duration of a degree ) participating students fly to Florence and Beijing to see Chinese ceramics and renaissance painting in the flesh with their guide/curator. They meet the world experts and discuss things with them related to their field of expertise, in-situ where the object of discussion is the material taught via the MOOC in the privacy of their own home.

Another example, a student wants to study Finance. Again, the content is taught by world experts via MOOCs, assessed in examination centres--perhaps with some (paid for) tutorial discussions in various locations near students’ homes if desired (by qualified tutors). Again, students fly to Wall Street and see how American commerce operates, and Beijing to see how it works in Asia, or Russia, or wherever. They visit major companies and learn their trade in-situ with real companies dealing with real finance problems. There might be employment spin-offs. MOOCs are already liaising with major companies to allow dovetailing of employment for 'graduates' after qualifying from their courses.

Free content, accreditation, possible employment, real-world experience in-situ with world experts.

My question is: why would this not a preferable means of higher education to that we currently have on offer?

It strikes me that many of the present "objections" to MOOCs are misplaced and don't look long-term. I note that one can study jazz drumming via one MOOC taught by a major figure in modern jazz.. If this is possible, anything is.

You might be interested in this rather spicy comment from educational expert, Prof Tony Bates on the matter: ( http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/04/15/time-to-retire-from-online-learning/)

And then there’s MOOCs. I can’t express adequately just how pissed off I am about MOOCs – not the concept, but all the hubris and nonsense that’s been talked and written about them. At a personal level, it was as if 45 years of work was for nothing. All the research and study I and many others had done on what makes for successful learning online were totally ignored, with truly disastrous consequences in terms of effective learning for the vast majority of participants who took MOOCs from the Ivy League universities. Having ignored online learning for nearly 20 years, Stanford, MIT and Harvard had to re-invent online learning in their own image to maintain their perceived superiority in all things higher educational. And the media fell for it, hook, line and sinker. This is a battle I no longer want to fight – but it needs fighting. But my reaction did make me wonder, am I just an old man resisting the future? And that has definitely left a mark. - See more at: http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/04/15/time-to-retire-from-online-learning/#sthash.7jo2lvpK.dpuf

I can understand how an academic can be pissed off if they feel their work has been ignored, but there is not a shred of argument in the above comment. This is just counter-bluster -- and therefore no better than the bluster from MOOC adherents.

Not all things are done for good reasons. MOOCs will increasingly find adherents merely because of cost factors.

How many of us really buy hard copy newspapers now, or physically go to the bank to do our banking (and there are good reasons to do both)? Not many I suspect. This is a generational thing.

To answer Martin, the argument put forward by Prof. Bates was not counter-bluster. The people who created MOOCs seem to have not so much ignored previous research so much as to have been unaware that it existed because they didn't look. They really believed they were pioneering new territory instead of replicating previous errors.Had they consulted anyone who had actually looked at the research about online learning, they would have produced more effective systems.

To throw millions of dollars of money into things that are already known to be less than effective is, for me, problematic, given that researchers who already have knowledge of what works seems to be a poor use of money, and likely to fail.

I know that the people who have created MOOCs have good intentions, but reality really does intervene in these efforts.

I was referring to the comments made by Andrea, and the link she provides, not to Professor Bates' work overall -- the latter might well be full of well-argued points for all I know. However the link Andrea directs us too seems to me to be just a embittered rant from a retiring academic.

I can appreciate that there might be all kinds of well-argued points against MOOCs. Maybe they are right. However, MOOCs are being driven -- rightly or wrongly -- by big money (Bill Gates has put 20 million or so into the Khan Academy I believe, and silicon valley business people are financially driving UDacity), and as we all know, money talks.

MOOCs will continue to take market share as consumers become more cost-conscious as well. Asian students are particular price sensitive. And there is the whole argument about "democratising education": MOOCs allow a very bright kid in Africa to learn, and that must be a good thing.

The jury is still out on whether MOOCs have fulfilled their promise, but it is very early days.

Hi Martin,

This exerpt by Prof Bates I don't think is an embittered rant. I follow his blog because he has a lot of great comments and is well known in his academic area. He has a passion for learning and teaching, and naturally would be disappointed if the body of research into virtual learning is not used to create a MOOC that can indeed achieve its goals. I think that sometimes we see things we don't like but say them prettily to not offend. So I think Bates, in this decided to say what he really thinks.

I also think it is important to take heed in what he says. If a mooc is designed pedagogically poorly, then your bright kid from Africa may not be able to achieve what he wanted.

I think, there are successful examples predicting the future of MOOC's. I agree that cons for a massive course also exist but all participants recognize the many advantages. In the follow link you can see the participants in the course "Teaching Character...." and make conclusions https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zM8dyfYikb1k.k6Gz72sE6r4Y

I also support this opinion "To all those who declared our experiment a failure, you have to understand how innovation works,” wrote Thrun in his Udacity blog. “Few ideas work on the first try. Iteration is key to innovation.” (http://fernandotech.com/?p=48)

Dear Andrea

I mean no disrespect to Prof Bates at all. I just thought the excerpt you directed us to had negligible argument/evidence. His blog might well be full of great points as you suggest.

Hi All, regarding the reference to "the bright kid from Africa" - while I understand what you mean, I find the reference to be rather offensive. Regarding the ability of MOOCs to reach all: That theory relies on the supposition that everyone has the requisite computing/IT facilities and necessary internet access - not necessarily the case!