The biggest reason that I am interested in attending this session is that I personally like the thought of having a place to learn more at no cost, but I’m not sure how this model can continue forward since there are no costs for students.

Fundamentally, I don’t get or pretend to understand the idea of how money and education can coexist. To me education is a fundamental need of anyone who lives in a country like ours that is based on freedom and equality. Otherwise, how do we allow for everyone the chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Personally, I wonder how much the institutions of learning that I attended deserved my hard-earned cash, time, and intellect. They still are trying to pry more money from me. It has also made me reconsider the idea of continuing on my formal learning. Why shell out more money for something that requires so much time, money, and effort when I can do most of the heavy lifting myself. It seems like the accreditation is the biggest sticking point. With all that is going on right now, I’m wondering is this is something that will eventually go away.

Here are a few of my notes from the session:

At the beginning and end of the session the presenter talked about participation of those enrolled in MOOCs.

Here is a quote from an Educause publication. “Typically, only a fraction of enrolled students complete the course, and an even smaller subset (e.g., 5 percent) pass.” If you are interested in reading more, here is the link: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB4005.pdf.

Chris mentioned that in his MOOC that he was experiencing 20% participation. It just goes to show that the MOOC is an interesting place, but there are many who choose to participate at different levels. Business and other priorities often get in the way of completion. Not sure how I feel about all of this.

MOOCs allows for experimentation (teaching & learning)

Some of the MOOCs are bringing in serious cash, Coursera (22 Million in venture capital).

Open does not necessarily mean free. Free is more like free speech, not free beer.

Used Drupal as an example of how open has a monetary backbone. Not sure if I understand what the Drupal model is. Is seems like the building blocks are free, but the money that can be made is from creative and entrepreneurial people who take what’s free and make it into something awesome. Or they offer their skills at a price to others who need them. This all goes along with the caveat that as you are creating that you give back to the larger community.

How should schools consider the creation of MOOCs?

MOOC MOdels (Flexible)

• Structure and autonomy
• Credit and Non-credit
• Timed and Open-Ended
• Content-only & Facilitated
• Faculty controlled and Learner controlled
• Social connectedness
• Network effects

MOOC Styles

• Formal & Informal
• Academic Research
• Public Showcase/Exhibition
• Knowledge-gathering
• Branding
• Promoting your Cause

Creating a network of learning

Monetizing MOOCs

• “New” business models
• “Hidden costs”
• $50,000 for an online course – There was a good question about whether schools with large endowments were trying to get rid of state schools with this model. It’s worth a thought from where I sit. But I guess the better question is why are so many drawn to this? Is there something that is missing from a generic education that drives many away from it?
• Notariety can increase more opportunity for instructors (Werbach’s book)

Great point brought up that teaching and learning cannot be about video lectures. It needs to be about connecting and engagement.

A MOOC provides a flexible platform for teaching, learning, sharing, communicating, and collaborating

From MOOCs to MOONs (courses to networks) – next session