Page:The battle for open.pdf/118

 underpinned learning objects comes into play here: Why teach the same subject at several places, when one high-​­quality MOOC can be created for all students to take that is recognised by all participating institutions?

MOOC ­recognition – ­By formally recognising certain MOOCs, it is possible that some institutions could shorten some of the courses they offer. For example, a learner could demonstrate that they have successfully completed a determined number of MOOCs, then they could enter an undergraduate degree in the second year and complete in two years. For the students it means fees are reduced by at least a third, which might make degree study more attractive. For campus universities they are selling the ‘campus experience’ more, without it being as prohibitively expensive. There would be reservations about developing some higher level, graduate skills with this approach, but it is feasible that a few institutions might adopt it to differentiate themselves.

Curriculum experimentation and ­expansion – Formal online courses are an increasingly large investment, which means course approval becomes more rigorous. The demands placed on a formal course are lessened for a MOOC (although they do not disappear), which allows for experimentation. And because MOOCs appeal to a global audience, what may not be a viable course for a campus, fee paying constituency may well be viable to a global community of informal learners. The result is that curriculum experimentation becomes less risky. It also means institutions can offer a broader curriculum, because they can offer their own curriculum but also recognise MOOCs from others. For example, ‘­Hydro-​­engineering and Russian’ may be offered by a university that covers the engineering element, while Russian language is delivered via t­hird-​­party MOOCs which are accredited and supported by the host university.