MOOCs are dead! - Open Education and the Quality of Online Courses Towards a Common Quality Reference Framework

Christian M. Stracke

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference Article in proceedingProfessional


    This paper presents the current status of Open Education and MOOCs as the main instruments and drivers in the publicity. The evolution from e-Learning towards MOOCs and Open Education is introduced as basis to discuss the main question of this paper: Is Open Education a revolution or are MOOCs only marketing instruments? According to Marx, a revolution is the complete change of the production relations and means and their new ownership and direction towards changed production power. Transferred to Open Education, the current question is whether Open Education is indeed a social revolution for individual learners, educational institutions and the society worldwide or whether MOOCs as the most prominent appearance of open learning are only marketing instruments by the traditional educational systems. The presentation at EDEN Conference 2016 will start the debate and following research will provide further argumentations for future discussions.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationEDEN 2016 Annual Conference : Re-Imagining Learning Scenarios
    EditorsAntónio Moreira Teixeira, Andás Szűcs, lldikó Mázár
    PublisherEuropean Distance and E-Learning Network
    Number of pages7
    ISBN (Electronic)978-615-5511-10-3
    Publication statusPublished - 2016
    EventEDEN 2016 Annual Conference - Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary
    Duration: 14 Jun 201617 Jun 2016


    ConferenceEDEN 2016 Annual Conference
    Internet address


    • Open Education
    • quality development
    • MOOCs
    • e-Learning
    • revolution
    • marketing
    • MOOQ


    Dive into the research topics of 'MOOCs are dead! - Open Education and the Quality of Online Courses Towards a Common Quality Reference Framework'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this