Firstly, thankfully Everton season tickets are a bit cheaper :-) Secondly, the danger when you lay out the costs against other activities, is not one purely related to investing in a luxury. Would I rather; a) spend 2.5k on a course? b) Take my *family* on a nice holiday (currently just the 2 of us but when you have kids, spending such quality time is important) - might be a once in a lifetime holiday. c) continue to take my nephew to Everton games - again, about quality time. Each have 'added value' beyond their initial title. I'm sure most academics take work home with them, so there is more value placed on quality time - I think that family time might take preference, especially if you have a 'stay-at-home' partner who looks after kids. That money is not strictly *yours*, it's the household income....

So an interesting perspective might be that smaller/less known institutions wishing to contribute to the open movement might be more effective (in terms of reaching self learners) by focussing on specific topic related areas due to the difficulty in competing with leading providers (competing in terms of reputation, but also resources/funds to produce high end materials).... Another interesting perspective is the value of small OERs to self learners compared with fuller 'courses'. Not sure if any research compares access to both.... Peter

Hi Martin, Interesting reflections. I actually questioned on Twitter last week, if one can be a MOOC if there are only small numbers. Certainly not if they are commercial (but then if something is commercial is it really open anyway?), and furthermore, by definition (again, the problem with acronyms [never really like MOOC]). What really grabs me though, is that all of the MOOCs I've seen appear to be on learning technology, openness and other topics geared around CPD for educators. The Coursera, MIT/Stanford initiatives I've come across focus on Computer Science. I've recently met with a few colleagues for a small OER project in Applied Geomorphology at MMU and wonder if we could offer it as an open course. Perhaps the topic naturally narrows the market but would it work? I think it could... Finally, on your point regarding returning to educator run courses - does this bare any reflection on the uptake of the smaller resources by learners? I'd imagine (no hard evidence) that learners are likely to do a google search and if a structured open course from the OU returns, then that would be a trustworthy source. Compare that with an individual small OER from a lesser known HEI - any difference? Just speaking aloud really but all interesting debates. Cheers Peter Reed @reedyreedles

Hi Martin Thanks for pointing me here - I did try to comment a while back but failed and lost my comments (my fault). As you know, I'm here based on the 'Perhaps Education isn't that broken' post I wrote recently - http://scieng-elearning.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/perhaps-education-isnt-that-broken.html To this end, I just wanted to pick up on the 'if it aint' broke dont fix it' point of view.... This is a problem when trying to implement learning technologies - many staff do just fine without it, and (I'm sure partly) due to the fact the reward mechanisms in HE are not particularly great for such things. But I don't think the statement is actually relevant, let alone helpful. So the rhetoric of opportunity is interesting. In a sector where we focus on development and enhancement of students (or pupils depending on which age range you work with), and somewhere we focus on research and development ourselves, I wonder if there is such a state of 'not broken', or indeed, 'fixed'. Again, the adage isn't helpful. Regardless of how 'good' a lecturer/teacher is, there is always improvement; Applying research to practice. So the point I made in my blog post, was suggesting Education isn't broken, but it could be improved. It will never be perfect. I wonder how damaging the 'if it aint' broken don't fix it' attitude is to not only individual students who perhaps struggle to engage with certain approaches, but to whole programmes of study, and consequently the sector as a whole. Furthermore, what type message does this attitude portray to our students and graduates. I fear their inspiration to be better (if at all) will be more driven from the view of 'not wanting to end up like lecturer A', rather than 'wanting to be more like him'. As someone involved in HE for about 9 years (in various roles across different HEIs), regrettably I have seen too many people who live by the unhelpful adage. And my inspiration, whilst often is to do best by my students, is also sometimes to not end up like 'them'. For some reason, the fell out of love with the job. The day I do, is the day I leave the profession. So Education isn't broken at all. But some of the cogs could certainly do with a clean and an oil! Sorry for the waffling :-) Peter @reedyreedles