Page:The battle for open.pdf/144

 all. Inevitably, these predictions are ­failing – ­Thrun has changed direction with Udacity, EdX found that linking employers with MOOC learners was not successful and that 'existing HR departments want to go for traditional degree programs and filter out nontraditional candidates' (Kolowich 2013d) and a school designed to provide community while students studied MOOCs of their choice has struggled to retain students (­Caplan-​­Bricker 2013). The MOOC backlash has begun, with some university staff refusing to use MOOC material or participate in MOOCs (Kolowich 2013e) and much online comment now taking on a critical tone, for example, Laurillard’s (2014) 'Five Myths About MOOCs'. It is debatable whether these reactions would have been seen if MOOCs had not been oversold, and there is a danger that the backlash will undermine future MOOC development.

Openness in education offers many real opportunities to improve education in terms of the opportunities for learners, developing pedagogies based on open practice, distributing free resources and democratising education. Many of these radical changes are being driven by those who work in education, but the Silicon Valley narrative wishes to exclude this part of the story. MOOCs have highlighted how the battle for narrative shapes the direction that an innovation can take. It may be MOOCs currently, but the same pattern is likely to occur with whatever the next open education innovation might be, because there is a powerful story to be told around global education, and the size of the education market is irresistible to the Silicon Valley narrative. Recognising this struggle for narrative and constructing alternatives is therefore at the heart of the battle for open. One method of doing so is to utilise the power of the internet for academics to share their practice openly. This is the subject of the next chapter.