the manner in which open education is influenced by competing narratives.
Similarly, the aim of this chapter is not to suggest that Silicon Valley commercial solutions are not useful or innovative. One has only to look at the impact Google has had on society in general – and education in particular – to see how successful this can be. Universities have their own demands and methods of functioning, and often it is necessary to operate outside of these to create a specific product for popular uptake. The intention in this chapter was rather to draw attention to the importance of narrative and how it shapes perception and direction. MOOCs in particular have seen the openness narrative overtaken by other, more dominant ones. It may be that you conclude this is necessary or inevitable to gain the impact MOOCs have had, but we should at least be aware of the influence of this narrative and whether alternative ones are possible.
One of the negative implications of the 'education is broken' / Silicon Valley narrative is that it necessarily frames all change as revolution. This creates a false dichotomy amongst the audience, who either accept the revolution and all that it encompasses or are seen as opposing it and wishing to preserve the status quo. To be suspicious of the motives of those who declare education to be broken or to question the nature of this claim is not the same as proclaiming that there are no problems in education. Similarly, being dismissive of the concept of disruption is not equivalent to being resistant to change.
Another downside to the revolution-based narrative is that it requires excessive claims to be made in order to justify the scale of the revolution, such as Thrun’s declaration that there will be only 10 providers of global education, or that MOOCS will mean the end of the university and provide free global education for
