Thursday, 15 November 2012

Never Mind Antioch, What is Coursera Up To?

Overview

Antioch Los Angeles' decision to accept Coursera courses and a recent study from the Babson Survey Research Group on faculty barriers to accepting OER has catalyzed some focused interest in openness and created an opportunity to discuss openness in terms of MOOCs. Coursera’s financial models are inherently in conflict with openness, but rely on their courses being offered for free (no fees) without credit. This creates a conundrum that is currently under significant discussion. One way to address the openness tension is by removing “Open” from Coursera type courses and replacing it with “Fee Free.” MOOCs become MFFOC (Massive Fee Free Online Courses), and the notion of Openness is respected and its definition is acknowledged.

Antioch University Los Angeles has recently received some attention for their plans to accept credits for a handful of MOOCs offered through Coursera. Although the announcement received mixed reviews, it is clearly an opportunity to watch a new education sourcing model unfold.

In many ways it is not so different from accepting transfer credit from any other college or university. For years Harvard University would not accept credit for the online courses offered through Harvard Extension, but other colleges and universities were welcome to do so and did. So, we now have a parallel situation in which Antioch has decided to accept credits from Duke and Penn Coursera courses, which Duke and Penn will not recognize internally. To help ensure that their students are getting what they need from the MOOC experience, Antioch is providing a support system for their cohort. If done properly, I can see how this could be a very powerful model.

In many ways this arrangement is quite different than the typical arrangements that most universities make with partner vendors supporting online learning. Under most circumstances, the University maintains pretty close control over the academic enterprise, which typically includes curriculum design, course design, and instructional staffing. The arrangement between Antioch LA and Coursera, Duke, Penn, and other Coursera partners may muddy typical arrangements. We (I) do not know yet, because I have not seen the detailed plans, but the prospect for a for-profit consortium (Coursera) to be part of one university ceding academic control to others through a vendor relationship is something worth watching. Please note that I am not being at all judgmental of Antioch’s decision - I have no grounds for judgment and do not have enough information to build much of an opinion.

I do think though that these arrangements have cast some light on Coursera. It seems that the “Openness” community is taking some time and effort to discuss what is and what is not so open about Coursera and its courses.  In addition, folks are starting to discover some of the basic finances of the for-profit MOOC consortia. I do believe that these are two reasonably important topics that are related - openness and finance.

Openness

Well, there is no question that Coursera is transparent about the extent of their openness. The following appears in their Terms of Use:

All content or other materials available on the Sites, including but not limited to code, images, text, layouts, arrangements, displays, illustrations, audio and video clips, HTML files and other content are the property of Coursera and/or its affiliates or licensors and are protected by copyright, patent and/or other proprietary intellectual property rights under the United States and foreign laws. In consideration for your agreement to the terms and conditions contained here, Coursera grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to access and use the Sites. You may download material from the Sites only for your own personal, non-commercial use. You may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any material, nor may you modify or create derivatives works of the material. The burden of determining that your use of any information, software or any other content on the Site is permissible rests with you.

So, it looks like the Coursera courses are open for free like Free Beer (beer for which no fee is taken), but fall pretty far short of a Free Cultural Works standard in which content can be revised, reused, and redistributed. As a point of reference, the generally accepted definition for Free Cultural Works includes the following freedoms (none of which directly speak to gratis distribution).

Essential freedoms

In order to be recognized as "free" under this definition, a license must grant the following freedoms without limitation:
  • The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations.
  • The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering".
  • The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.
  • The freedom to distribute derivative works: In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications. However, some restrictions may be applied to protect these essential freedoms or the attribution of authors (see below).

The Coursera terms of use probably do not meet any of the essential freedoms. According to these standards of openness, the Coursera MOOCs should really be called MFOCs (Massive Free Online Courses) or better yet MFFOCs (Massive Fee Free Online Courses).

