>'I think Flowers' view is that MITx had the funding and talent to completely re-think digital education, develop new tools, and raise the bar. They did not do that. What they did wasn't bad, but it wasn't transformative either.'
I don't disagree with that.
I don't know if making that sort of criticism with the benefit of hindsight is entirely fair though?
I'm thinking that to 'completely re-think' anything is always going to be something of a gamble - with success depending not only on the merits of the solution but specific timing as well.
It's easy to imagine the people behind OCW and later MITx opting for a 'safe' approach as opposed to an all or nothing moonshot. Create measurable results in terms of courses online, visitors and students and iterate from there.
Also, holding up Khan Academy (2006) as what OCW could have or should have been is questionable considering what most of the web looked like 2001/02 when OCW launched. Those intervening years were a pretty big deal in web time.
I don't disagree with that.
I don't know if making that sort of criticism with the benefit of hindsight is entirely fair though?
I'm thinking that to 'completely re-think' anything is always going to be something of a gamble - with success depending not only on the merits of the solution but specific timing as well.
It's easy to imagine the people behind OCW and later MITx opting for a 'safe' approach as opposed to an all or nothing moonshot. Create measurable results in terms of courses online, visitors and students and iterate from there.
Also, holding up Khan Academy (2006) as what OCW could have or should have been is questionable considering what most of the web looked like 2001/02 when OCW launched. Those intervening years were a pretty big deal in web time.