Student Retention

68 views
Skip to first unread message

Anita Crawley

unread,
Jul 5, 2011, 7:40:16 AM7/5/11
to eduMOOC
Hi all,
I am particularly interested in finding national research about
student retention - online course completion is good enough. The
studies I've read are based on a single or perhaps handful of
institutions. The most recent study I can find is Distance Education
at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006-07
http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503770.pdf

I contacted them to find out if there were plans to update the study
and the answer was no. Am I the only one who thinks this is strange?
What am I missing? Thanks for any insight. Anita

Scott HJ

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 11:04:40 AM8/2/11
to eduMOOC
Hi Anita,
Sorry to be late here. Figures on the high drop out rates among
distance students are out there but not publicised. My experience has
been institutions do not understand my needs as an online student and
don't know that they should care (there are a few exceptions). This is
a very complex issue and here's some reading I've found:

>Student Retention in Distance Learning: Why do Students Drop Out?
http://www.distancestudies.com/article.cfm?artid=6997

Taking Student Retention Seriously
Vincent Tinto
Syracuse University
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/fsd/c2006/docs/takingretentionseriously.pdf

“Conditions for Student Retention
Five conditions stand out as supportive of retention, namely
expectation, advice, support, involvement, and learning.

First, students are more likely to persist and graduate in settings
that expect
them to succeed.

Second, students are more likely to persist and graduate in settings
that provide clear and consistent information about institutional
requirements and effective advising about the choices students have to
make regarding their programs of study and future career goals.

Third, students are more likely to persist and graduate in settings
that provide academic, social, and personal support.

Fourth, students are more likely to persist and graduate in settings
that involve them as valued members of the institution. The frequency
and quality of contact with faculty, staff, and other students is an
important independent predictor of student persistence.

Fifth, and most importantly, students are more likely to persist and
graduate in settings that foster learning. Learning has always been
the key to student retention. Students who learn are students who
stay. Institutions that are successful in building settings that
educate their students are successful in retaining their students.
Again, involvement seems to be the key. Students who are actively
involved in learning, that is who spend more time on task especially
with others, are more likely to learn and, in turn, more likely to
stay.”<




On Jul 5, 5:40 am, Anita Crawley <acraw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am particularly interested in finding national research about
> student retention - online course completion is good enough. The
> studies I've read are based on a single or perhaps handful of
> institutions. The most recent study I can find is Distance Education
> at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006-07http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503770.pdf

Maryanne LeGrow

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 12:59:31 PM8/2/11
to eduMOOC
Anita,

You might be interested in a study of student retention and completion
related to prior learning assessment (i.e., credit evaluation of
college level knowledge that students have gained outside the formal
higher education classroom). It's online at
http://www.cael.org/publications/article.php?category_id=3 (title is
"Fueling the Race" but there are other retention-focused papers
available as well).

Maryanne

On Jul 5, 7:40 am, Anita Crawley <acraw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am particularly interested in finding national research about
> student retention - online course completion is good enough. The
> studies I've read are based on a single or perhaps handful of
> institutions. The most recent study I can find is Distance Education
> at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006-07http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503770.pdf

Rebecca

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 9:51:58 PM8/2/11
to eduMOOC
Hi Anita,

Sadly, there is no economic incentive for institutions to have
students succeed with distance ed. Most of those institutions charge
tuition up-front - they get paid regardless of whether the student
succeeds. In some cases, they even make more money off of students
that fail than those that succeed. I blogged about this issue about a
year ago here: http://rjh.goingeast.ca/2010/06/25/the-conflicting-motivations-of-online-schools-and-student-success/.

The only motivation of the institutions is reducing costs and making
more money. They spend money on marketing to get more students rather
than spending it on quality. It is sad, but until their is economic
incentives for them to change, it is likely they won't.