 

Financial Arrangements

It is not surprising that Coursera MFFOCs cannot be open. Although still nascent, the logic of the revenue models for Coursera bias strongly against open content. A quick reference to Coursera’s Online Course and Certifications section of their publicly available Terms of Use provides insights into the revenue model for Coursera and the partner institutions. First there is strong indication that the institutions have some restrictions placed on their activities, by “...acknowledg(ing) that neither the instructors of any Online Course nor the associated Participating Institutions will be involved in any attempts to get the course recognized by any educational or accredited institution.” Second, the learner “...may not take any Online Course offered by Coursera or use any Letter of Completion as part of any tuition-based or for-credit certification or program for any college, university, or other academic institution without the express written permission from Coursera. Such use of an Online Course or Letter of Completion is a violation of these Terms of Use.” These terms effectively prohibit the use of Coursera courses for award of credit without some sort of alternative arrangements.

These terms help create the market willing to pay for use of Coursera courses for credit, and Antioch University Los Angeles is the first publicly commercial example. So we have an idea around at least part of the demand side of the model. The supply side is covered in the Online Course Hosting and Service Agreement between Coursera and its partners. Reference to the Service/Revenue Models for Online Courses and Exhibit B, provides information on the financial arrangements between Coursera and partners, which is basically a revenue sharing model for services rendered. The university partner renders academic services (product), while Coursera renders technology and promotional services. As mentioned in a previous posting titled Never Mind Antioch, What’s Up with Ourselves?, most university online programs purchase some internal services or services provided by a 3rd party vendor, so on one level, the basic outsource concept is not without precedent. There is a whole education services sector build on various business models.

 

Financial Models and Openness

The issue of interest here is more about the inherent conflict between Coursera’s financial model and openness and their financial model's reliance on free access (not open use). If Coursera courses were open (distributed under a Free Cultural Works licence), then the demand side of their financial model would become weak and would be forced to rely on Coursera actually providing unique and valuable services relative to the awarding credits, not unique value in promoting the development and delivery of massive courses. That is, Coursera's principle value is in the part of the business model that cannot directly generate revenue because by design, it must be fee free. That is how they promote themselves.

This is a conundrum, which I think that can resolved by simply taking the “Open” out of these types of courses and replacing it with “Fee Free.” So we have MFFOCs as well as MOOCs and they are called what they are. Some are fee free, while others are open as well as fee free. This is good for everybody involved as it reduces ambiguity and helps guard against “Openwashing,” which is important because the potential benefits that “Open” brings to societies is intimately tied to the freedoms associated with Free Cultural Works. We do not want to reduce the benefits of openness by watering down its meaning, and I assume that the folks at Coursera do not want that either. The distinction and appropriate use of MOOC and MFFOC is in part a matter of intellectual honesty and truth in labeling.

Coursera and its partners are doing something that is very important for the evolution of higher education. Partnerships between private for-profit, non-profit, and education organizations is an important way of creating variety in our thinking, creating diverse business models, and bringing needed capital to the educational enterprise. To the extent to which the educational partners have a role in Coursera governance, all the better. All of these things are perhaps essential for the sustained development of "the University." But let’s do what is right and call these things what they are. Coursera courses are not open, they are fee free. I would argue, and I will, that organizations that are committed to the values of openness (as reflected in their governance), and practice the principles openness (as reflected in their daily operations), are more likely to reliably and naturally develop revenue models that take advantage of openness and create open services and products.

18 comments:

  1. I think openness is a matter of degree. Like a door, a course can be open just enough to peek inside or it can be taken off the hinges. So a Coursera "MOOC" might be open, but less open than CFHE12 (http://edfuture.net/) or DS106 (http://ds106.us/). But I also think open is where the value is. Open can be revolutionary. The more a course pushes the door shut and tries to stick to the traditional course paradigm, the more it looks like its just online learning and the more it devalues itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul - thanks for sharing. I appreciate the notion of there being degrees of openness. I am thinking too that different sustainability (economic) models support and are supported by different degrees of openness and the less open the model the more it looks like small variations on the same old solution. I think that Michael Feldstein captures some of this sentiment in his most recent posting on eLiterate. "Is Coursera Facebook, Amazon, or Pets.com?" http://mfeldstein.com/is-coursera-facebook-amazon-or-petscom-2/.

