I definitely see what you mean; there's a lot of ambiguity in the term. Likewise, I'm someone that has done both open-access (meaning free to anyone that wants it) and open-source (meaning feel free to use what I've done in any way you like, attributed or not), and I agree that they aren't the same thing at all.
There is also a third category of "open" that means both, and yet more than the sum of those things, too. That is the collaborative open-source movement; I think this is probably the driving force behind AI/DS106 efforts. That can, in the right group of people, be an incredible force multiplier. I'd love to see more efforts to harness that particular ephemeral thing in order to effectively foster it and graft it into a learning community, which is what the open-source MOOC advocates are after, I think. Rhizomicity is the favorite buzzword there; the result is something like a specialised Wiki which develops organically over time as the learning community works together on it; tinkering, debating and fact-finding as they go. That already exists in myriad guises on the net, and most of it is informal. I wish that I could pin down the precise mixture of ingredients necessarily to turn on that particular magic, but it seems to rely on high levels of motivation, a shared objective (and that seems to be the sticky thing for a learning community), and willingness to tolerate dissent (sometimes aggressive). Size isn't a huge factor, in my experience. Less than a dozen super-users and a few dozen 'regulars' are enough. Message boards like this one often develop in this direction if they have a stable core membership of super-users and regulars over a period of years.
And yes, my irritation is that I suspect that some of those touting how the MOOC will save the world are more-or-less using the ambiguity of the term "open" as an exploit to imply something that isn't meant. It
feels like the term is being absconded with, in light of the early experiments with MOOC, which are nothing like the quiz-heavy, canned instructional offerings that are being given the name at this point. I'm not sure that MITx/Coursera/Udacity were really the originators of that misapplication, though-- I suspect it may have been overzealous media coverage that saw huge enrollments in both and decided that they must be the same animal. So you're right. I'm probably misplacing some of that angst. Udacity and Coursera have not stated that their objectives are identical to those of MITx or the free-range MOOC crowd.
To be clear, MITx intends (apparently) to make their offerings "open-enrollment"
and "open-source" (at least as far as platform goes, if not content). The others have asserted standard copyright, as opposed to the open-source factions which rely upon creative-commons licensing.
As far as UW goes, it's not exactly clear (yet) whether UW's plans are for regular course credits or for certificate credit, as I understood this--
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018714077_coursera19m.htmlThomas said the UW was still fine-tuning the details of its Coursera involvement as late as Tuesday afternoon, and was not ready at that point to announce the fee-based courses.
On Wednesday morning, she said that while many specifics are still being worked out, the fee-based courses would lead to either credit or a certificate from the UW.
Pricing has not yet been set, but would be comparable to current UW credit courses and certificate programs, Thomas said. Prices on certificate courses vary, but generally run between $2,000 and $5,000 for a series of three courses.
The for-credit Coursera courses would be enhanced with direct, online communication with the instructor, and students would take monitored exams, Thomas said. Details are still being determined, but the UW could tap into a network of national, brick-and-mortar testing centers l around the country to administer the exams.
The UW eventually plans to offer on Coursera's platform an applied mathematics program in scientific computing, courses in computer science, a linked sequence in computational finance and a three-course certificate in information security and risk management. The classes would be available sometime during the 2012-13 academic year, Thomas said.
The UW already offers 38 certificate courses online, and the videos and other content from some of those courses will be repackaged and reformatted to fit the Coursera platform, Thomas said.
That's essentially what the other institutions are envisioning, too. Pay-for-certificate and mastery-certs via proctored testing centers.
I very much like the idea of opening
access. At the same time, though, I very much dislike the idea of no longer feeling obliged to
teach content in a live and interactive environment.
I guess at heart, my pedagogical orientation is so firmly Socratic that canned curriculum for an audience of millions just feels wrong to me. That's "training" not education.
I also dislike the idea of choosing one (and only one, by subtext) means of teaching "X" because that's how Professor Z at {prestigious institution} does things and most students there like that.
Plurality is a very good thing, I think. Content standards I'm all for. But that's just a "must-see" list on a tour that shouldn't have a mandated route, IMO.
I know that friends in higher ed have concerns about the nature of academic freedom in teaching over this whole thing. I don't blame them. Research may be much better at tier one institutions, but the teaching isn't. Not inherently. Sometimes the best teachers are actually found at smaller undergraduate institutions (which is a very good reason why those students tend to be so competitive in admissions to certain graduate programs). This movement makes very little sense unless one believes that to be untrue.
For most institutions, this is (my prediction here) going to amount to an acceleration of outsourcing to for-profit providers. Not too thrilled with that development, myself. If this worked, then why haven't Universities been loaning out copies of The Great Courses and then giving people certificates when they send them back? (Oh, nevermind; there is a part of me that thinks that maybe that'll be NEXT...)
I have pretty strong feelings about what higher education is-- and what it isn't (task training). I also have an extremely strong opinion that there is very high quality undergraduate education outside of the Ivies. This entire movement seems to be based on a completely antithetical foundation, and I think that may be what I'm viscerally objecting to. It strikes me as insufferably arrogant to think that only ONE person at Harvard (or anyhwere else) can/should be teaching everyone in the world... Western Civ (or anything else) because he's the best that they have to offer. I object because while Professor Harvard might be good and he might be well-read, that doesn't make him better as a teacher of introductory material than Professor Untenured at Missouri State. KWIM?
(I think that I did start my initial rant with the assertion that my feelings about this are quite scattered at this point. I'm definitely agitated over what it all means-- but for such a wide variety of reasons that I'm having trouble condensing them.)
A few more exploratory articles about this movement:
The New Public Ivies (Slate)-- some of the commentary is just as insightful as the op-ed.
What's the Matter with MOOC's? (op-ed from Chronicle of Higher Ed)
http://stevendkrause.com/ I really like Steve's commentary on this, though I don't completely agree with all of his opinions. His views have touched on a lot of the things that I've already been pondering as this unfolds... and I've considered some thing that I hadn't thought about in reading some of the more insightful comments posted at Steve's blog.
