Enter Facebook. The site began as a free but closed system. It required not just registration but an acceptable email address (from a university, or later, from any school). Google was forbidden to search through its servers. By the time it opened to the general public in 2006, its clublike, ritualistic, highly regulated foundation was already in place. Its very attraction was that it was a closed system. Indeed, Facebook’s organization of information and relationships became, in a remarkably short period of time, a redoubt from the Web — a simpler, more habit-forming place. The company invited developers to create games and applications specifically for use on Facebook, turning the site into a full-fledged platform. And then, at some critical-mass point, not just in terms of registration numbers but of sheer time spent, of habituation and loyalty, Facebook became a parallel world to the Web, an experience that was vastly different and arguably more fulfilling and compelling and that consumed the time previously spent idly drifting from site to site. Even more to the point, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg possessed a clear vision of empire: one in which the developers who built applications on top of the platform that his company owned and controlled would always be subservient to the platform itself. It was, all of a sudden, not just a radical displacement but also an extraordinary concentration of power. The Web of countless entrepreneurs was being overshadowed by the single entrepreneur-mogul-visionary model, a ruthless paragon of everything the Web was not: rigid standards, high design, centralized control.
Molly Wasser on 14 Sep 13Here's an example of one person who excelled in a MOOC. While everyone may not have the drive of this student, this is a good example of how an online technology facilitated a social learning group. Also - yet another example of how online resources can benefit people across the country who do not otherwise have access.
Laura Stankiewicz on 15 Sep 13A friend just sent me this same article, Molly! However, my takeaway was much different. Whenever I read articles about young people doing extraordinary things with limited resources and technology, my first thought is always "how is this possible??" The article addresses my question directly: "The answer has to do with Battushig's extraordinary abilities, of course, but also with the ambitions of his high-school principal." The principal, also a graduate of MIT, was focused on developing more skilled engineers in Mongolia, and made it his mission to bring science and tech labs to his students; while MOOCs, the government's heavy investment in IT infrastructure, and the ubiquity of a 3G network made it possible to extend and enhance learning opportunities, the students may have never been exposed to engineering were it not for the encouragement of the principal. This human component, combined with technology, was what nurtured Battushig's drive and talent. This path will not work for just any student. If most homes in Mongolia have an Internet connection and even nomads cell phones, why have more people not found success with MOOCs? The author of the article summed it up best when she said, "Battushig's success also showed that schools could use MOOCs to find exceptional students all over the globe." Battushig is exceptional, just as elevated learning through MOOCs is still the "exception" and not the rule. MOOCs still lack a certain (perhaps human?) element that can move them from producing the anomaly of one "boy genius" to a more widespread level of learning.