Cheers,
Rebecca

Carrie

unread,
Aug 2, 2011, 11:11:49 PM8/2/11
to edu...@googlegroups.com

Mitch

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 5:44:28 AM8/3/11
to eduMOOC
I disagree with Anita. I work for a distance-ed school - and we do
many private studies on retention and major portions of our company
resources are directed to understanding retention and how to improve
it. We don't publish these studies - but do use them internally. We
absolutely want to retain our students, we want them to learn, we want
them to graduate and succeed. Our company rewards employees through
performance incentives when we meet our retention goals and when we
create new ideas and ways to retain students. Engagement projects,
mentoring, tutors, etc...all assist us with retention, as well as full
time student service representatives who assist with personal issues
which can impact a students' retention. It costs much more to bring in
a new student than to keep the ones we have - so there is no financial
"incentive" not to retain students.

Mitch

On Aug 2, 9:51 pm, Rebecca <rjho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Anita,
>
> Sadly, there is no economic incentive for institutions to have
> students succeed with distance ed. Most of those institutions charge
> tuition up-front - they get paid regardless of whether the student
> succeeds. In some cases, they even make more money off of students
> that fail than those that succeed. I blogged about this issue about a
> year ago here:http://rjh.goingeast.ca/2010/06/25/the-conflicting-motivations-of-onl....

Mitch

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 5:45:46 AM8/3/11
to eduMOOC
I meant "Rebecca" not Anita below - sorry.

On Aug 3, 5:44 am, Mitch <buckislandbree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree with Anita (s/b Rebecca). I work for a distance-ed school - and we do
> many private studies onretentionand major portions of our company
> resources are directed to understandingretentionand how to improve
> it. We don't publish these studies - but do use them internally. We
> absolutely want to retain our students, we want them to learn, we want
> them to graduate and succeed. Our company rewards employees through
> performance incentives when we meet ourretentiongoals and when we
> create new ideas and ways to retain students. Engagement projects,
> mentoring, tutors, etc...all assist us withretention, as well as full

Anita Crawley

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 7:50:39 AM8/3/11
to eduMOOC
Thanks Scott,
No such thing as late. This discussion is always here when we are
ready to participate.

I think of Tinto as the grandaddy of retention. Many researchers
start with him. I particularly appreciate his attitude in the taking
it seriously article. Thanks. Anita

On Aug 2, 11:04 am, Scott HJ <scotth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Anita,
> Sorry to be late here. Figures on the high drop out rates among
> distance students are out there but not publicised. My experience has
> been institutions do not understand my needs as an online student and
> don't know that they should care (there are a few exceptions). This is
> a very complex issue and here's some reading I've found:
>
> >Student Retention in Distance Learning: Why do Students Drop Out?
>
> http://www.distancestudies.com/article.cfm?artid=6997
>
> Taking Student Retention Seriously
> Vincent Tinto
> Syracuse Universityhttp://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/fsd/c2006/docs/takingretentionserio...

Anita Crawley

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 7:52:22 AM8/3/11
to eduMOOC
Maryanne,
Thanks. I used some of CAEL's standards for educating adults in the
book I just wrote about supporting online students, but missed this
article. I will add it to my collection. Anita

On Aug 2, 12:59 pm, Maryanne LeGrow <maryanneleg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anita,
>
> You might be interested in a study of student retention and completion
> related to prior learning assessment (i.e., credit evaluation of
> college level knowledge that students have gained outside the formal
> higher education classroom).  It's online athttp://www.cael.org/publications/article.php?category_id=3(title is

Anita Crawley

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 7:58:03 AM8/3/11
to eduMOOC
Mitch,
I agree. At least the schools I know about are doing what they can to
identify predictors to increase the chances that their online students
will succeed and be retained. I'm afraid the operative word in that
sentence is "can." Budget limitations along with many other factors
may present barriers to creating comprehensive retention plans for
online students. While I also differ from Rebecca's position, I do
believe there is more work to be done. Anita

On Aug 3, 5:44 am, Mitch <buckislandbree...@gmail.com> wrote:

Anita Crawley

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 8:01:14 AM8/3/11
to eduMOOC
Rebecca,
I am sure there are institutions with missions different from
mainstream colleges and universities where what you describe is true.
Some of the incentives that Mitch describes in his post are pretty
exciting. Any chance your decision-makers might be persuaded to
rethink the issue? Anita

Anita Crawley

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 8:04:19 AM8/3/11
to eduMOOC
Carrie,
Thanks. Ray was one of my first mentors. When I told him I was
writing the book, he pointed me to your article. It's a great
one:-). Anita

On Aug 2, 11:11 pm, Carrie <levin.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineV...

