I can understand the hesitancy of superimposing a metaphor like the sales funnel onto education, given that it tends to treat individual students as either objects or customers. But if we can get past the educator’s understandable distaste for applying terminology that originates from the world of business to the business of education, I think this metaphor offers a useful framework to make important decisions regarding what next for MOOCs.
As noted previously, if we treat an online class that allows anyone to sign up for free (with no consequences for doing something other than finishing all the work) as the equivalent of those courses we committed to in college, we run the risk of treating genuine learning experiences (like those of students who audit or learn everything they want, even if they don’t get a certificate) as the equivalent of drop-outs.
But if we instead look at those signups as entrance into a sales or engagement funnel, then the notion that most people will not make it to the end becomes completely unremarkable since it simply highlights that this particular kind of funnel is not built around the assumption that 100% of what goes in is expected to come out the other end.
If MOOC developers begin with the expectation that only a fraction of those entering ever plan to reach certification, they can devise strategies around achieving goals they set for their courses based on this reality.
For example, if course designers actually want to maximize certification rates they could limit the number of enrollees in a course (as was the case with Harvard’s CopyrightX) and focus more resources on a smaller number of students who have committed from the outset to work towards completion of all assigned work. And if limiting enrollment seems too drastic, perhaps a more structured system can be implemented to separate at the outset browsers from auditors from those who at least start with a desire to certify.
CopyrightX sort of did that by making course content available to auditors, even if only the 500 students who were accepted into the class had access to things like discussion groups and a human-graded final exam. But a system in which we can track and judge the success of auditors (based on how many lecture videos they watch) vs. committed course completers (based on certification rates) would not just provide better understanding but could help MOOC creators maximize the success of each group.
For instance, rather than taunt every student with progress reports that show auditors failing the course, why not create a separate auditor’s report that will just show their progress accomplishing what they want to accomplish (watching lectures)? And why not replace those generic e-mails courses send out each week listing all the assignments a student has to complete with ones that encourage students to get through the work they’ve actually committed to?
And don’t forget that every MOOC developer is not necessarily interested in maximizing certification rates. Greg Nagy of Ancient Greek Heroes fame, for example, is thrilled if any student engages with the literature he is introducing them to at any level. In funnel terms, this would translate to a strategy that maximizes the number of people who enter the funnel (a marketing challenge) vs. pushing people through the funnel towards a pre-defined end (a “sales” challenge).
The sales process generally involves discovering those prospects that actually stand a chance of buying, and not wasting time on tire kickers. And since we now know that even in a course with an opening enrollment of 50,000 or more, just a few thousand of those are likely to earn a certificate, why not target those potential buyers with options like special awards or discussion options (like online meet-ups) where the genuinely committed can congregate?
One of the criticisms of MOOCs is that it’s impossible to lavish close personal attention on tens of thousands (which is true). But if only a subset of enrollees would even be interested in such attention, why not find out who they are and provide them resources that are easier to create and manage once you realize they are likely to serve just the fraction of enrollees who might want them?
Such strategies are not incompatible with encouraging tire kickers to become prospects or even customers (by encouraging those who haven’t begun watching lectures yet to get started, or urging auditors to try their hand at a few assignments – especially since this tends to dramatically increase engagement). But, again, these options are built on the assumption that every student is not the equivalent of a kid occupying a seat inside a college lecture hall. And by thinking less like classroom teachers and more like salespeople, we might stand the chance of maximizing the benefits of massive open learning for everyone.
Leave a Reply