A hyperbole


// Original Idea: Stephen Downes, George Siemens (et al.)

// Loose content (content NOT the main feature!)
// Connections are main feature
//  Content produced by participants, who choose their own paths to create new connections & to give meaning (sense-making) to paths and nodes of big network).

 // The network is the learning. The network is the contents. The network is built by everyone.


  • IDEAS Reshuffled by: Sebastian Thrun et al (Stanford) with: etc.:

    // Content is central
    // Robot-like
    // Cycle: Lecture-Assignment-Quiz
    // OMG 😉

     // Sure, give access to everybody to education. But what edu?
    US-based education, views and ideas.

    // Venture-capital based

    // Also, seem like reenactment of closed LMS’s.

    // A facelift.

  • Wanna Make a MOOC?

Please, jump to slide #94


ds106: Not a Course, Not Like Any MOOC (EDUCAUSE Review)


  • WIll MOOCs Destroy Academia??? //
    & associated Rethoric

  •  Openness etc.

S. Downes (As quoted by Jim Groom)

The arguments in which the four elements of MOOCs – ‘massive’, ‘open’, ‘online’, and ‘course’ – are one by one putated to be ‘optional’ or ‘unnecessary’ seems to me to be a desparate attempt to cleanse MOOCs of any disruptive impact they may have on the traditional action of in-person teaching to a teacher to a small group of people.

These arguments miss the point of the MOOC, and that point is, precisely, to make education available to people who cannot afford pay the cost to travel to and attend these small in-person events. Having one instructor for 20-50 people is expensive, and most of the world cannot afford that cost. That’s *why* the institutions – from which the attendees of this conference were uniquely selected – charge thousands of dollars of tuition every year.

MOOCs were not designed to serve the missions of the elite colleges and universities. They were designed to undermine them, and make those missions obsolete.