Maryanne LeGrow

unread,
Aug 3, 2011, 9:45:12 AM8/3/11
to eduMOOC
One thing my institution did quite a while ago that significantly
lowered our dropout rates is to post all syllabi, with student
learning outcomes and course assignments, on our web site. Anyone
inside or outside of the college who wants to take a course can
download a syllabus to see what the course covers, what the workload
is, assignment due dates, and so on, BEFORE they sign up. We think
that this WYSIWYG approach keeps many students from enrolling in
courses whose content they misunderstand and whose work load they
won't be able to handle. Our online course completion rate has
hovered around about 88% for the past 5-8 years or so. We follow up
on all dropouts and have found that their reasons for withdrawing from
the course (or for simply ceasing to participate) are tied not to
course ease, interest or quality but overwhelmingly are related to
personal issues such as family problems, job workload, finances, and
so on. Our population is adults, so we don't have a lot of
traditional-age students: possibly these reasons would not hold true
for a younger population.

Maryanne
> > > > Rebecca- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Anita Crawley

unread,
Aug 4, 2011, 7:34:32 AM8/4/11
to eduMOOC
Maryanne,
I've been spending too much time at Cold Stone Creamery - they sell
ice cream in three sizes - Love It is the largest - that's what I
think about publicly available syllabi.

You bring up a really important point about reasons for course
withdrawal - there are barriers over which the institution can have an
impact and those that are beyond the institution's scope.
Interventions typically have little impact on many personal issues.
I'm wondering if anyone is isolating those factors to get a more
accurate picture. The numbers sure would be different. Anita

Osvaldo Rodriguez

unread,
Aug 5, 2011, 7:26:47 AM8/5/11
to edu...@googlegroups.com
Hi All

1.
In a recent thread in EduMOOC OERu group the following was posted:
"I also know of a MOOC on Artificial Intelligence through Stanford University
(not sure who the contact is)
May be here:
http://www.ai-class.com/"

2. I then made the following reply:
 
For me its not a MOOC (Educause, Cormier and Siemens), yes very interesting. An important step beyond "the Open Courseware" idea.

From what I understood in their web page the course is open to anyone to take it, but its a totally structured course.
They follow a book (Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach by one of the teachers, US$114 in amazon) have a Syllabus, weekly exams, grading.
It can be taken free, (all online) even if you don't belong to Stanford university. Its not clear how students will interact between themselves. 8000 people requested information.
Interesting because it will be  Massive, Open, Online and a Course.

3.
Today the following link was posted
"George Siemens: Stanford University does a MOOC

4.
I am now somehow confused. Could someone help me reason and reconcile concepts on this?

Osvaldo
 
C. Osvaldo RODRIGUEZ
cor...@yahoo.com


Lisa M Lane

unread,
Aug 6, 2011, 2:04:22 PM8/6/11
to eduMOOC
I think the main difference between open courseware and a MOOC are the
M and the C. Open courseware is Open and Online. When you put the
learning within a structure that has a time constraint and
facilitator(s), it's a Course. When a zillion people come, it's
Massive.

So the AI course is a MOOC. It just doesn't have the student-centered
connectivist thing as part of its structure. To insist on this in a
MOOC is closed-minded, since if it's Massive and Open a large course-
based networked community is likely to form.

Lisa

On Aug 5, 4:26 am, Osvaldo Rodriguez <cor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> 1.
> In a recent thread in EduMOOC OERu group the following was posted:
> "I also know of a MOOC on Artificial Intelligence through
> Stanford University
> (not sure who the contact is)
> May be here:http://www.ai-class.com/"
>
> 2. I then made the following reply:
>
>  
> For me its not a MOOC (Educause, Cormier and Siemens), yes very interesting. An important step beyond "the Open Courseware"
> idea.
>
> From what I understood in their web page the course is open to anyone to take it, but its a totally structured course.
> They follow a book (Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach by one of the teachers, US$114 in amazon) havea Syllabus, weekly exams, grading.
> It can be taken free, (all online) even if you don't belong to
> Stanford university. Its not clear how students will interact between
> themselves. 8000 people requested information.
> Interesting because it will be  Massive, Open, Online and a Course.
>
> 3.
> Today the following link was posted
> "George Siemens: Stanford University does a MOOChttp://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2011/08/04/stanford-university-does-a..."

