Page:The battle for open.pdf/126

 Learning intervenes in this debate by supporting and showcasing innovation that brings together the best of truly open, online and networked learning in the wilds of the Internet.' This can be viewed as a c­ounter-​­movement to the growing dominance of certain models of MOOCs, which their technology platforms come to embody. The Reclaim Open initiative views engagement with various forms of technology as a route through which educators can take ownership of what it means to be open. Whether one supports Reclaim Open or not, their existence is an indication of the stage we are in for the battle for open, and suggests that ownership of the term is slipping, or has slipped, away. One does not see a 'reclaim exams' or 'reclaim libraries' movement.

If the analysis performed at the end of the last chapter for OERs against the open principles from Chapter 2 is repeated for MOOCs, this reveals some of the reasons for this underlying disquiet about MOOCs:


 * Freedom to r­euse – ­MOOC contents are not usually openly licensed, so they cannot be reused in different contexts (some providers have started to use CC licences now)
 * Open ­access – ­MOOCs are open to all to sign up
 * Free ­cost – t­his has been the main focus of MOOCs
 * Easy use – ­the MOOC platforms have developed e­asy-­​­to-​­use interfaces, although as noted above, the completion rates for this type of learning are low
 * Digital, networked ­content – although MOOCs are obviously online and digital, they are often not fully networked, in that they can exist within a closed platform
 * Social, community based ­approaches – s­ome MOOCs are based around a very community-​­driven approach,