Edited by David Alcock, Friday, 12 Apr 2013, 14:34
DS106
No thanks. Not for me. Perhaps a great example of a cMOOC at is worst? Not only would I not be at all interested in the topic I could not stand the structure (if there is one). Perhaps more appropriate for the artistic and creatives amongst us, but not the suits. From a technological perpsective it appears to want to make use of much of what is available, just for the 'fun' of it. Pedagogy; what's that? Perhaps in the case of DS106 it is simply about trying to keep the ball rolling and plates spinning. Certainly it is a cMOOC. I expect some would class it as a great example of one. Others (and I wold be in that group) would perhaps say "yes, and that should tell you something about cMOOCs". Is there a business model? I can't see it, though I must admit that I didn't look too deep. Perhaps it is about brand building. "Look how quirky (strange) we are!"
Change Mooc
More organized and far more structured than DS106. But this is still a cMOOC. The technology and platform are more conventional, appearing to be based either around static web pages or a vle. It is interesting that the course is about the course, that is, a cMOOC course about cMOOCs. I suppose it is a tautology, but I don't think many people not already devotees would be interested enough to engage for long with this. Perhaps in the tradition of cMOOCs there does not appear to be a sustainable business model. With fairly simple materials the course was probably cheap to produce, at least once it had ran for a session or two, and so there is perhaps little or not maintenance costs. Just as well. There is a clear structure and many materials available. Therefore it would be feasible to work through this course on your own, without the need for the connectivity that the course is promoting.
Udacity
This is more me. A clear gui and a pleasant structure to it. Probably a good example of an xMOOC and something that I would be comforatble to sign up to. That is of course because it is similar to courses that I/we have taken elsewhere. But hey, what's wrong with that? The technology and pedagogy are relatively conventional, if we can call developments of the last five + years as conventional, now. It appears that although there is structure to the courses there is a relatively relaxed feel to that structure and one is not likely to be pushed at an uncomfortable pace. I would say that the business model is probably one based on driving traffic to the more conventional, paid for courses of participating institutions.
Coursera
Even more of an xMOOC than Udacity. Courses are almost a replacement, or transpant of a on-ground offering. The technology is straight from a distance or blended learning offering. Clearly structured and will far less interaction with tutors in evidence. Pedagogy is not readily apparent. That is what I would expect form a course that is more of less cut and paste from an in house vle; the emphasis is more related to content transmission than anything else, perhaps. If we had to label this, it would be classed as a behaviourist pedagogy. In terms of business model I cannot see where the income streams are, and I would log it as brand building, which I feel fits many of the initiatives that we are seeing evidenced; large institutions wanting to avoid missing out on where this MOOC train is heading even though they currently have no idea where that may be.<
Activity 13
DS106
No thanks. Not for me. Perhaps a great example of a cMOOC at is worst? Not only would I not be at all interested in the topic I could not stand the structure (if there is one). Perhaps more appropriate for the artistic and creatives amongst us, but not the suits. From a technological perpsective it appears to want to make use of much of what is available, just for the 'fun' of it. Pedagogy; what's that? Perhaps in the case of DS106 it is simply about trying to keep the ball rolling and plates spinning. Certainly it is a cMOOC. I expect some would class it as a great example of one. Others (and I wold be in that group) would perhaps say "yes, and that should tell you something about cMOOCs". Is there a business model? I can't see it, though I must admit that I didn't look too deep. Perhaps it is about brand building. "Look how quirky (strange) we are!"
Change Mooc
More organized and far more structured than DS106. But this is still a cMOOC. The technology and platform are more conventional, appearing to be based either around static web pages or a vle. It is interesting that the course is about the course, that is, a cMOOC course about cMOOCs. I suppose it is a tautology, but I don't think many people not already devotees would be interested enough to engage for long with this. Perhaps in the tradition of cMOOCs there does not appear to be a sustainable business model. With fairly simple materials the course was probably cheap to produce, at least once it had ran for a session or two, and so there is perhaps little or not maintenance costs. Just as well. There is a clear structure and many materials available. Therefore it would be feasible to work through this course on your own, without the need for the connectivity that the course is promoting.
Udacity
This is more me. A clear gui and a pleasant structure to it. Probably a good example of an xMOOC and something that I would be comforatble to sign up to. That is of course because it is similar to courses that I/we have taken elsewhere. But hey, what's wrong with that? The technology and pedagogy are relatively conventional, if we can call developments of the last five + years as conventional, now. It appears that although there is structure to the courses there is a relatively relaxed feel to that structure and one is not likely to be pushed at an uncomfortable pace. I would say that the business model is probably one based on driving traffic to the more conventional, paid for courses of participating institutions.
Coursera
Even more of an xMOOC than Udacity. Courses are almost a replacement, or transpant of a on-ground offering. The technology is straight from a distance or blended learning offering. Clearly structured and will far less interaction with tutors in evidence. Pedagogy is not readily apparent. That is what I would expect form a course that is more of less cut and paste from an in house vle; the emphasis is more related to content transmission than anything else, perhaps. If we had to label this, it would be classed as a behaviourist pedagogy. In terms of business model I cannot see where the income streams are, and I would log it as brand building, which I feel fits many of the initiatives that we are seeing evidenced; large institutions wanting to avoid missing out on where this MOOC train is heading even though they currently have no idea where that may be.<