“MOOCs are like free gyms, says Mr. [Andrew P.] Kelly [auteur de l’étude Bellwether]. They might enable some people—mostly people who are already healthy and able to work out without much guidance—to exercise more. But they won’t do much for people who need intensive physical therapy or the care of a doctor.”
L’étude de Columbia constate que plusieurs institutions n’ont pas une idée très claire de ce pourquoi elles offrent des MOOC. Par conséquent, elles auront beaucoup de peine à en justifier les coûts et à valider si leurs objectifs sont atteints:
“To date, there has been little evidence collected that would allow an assessment of whether MOOCs do indeed provide a cost-effective mechanism for producing desirable educational outcomes at scale. It is not even clear that these are the goals of those institutions offering MOOCs. This report investigates the actual goals of institutions creating MOOCs or integrating them into their programs, and reviews the current evidence regarding whether and how these goals are being achieved, and at what cost.” (Hollands and Tirthali, cités dans Downes, 2014)
Mais les MOOC ont encore de l’avenir, avec divers services complémentaires offerts à la pièce par les universités:
“The Columbia researchers nevertheless predict that MOOCs will not disappear. More likely, they will “evolve to more closely resemble regular online courses,” with some elements—such as one-on-one tutoring, estimable credentials, and qualitative feedback on assignments—available at a price.”
Sources:
Downes, Stevens, “MOOCs: Expectations and Reality“, elearnspace, 13 mai 2014
Kolowich, Steve, “Conventional Online Higher Education Will Absorb MOOCs, 2 Reports Say“, Wired Campus – The Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 mai 2014