Osvaldo Rodriguez

unread,
Aug 6, 2011, 5:53:35 PM8/6/11
to edu...@googlegroups.com
Hi Lisa

I have made today some more reflections on this discussion in my blog post: REPLACING THE FAUCET
http://cor-ar.blogspot.com/

Today we can only speculate about the AI Stanford course. I would like to see what their proposal is.

Until today the majority of MOOCs have occurred in similar themes.  AI Stanford course is organized with the needed infrastructure, by highly prepared individuals and is very technical. People attending will need to have a very special background.

As pointed out by Siemens in his "Bathroom renovation" blog post, one of the big questions for MOOCs is:
"How to structure learning and knowledge spaces in different disciplines and in different topics."

Investigating how AI Stanford course works will most probably help to understand this.

Osvaldo
 
C. Osvaldo RODRIGUEZ

From: Lisa M Lane <lisah...@gmail.com>
To: eduMOOC <edu...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 3:04 PM
Subject: [eduMOOC] Re: Need to redefine what a MOOC is?

Scott HJ

unread,
Aug 7, 2011, 10:18:30 PM8/7/11
to eduMOOC
Still disagree that the Stanford course is a MOOC. Nor will it morph
miraculously into a MOOC by backchannel discussion groups forming
around it. If we call it a course, then it seems to me rules of
curriculum demand an open declaration and valuation of discussions
somewhere in the course syllabus.

Alternately, and in agreement with Lisa, the role of openness and
design in MOOCs are still unresolved (as is just about everything else
pertaining to MOOCs). By having a MOOC that walks like a course, talks
like a course and looks like a course we may come to a better
understanding of what a MOOC actually is.

Interestingly, this thread started with a discussion on student
retention. If there is one thing about MOOCs that is a giant black
hole, it is participant attrition. Am I the only one here who feels
the tension between the virtual worship of participation coupled with
a sloppiness in attending to attendance? Where are the masses we
started with? Why so few participants in the forums? To my mind, the
biggest failure of "distance" education is the careless use of our
obligations to each other--to ignore the silence we can't help but
notice. Many of us are here because we feel at home, welcome and cared
for in this setting. Where can we go with MOOCs that hangs on to
participation?

I wonder if the structured-ness of the Stanford MOOC will make us
better at being open? Even if it isn't a MOOC;-)


On Aug 6, 3:53 pm, Osvaldo Rodriguez <cor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Lisa
>
> I have made today some more reflections on this discussion in my blog post: REPLACING THE FAUCEThttp://cor-ar.blogspot.com/
>
> Today we can only speculate about the AI Stanford course. I would like to see what their proposal is.
>
> Until today the majority of MOOCs have occurred in similar themes.  AI Stanford course is organized with the needed infrastructure, by highly prepared individuals and is very technical. People attending will need to have a very special background.
>
> As pointed out by Siemens in his "Bathroom renovation" blog post, one of the big questions for MOOCs is:
> "How to structure learning and knowledge spaces in different disciplines and in different topics."
>
> Investigating how AI Stanford course works will most probably help to understand this.
>
> Osvaldo
>  
> C. Osvaldo RODRIGUEZ
>
> cor...@yahoo.com
>
> ________________________________
> From: Lisa M Lane <lisahist...@gmail.com>
> > ________________________________- Hide quoted text -

Osvaldo Rodriguez

unread,
Aug 8, 2011, 6:57:02 AM8/8/11
to edu...@googlegroups.com

I totally agree with Scott in all his comments.

With respect to AI Stanford, MOOC or not MOOC, we need to understand how to handle open massive technical courses and (if allowed by organizers) how much learners interaction appears.
As it is announced I agree with Scott there are little chances that it will evolve in a MOOC as described in the Educause papers by Siemens and Cormier.
It certainly is a step beyond the MIT Open Courseware and other similar initiatives. If an OER-like alternative to the US$114 book could be found the step would be bigger.

