The failure of MOOCs #10 is a failure of metric measurement. In the old days if you wanted to learn something, often you'd pay $20 to $50 for a book. For example, Amazon order search claims that somewhere I have a copy of "Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming" by Norvig, which is supposed to be a decent book in the field, cool. Ironically maybe that IS the textbook for the famous AI MOOC class, I don't kn…
OP here (shocked to see this on HN): The context is missing but is important. When I say MOOCs have failed I mean something very specific: asynchronous online learning has proven to be so dramatically less effective than synchronous, guided learning. Better than nothing existing, but we’re learning that only a small subset of people are able to effectively learn from them. In other words, take a random sample of 100…
With the side issue that 100% of everyone in my 20 person automata theory class back in ninety-something is a much smaller number than 2% of 24000 people signing up for Ullman's automata theory MOOC.
The fundamental problem is authority along with excessive broadness. If I want to learn Y and the MOOC teaches X Y and Z, I will fail the MOOC. There are also Skinner box conditioning issues where my assignment for something like using bootstrap framework, will be scratching my own itch of project or doing some project at work, such that again I'll fail the MOOC because I'll refuse the assignment; I already have a more ambitious self assigned assignment and am not doing both my assignment and someone elses much less interesting assignment. Whereas if I sit in class I'll have peer pressure and financial pressure to do the class assignment regardless of work or hobby interests.
Sort of a traditional in-person or online class is a goal in and of itself; MOOCs are a means to an end for work or hobby for most.