This blog post relates to my study of CCK11.
Continuing my readings of the course with Stephen Downes blog post entitled What Connectivism is Not, I have come across the following passage, which I find incredibly fascinating.
There is no reason for the *delivery* of instruction (whatever form it may take) to be conjoined with the more formal and institutionally-based *assessment* of instruction. Which means that we can offer an open, potentially chaotic, potentially diverse, approach to learning, and at the same time employ such a process to support learning in traditional institutions.
As George has said, we are doing for the delivery of instruction what MIT OpenCourseWare has done for content. We have opened it up, and made it something that is not only not institutionally bound, but something that is, to a large degree, created and owned by the learners engaged in this instructional process.
Stephen and George are continuing the idea of openness for education through deliveryware. Yes, I coined it (although I suspect it is already trademarked).
While a recent trend has emerged where traditional education institutions are openly publishing their courseware through iTunes U and other technologies, the MOOC concept is openly distributing/sharing the delivery or facilitation of a traditional course. So what remains within the confines of the institution? As Stephen explains, the delivery and assessment need not be conjoined. If you are happy to be evaluated by your peers, and do not seek formal credentials, then participating in a MOOC without “enrolment” might be your gig. By enrolling, you are entitled to feedback from more established and recognised “experts” and a formal statement to the effect that you have achieved mastery or competency in your chosen study through evaluation by experts. This is unchanged from the traditional education system now.
This distinction of credentials and export feedback gives learning institutions a point of difference, when you ask the question “why should I pay?”