I have looked at all four sites and find marked differences in style and approach between all of them.  The discussion below attempts to answer the questions on pedagogy, technology and philosophy but also debates to whom these courses may appeal, hence what the business models may be.

 

DS106 – a cMOOC model

Anyone worrying that the US will covertly take over the HE world via MOOCs can be re-assured by watching the intro video by Jim Groom.  The toe-curling ‘we are just a tech-savvy in-crowd having FUN’ would not seem remotely relevant to education in cultures taught through conventional didactic pedagogies.  They might think they had tuned to Friends by mistake!

Technology

The course seems to be technology focused and led.  The course objectives start as follows:

• Develop skills in using technology as a tool ……
• Frame a digital identity …..
• Critically examine the digital landscape of communication technologies …..

This appears the dominant emphasis.  The storytelling seems just to be a test of the communication options enabled and featured by the technologies used.

Pedagogy

Pedagogy is implicit not explicit.  Although words are used that imply some structure, no structure is described.  The first external comment below the intro starts: “I’d like to find out who would be teaching what…”.  The emphasis is on just jumping in and participating with an implicit social constructionist/connectivist approach to learning.

Philosophy

To be cool!  Hating Elluminate seems symptomatic of the establishment-denying ethos.

Business model

The course is a phenomenon; there would seem no lack of commercial interests who would like to target this high energy, poster-child group.  I am not sure how the University makes money except via deals with such interests?

 

Change MOOC – a cMOOC model

Technology

Not technology-led but still a large technical overhead to handle to get the most out of the course. Blogs, aggregators, forums, newsletters, synchronous forums all form part of the connectivity at the heart of the course.

Pedagogy

More explicit and explained, with the weekly lectures providing a ‘starting gun’ for each week’s interaction.  However the main pedagogy still appears to be social constructivist/conntectivist with no connecting narrative.

Philosophy

Still quite an in-crowd feel, though in this case a very academically focused group.  Expanding the boundaries of knowledge rather than transferring knowledge.

Business Model

Low costs with ‘home page’ structure built from generic tools and no ongoing course structure.  An academic model rather than a business model.

 

Udacity ST095 Statistics – an xMOOC model

Technology

Much more conventional.  Imaginative use of a “moving hand” style of presentation which maintained engagement.  Use of Google Docs to support interactive analysis and graphical presentation of data.  Encouragement to visit asynchronous forums.

Pedagogy

A world away from the cMOOCs, a much more conventional form of module presentation.  Didactic but with encouragement to engage in forums for a more constructivist approach.

Philosophy

Rather low key and approachable.  Low structure, no timetable, easy to enter.

Business model

Unclear.  Universities selling extra services for tutoring and accreditation and Udacity presumably shares in these.

 

Coursera – Introstats001 Statistics – an xMOOC model

Technology

Very conventional.  Talking heads and scrolling ‘Powerpoint’ style text.  Interactive tests.

Pedagogy

Very much like conventional distance learning. Structured with dates and deadlines.  Discussion forums and active wikis.  F2F ‘meet-ups’ for some courses/locations.  Structured assessment with marked quizzes and assignments. Statement of accomplishment for 81% pass rate within date deadlines.

Philosophy

A cautious approach. Seems designed to attract learners who want conventional formal teaching with option of some credible certification.

Business model. 

Again not clear.  Less emphasis on selling value-added services with peer assessment used for accreditation.

 

Two clear groups with very little in common between the cMOOC and xMOOC approaches apart from their scale and openness.  Interesting variations in approachability and styles of presentation.  None of the business models were clear.