Osvaldo
C. Osvaldo RODRIGUEZ

From: Scott HJ <scot...@gmail.com>
To: eduMOOC <edu...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 11:18 PM

Rebecca

unread,
Aug 8, 2011, 10:35:44 AM8/8/11
to eduMOOC
Hi all,

This has been a great discussion - only wish I had more time to
contribute.

I have considered defining MOOCs and really think there are two ways
to define them:
1 - Literally using each letter in the word
2 - Based upon the original intent - that is the letters of the word
plus the inclusion of connectivism.

I'm summarized my thoughts in this post:
http://rjh.goingeast.ca/2011/08/06/is-it-or-is-it-not-a-mooc-edumooc/

Now, regardless of which you believe, I do not think the Stanford
course qualifies simply because of the requirement for an expensive
textbook. In this case they have failed to offer a course that is
"open" because they have added a significant barrier to entry. I do
think there is a requirement on the hosts of an "open" course to not
include significant financial barriers (a $5 or $10 book might be
acceptable, but over $100 - you might as well be charging tuition).
Openness has many implications and requirements, and being open is
more than just allowing people to sign up for free. You also have
remove any obvious barriers to entry.

I like the idea of keeping definitions as inclusive as possible, and
since there C in MOOC is course and not connectivism, I don't think a
MOOC needs to be connectivist - that being said, I think the type of
MOOC that I'm drawn to participate in is a connectivist MOOC - as it
is the connections and not necessarily the content that keeps me
engaged.

I also don't think that a MOOC needs to be unstructured. I think that
structure (at least to some level) is a good thing. We are
undervaluing the role of the MOOC host/facilitator if we say that
MOOCs need to be 100% participant driven. The MOOC host/facilitators
often have a lot to offer in the form of helping to structure the
content / discussions in a manner that helps participants to learn. I
would not want to host a MOOC where I was not permitted to provide
some form of structure. I also think that it is those minimalist
structures that lead to participant retention - and a lack of them
that encourages participant drop-out. The challenge is finding just
the right balance to allow for participants to be creative and find
their niche without over-structuring.

Here is an interesting quote from Davis et al 2008 Engaging minds:
Changing teaching in complex times: "The rules that define complex
systems maintain a delicate balance between sufficient structure, to
limit a pool of virtually limitless possibilities, and sufficient
openness, to allow for flexible and varied responses. These rule are
not matters of 'everyone does the same thing' or 'everyone does their
own thing,' but of 'everyone participants in a joint project.'
Rephrasing teaching intentions as enabling constraints rather than
prescriptions is an important competency" (p. 193-194).

The goal of MOOC hosts/facilitators, I think, should be provide just
enough structure to allow participants to develop in-depth
conversations on the particular topic. This requires adding enough
constraints to the conversation to focus the participants - without
stifling them.

Cheers,
Rebecca

Lisa M Lane

unread,
Aug 9, 2011, 6:18:32 PM8/9/11
to eduMOOC
I believe it is the unregistered, open-ended nature of a MOOC (and
yes, I reallize we have different definitions here - a lot of them
seem to be based on what various people think ought to be rather than
what is) that makes "retention" irrelevant. There was a big discussion
about that in CCK08 and other MOOCs. The consensus seemed to be that
people have different goals in a MOOC, and may satisfy them even if
they don't "complete" or aren't "retained". Many only lurked, but
claimed to get a great deal out of the course. Others cited time
problems, etc. But, of course, I'm sure more research will happen here
that will lead to even more advanced degrees.

The big concern about retention in online learning is inside paid (or
subsidized), for-credit, courses. And all the usual explanations seem
to apply: a feeling of isolation among students who don't "live"
online, lack of self-direction and self-motivation on the part of
learners, lack of engaging materials and activities, etc. Or is that
too trite now? ;-)

Lisa

Lisa M Lane

unread,
Aug 11, 2011, 11:50:11 AM8/11/11
to eduMOOC
My new blog post on this issue of what is a MOOC is here: http://is.gd/uRFTXz.

Osvaldo Rodriguez

unread,
Aug 11, 2011, 1:17:07 PM8/11/11
to edu...@googlegroups.com
Hi Lisa

If you define a MOOC as in Dave Cormier’s following presentation
or in the Educause paper by Cormier/Siemens, you need to add another necessary condition to your definition of MOOC:

learners and facilitators must engage in a many to many interaction to start knowledge negotiation.

