MOOC's don't have to suck. The 4% to 10% completion rates may be the most obvious problem, but too many MOOC's simply don't use good learning design. They don't give learners enough realistic practice, they don't set work in realistic contexts, they don't space repetitions over time.
But after reading this article from Thomas Friedman in the New York Times, you will see that there is one thing that MOOC's do really well. The get learning content to learners.
Really, go ahead. Read the article...
Why is "Exposure" one of the Decisive Dozen learning factors?
Many people have wondered why I included "Exposure" as one of the most important learning factors. Why would exposing learners to learning content rank as so important? Friedman's article makes it clear in one example, but there are billions of learners just waiting for the advantage of learning.
I got the idea of the importance of exposing learners to valid content by noticing in many a scientific experiment that learners in the control group often improved tremendously--even though they were almost always outclassed by those who were in the treatment groups.
By formalizing Exposure as one of the top 12 learning factors, we send the message that while learning design matters, giving learners valid content probably matters more.
And yes, that last sentence is as epically important as it sounds...
It also should give us learning experts a big dose of humility...
MOOC's will get better...
Most MOOC's aren't very well designed, but over time, they'll get better.