      Delete
  2. Ken, I'm enjoying reading Latent Pattern Recognition. A welcome addition to the discourse. The interface or overlap which I'm finding quite intriguing is mixing the financial model with radical openness to build new value. Within the publicly funded higher education system:

    Free learning plus Open Source content plus credible credentials is the game changer for formal education. It shifts the question from how to achieve sustainable OER projects to how will your publicly funded institution remain sustainable without OER? Moreover, its not that hard to achieve :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot-on - a working OER sustainability model that extends beyond philanthropy has been a bit of a challenge. I know that your work with the OER Foundation and OURu is pushing the envelope a bit.

      I like the "OER University – for those who are serious about low cost, socially responsible university credit." posting you just Tweeted. goo.gl/LIriI Any other recommended resources?

      Delete
    2. Wayne - once again, thank you for your comment. There is a lot packed into it that merits thought. It seems to me that "credible credentials" is an important bit here. I would perhaps expand the notion to include credible organizations framed in terms of having the capacity to meet learner needs and desired experiences. Although credentialing is important, I believe that there are learners and others whose expectations of education extend beyond credentialing.

      Delete
    3. Ken
      Today problem in the USA is 18-22 years olds college education . That means degrees for living . And those degrees should be from a reputable schools. Now if college writes in the transcript of the students
      " such and such courses were taken at Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Duke, UPenn " then it is a good reference . Easier to find jobs .

      Delete
  3. It is great
    Finally Ken Udas is also aware of what is happening at Antioch and Coursera . Tyhis news should be everywhere .

    2 weeks ago I said it is a revolution .

    1.- Antioch students take 3 online courses of DUKE and UPenn under the supervision of an ANTIOCH facilitator .
    It is great. Only Antioch thought of a facilitator until now .

    2.- Then Antioch gives credit toward a degree program at Antioch . Final exams can be made at Antioch with the questions of DUKE and UPenn .

    3.- Antioch saves 30 % of their cost ( I assume a full time students takes 10 courses per year for full tuition ) + a small fee will be paid to Coursera.
    4.- That fee can be anything between $ 10 to $ 100 per course. I hope Antioch bargain well .
    If a course is followed by 10,000 students per semester cost is $100 per course. If more students than cost ism lower . Number of students is not only at Antioch but all online courses taken in the world .

    5.- Some classrooms and faculty will be idle . So some new students can be registered

    Most important :
    If students in all colleges in the USA take 5 online courses from Duke, Upenn, MITx, Harvardx, Stanford then cost will be halved, that is tuition ia halved .
    But quality is up due to Stanford, MIT, UPenn, Duke, Harvard courses .
    Plus half of the classrooms are empty , half of the faculty is idle. That means capacity increased by 100 %
    All tuition is halved + quality up + enrollment is increased by 100 % . What else would you want .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ilhan - I agree with a lot of your insights, but also recognize that the relationships between Antioch, Coursera, and its partners are complex and challenge some cultural norms in the community. I think this is evident from the comments generated in many of the article forums when the arrangement was first announced a few weeks ago. I felt that although there were some reasoned and practical responses, there was also a lot of anxiety being expressed and what felt like resentment directed toward Antioch leadership. Almost like crossing a picket line. It will be very interesting to see how this works out in practice. Thank you for your comment.

      Delete
    2. Thanks billion Ken
      1.- I am an engineer, therefore very pragmatic to get the things done so fast . Education involves many parties therefore there are lots of voices .
      2.- In case of Antioch , there is Coursera in the chain as well . I say Antioch can buy a course from MITx Harvardx directly as they are being a vendor . In case of Coursera things are more complicated
      3.- Resentment toward Antioch . I really do not understand . Even a picket line . Who are they? Some for profits ?
      4.- Today another good news: 10 schools got together to make a consortium for online . They will share online courses . I hope they will reduce the tuitions for online course 90 % But they said immediately , DUKE, they do not consider such thing . Shame . How people do not complain. We need a picket line in front of DUKE if they do not reduce online tuition at least 50 % .

