Monday, 21 December 2015

MOOC is for?

MOOC? xMOOC? cMOOC? NOOC? GOOC?

Now we have COOC.

I can't argue with Peter Shake's sentiments in setting out a new name for something that sounds a lot like a constructivist MOOC (which from my limited knowledge was what MOOCS where supposed to be in the first place before people started calling big VLEs full of course content MOOCs). It does seem to me though that much as I thought it over complex, Conole's ideas about classifying these things might be more necessary that I first imagined.....

But I'd take issue with two things in his logic.

Firstly, the toolset he described as a COOC, is so radically different from the reality of the thing now commonly called a MOOC that it's a totally different animal. A COOC requires an entirely different set of tools and services to a massive set of linear online courses. So to describe it like "a MOOC but different'" is really misleading. It's a different model entirely.

Secondly, calling is anything [id]OOC will only make that confusion worse. Just makes you wish that the people who coined the term MOOC had the same level of (cough) vision (splutter) as Nottingham University in trademarking the term (and the opportunism to take some courses on their VLE and rebadge them as if they were new).

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for reading my blog and taking the time to comment. All comments are moderated - I will aim to review your comment quickly and make sure it is made available.