"Overall, while the xMOOCs may make noises about disruptive innovation, from a pedagogical perspective, they don’t fundamentally change the lecture-and-quiz model of the traditional classroom. And if we know that model doesn’t work particularly well for a class of 150 students, what makes us think it will work better for a class of 15,000?"
Comment: this is the conclusion of a useful analysis of Instructure's joining the fray of MOOC-platform providers. Before we get there, though, Mark takes apart the Instructure's claim that it will bring the MOOC to all schools, not just the elite institutions (see also my 2 November Scoop of Alisha Azevedo). They simultaneously assuage fears of non-elites to be shut out and tell them this MOOC thing isn't going to cut it anyway. Sounds like bet hedging, whith non-elite schools investing in Instructure as the victims. Second, he asks how disruptive this MOOC thing really is. Udacity claims it wants to be just that, Instructure says the opposite. Can we have it both ways with MOOCs? Mark thinks so. And finally then, should you get involved as fundamental questions about sustainability have not been answered yet. But most serious is of course the lack of pedagogical innovation Illich already argued for in the 70s and Roger Schank today again ( http://tiny.cc/wxt9mw ;): We need to get rid of the classroom! But what do we do? Talk about that very same classrooms-in-a-school model as a disruptive innovation. Perhaps in terms of funding and organisation of schools, but NOT in any deep educational terms (peter sloep, @pbsloep)