      Delete
  4. Ken - While we're making edits to the acronym, let's take it a step farther than MFFOC. We can have massive distribution and massive communications networks but are we really talking about massive learning being accomplished in this format? Do we need to accomplish massive learning? What problems are we trying to solve? How about LFFOC - large fee free online course or BFFOC - big/bigger fee free online courses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous
      The very basic consept about online :
      ONLINE must have a scale . That is online is for at least 100,000 enrollments per course within 10 semesters .Then cost is at maximum $ 100 per course . Nore enrollment less cost .

      To attract that many students, online must be offerred by the best schools of the world .
      That is what now MITx +Harvardx + Berkeley x are .

      As you see it is not a massive learning .
      And it is not free either . They charge a small fee for exams . Since cost is nill, so the fee will be small .

      The problem we try to solve is for 18-22 years olds, best education at the least cost . That is done by MITx + Harvardx . But it will take time for them to develop all courses required for degrees, they started with some courses. This will provide some experience as well .

      But as ANTIOCH . now colleges in the USA can get online courses from MITx and Harvardx just as they can get from any vendor, pay them their small fee , offer them to its students as they wish . Plus ,as ANTIOCH ,every college can assign a facilitator to each online course too . Then college has a right to award credits towards degrees in their college .

      5 Online courses reduce tuition by 50 %, and increase the capacity 100 %

      I hope colleges are reading these comments .
      LAST WORD : We need more than 100,000 enrollment in 10 semesters in order to accomplish
      scaled learning. Best quality at least cost .
      Solution is right in front of you . Do what Antioch is doing .

      Delete
    2. This, I think, is a great question. That I know others have poked at as well. I understand that there is a certain economics of scale and a lot of legitimate discussion about the limitations of capacity among "traditional" education models relative to perceived need, but I wonder if we have not developed a "bigger is better" fetish.

      One of my favorite thoughts on this topics was expressed by John Henry Newman.

      "A University is, according to the usual designation, an Alma Mater, knowing her children one by one, not a foundry, or a mint, or a treadmill."

      I think too there is value to this sentiment as well.

      Last thought - how about "Big Freely Delivered Online Courses?"

      Delete
  5. Hi Ken,

    Good to catch up - hope life is treating you well...

    I like the MFFOC - I used freeMOOC in my revision of MOOC taxonomy - http://artemis.utdc.vuw.ac.nz:8000/pebble/2012/11/15/1352950740000.html

    You'll see I also noted the divergence from the Free Cultural Works, I also have some other MOOC-like terms that may be useful to some

    cheers
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stephen - great to hear from you. That's a pretty cool taxonomy. Was sort of drawn to "MOOSCW2CC." After all, massive courses should have massive acronyms. I have been meaning to reach out to you and ask about your thoughts on structure for the Openness Index.

      https://wiki.jasig.org/display/2398/Openness+Index

      You will see the eMM influence right off. I thought that your experience with developing a maturity models would be very helpful. Perhaps we can take this off line. -Cheers!

      Delete
  6. Ken- extremely insightful comments about key issues often buried in media hype. With all the buzz around this topic, we need to keep in mind that CourseEra, Udacity and others are venture backed businesses. Your points about "openwashing" and "fee free" needs to be taken in the context of the bigger picture. I would submit that there is really no fee free as long as we have commercial backing and, under that scenario, even more focus needs to be given to what real, repeatable learning experience we're creating

    Lou Pugliese

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lou - Too right, one way or the next revenue has to flow back to financial investors. I understand that there is a lot of potential for measuring learning in a "big data" way wrapped into Massive Enrollment Courses. I am wondering how much of what is learned about learning will be monetized.

      On your other note, it truly is amazing how much hype (attention) is associated with everything now. There seems to be little capacity to discriminate between claims and gauge what is a realistic.

      Thank you for your insights!

      Delete
  7. I think it underlines your point that the first significant entirely open MOOC project is called OpenMOOC (openmooc.org) which is tautological - Open Massive Open Online Coursework - but also entirely necessary to distinguish it from the raft of ClosedMOOCS... The joys of having a living language!

    ReplyDelete
  8. You should comment on the competition comparison of the blog.Android Box Tv

    ReplyDelete