Edited by David Alcock, Saturday, 6 Apr 2013, 20:46
Change MOOC – Rice – collaboration on certain courses by institutions and individuals around the globe. Very decentralised with little structure. Relatively little if any funding.
Coursera – MIT – A determination to publish existing courses openly online and to keep them up to date, supported by institutional funds. Highly structured organisation.
Jorum – MIT - – A determination to publish existing courses openly online and to keep them up to date, supported by institutional funds. Highly structured organisation.
Open Learn – USU – A determination to publish many of the University courses online, supported largely by volunteers and with some donations. Medium level of organisation and structure.
Although I can see the logic of the models applied by Wiley they do share something in common; they are all generated from what I might term Macro MOOCS (or perhaps more accurately, OER projects). Wiley is studying large organisations producing large MOOCs. These large organisations have all got substantial resources to support their approach to MOOCs, be it in terms of finance, staff, or power of the brand to gain support from willing volunteers. I feel that this is a bit of a problem because it is surely not only Massive organistaions that are interested in developing MOOCs/OER projects.
Another issue for me is that although Wiley is identifying differences in the models that are producing MOOCs there is very little attention given to the actual sustainability model. That is, once the hype has worn off and MOOCs are so 'yesterday' how will places like MIT find funds to sustain the initiative and how will the RICE initiative retain the enthusiasm of volunteer contributors?
Activity 10
Change MOOC – Rice – collaboration on certain courses by institutions and individuals around the globe. Very decentralised with little structure. Relatively little if any funding.
Coursera – MIT – A determination to publish existing courses openly online and to keep them up to date, supported by institutional funds. Highly structured organisation.
Jorum – MIT - – A determination to publish existing courses openly online and to keep them up to date, supported by institutional funds. Highly structured organisation.
Open Learn – USU – A determination to publish many of the University courses online, supported largely by volunteers and with some donations. Medium level of organisation and structure.
Although I can see the logic of the models applied by Wiley they do share something in common; they are all generated from what I might term Macro MOOCS (or perhaps more accurately, OER projects). Wiley is studying large organisations producing large MOOCs. These large organisations have all got substantial resources to support their approach to MOOCs, be it in terms of finance, staff, or power of the brand to gain support from willing volunteers. I feel that this is a bit of a problem because it is surely not only Massive organistaions that are interested in developing MOOCs/OER projects.
Another issue for me is that although Wiley is identifying differences in the models that are producing MOOCs there is very little attention given to the actual sustainability model. That is, once the hype has worn off and MOOCs are so 'yesterday' how will places like MIT find funds to sustain the initiative and how will the RICE initiative retain the enthusiasm of volunteer contributors?