This condition is what fascinates me on MOOCs.
Structured not structured is not important. To pay for a book, that  can be easily resolved by the facilitators by alternative OER material.

A Massive course has of course much higher chances for succeeding if these interactions are to take place.
In Jeff Lebows first MOOCast, Dave Cormier stated an estimate of around 100 people to start achieving this engagement.
I believe you can still have very fruitful many to many interactions with smaller groups.
But then, are we not back to OOC + knowledge negotiation?

Osvaldo
 
C. Osvaldo RODRIGUEZ
cor...@yahoo.com
From: Lisa M Lane <lisah...@gmail.com>
To: eduMOOC <edu...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:50 PM

Subject: [eduMOOC] Re: Need to redefine what a MOOC is?

Lisa M Lane

unread,
Aug 12, 2011, 1:46:37 AM8/12/11
to eduMOOC
Hi Osvaldo,

Ah, that makes sense. So three questions.

Would it be correct to say that such interaction must be part of the
course structure itself, or just intended, for a course to be a MOOC?

Is it this interaction that makes it Massive, or is it the Massiveness
that leads to the interaction?

Do we have a minimum number of 100 for something to be Massive?

Lisa

On Aug 11, 10:17 am, Osvaldo Rodriguez <cor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Lisa
>
> If you define a MOOC as in Dave Cormier’s following presentationhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cljmHZi2oUc
> or in the Educause paper by Cormier/Siemens, you need to add
> another necessary condition to your definition of MOOC:
>
> learners and facilitators must engage in a many to many
> interaction to start knowledge negotiation.
>
> This condition is what fascinates me on MOOCs.
>
> Structured not
> structured is not important. To pay for a book, that  can be easily resolved by the
> facilitators by alternative OER material.
>
> A Massive course has of course much higher chances for
> succeeding if these interactions are to take place.
> In Jeff Lebows first MOOCast, Dave Cormier stated an estimate
> of around 100 people to start achieving this engagement.
> I believe you can still have very fruitful many to many
> interactions with smaller groups.
> But then, are we not back to OOC + knowledge negotiation?
>
> Osvaldo
>  
> C. Osvaldo RODRIGUEZ
> cor...@yahoo.com
>
> ________________________________
> From: Lisa M Lane <lisahist...@gmail.com>

Osvaldo Rodriguez

unread,
Aug 13, 2011, 8:49:05 AM8/13/11
to edu...@googlegroups.com
Hi Lisa (in bold my replies)

My understanding to your questions:

1.Would it be correct to say that such interaction must be part of the

course structure itself, or just intended, for a course to be a MOOC?
("learners and facilitators must engage in a many to many
interaction to start knowledge negotiation".)

MOOC organizers should allow and try to promote the interaction.(intended MOOC)
If it happens during the course, then it was a succesful MOOC.


2. Is it this interaction that makes it Massive, or is it the Massiveness

that leads to the interaction?

You can have a massive number of registered participants and NO interaction.
i). Either it wasn't planned by the organizers (not a MOOC)
ii). Interaction was permitted but It just didn't happen. (bad MOOC)

in case ii) the more people participating the higher the probability of engagement and MOOC success.

3. Do we have a minimum number of 100 for something to be Massive?

Its difficult to decide on the threshold number for a course to be considered Massive.
But, if a course has 50 active participants actively engaged during the course I would consider it a successful MOOC.


Osvaldo

 
C. Osvaldo RODRIGUEZ
cor...@yahoo.com
From: Lisa M Lane <lisah...@gmail.com>
To: eduMOOC <edu...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 2:46 AM

Rebecca

unread,
Aug 14, 2011, 8:33:28 AM8/14/11
to eduMOOC
Hi all,

Is this (http://www.petapixel.com/2011/08/12/phonar-a-free-online-
undergrad-photography-course/) a MOOC? It seems to meet the OOC
requirement, but I'm not sure how massive it is. They even have
discussion groups.

Seems the medium does work outside of education.

Cheers,
Rebecca
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages