President Horton’s college offers the type of “innovation” that Christensen has been talking about: it is affordable, it does not sacrifice quality and it is available to a wider range of learners that were overlooked in the past.

Horton aptly addressed online learning as co-existing with face to face. Too many of my fellow professors see it as a threat. It will replace everything we do is the cry too often heard. The COOC model is one of co-existence. If a student needs to learn at a distance, we shall send our learning out to them. And, we will send it out in a quality form and not as a cheap substitute. Horton’s model also honors the center-stage role that faculty play instead of the Armageddon cries of the diminishing role of faculty. He is correct in citing the high importance of faculty for “being highly responsive to the individual learning needs of students.”

And, another note that underscores Christensen in this article is the re-examination of how we do things. The designer of the course is a new partner who takes on the technology, so we don’t have to deal with this, but that person is a positive partner too so that we can “focus on helping students.” Re-examining is healthy.

Lastly, the integration of services that Horton mentioned is one that should not be overlooked. Too often, in my experience, the far-away online learner can’t access important services.

Bravo to COOCs. I would like to hear how other educators feel about this reasoned approach,
especially those who have actually taught online. Maybe in the same way that Horton did not dismiss MOOCs, and constructively recognized their place in an educational landscape, we can constructively discuss the necessary place for his aptly-titled COOCs.

Professor Durant