I took (and thanks to how great the course materials were, nearly aced) the first MITx course, 6.002x (circuits). Each lecture sequence had computer-graded exercises, and they had an online schematic editor and circuit simulator that was integrated into some of the homework and tests.
I thought that was an adequate use of digital technology to enhance learning, and I learned significantly more than I did from my failed attempts at taking introductory electronics in a live lecture setting. The ability to pause, rewind, and speed up the lectures was priceless.
Have subsequent MITx and edX courses been less impressive?
I am currently taking the edX Intro to Linux course. I don't actually need the course, but since I am self taught I wanted to see if I missed some things. Popd/pushd come to mind as a feature I've never used.
The course though is rough. I have found frequent spelling and grammar problems. The English is plain broken in the recorded examples. The interactive portions don't attempt to emulate a terminal, it is just straight string matching. Plus, it is amazingly easy even if you are unfamiliar with Linux.
To contrast this Udacity has made some great interactive learning experiences. Their python based courses were very good. The only disappointing this is that they were fairly watered down.
Coursera is in the middle. Some courses are great in the content aspect. Tim Roughgarden's algorithms course comes to mind. But at the same time they are usually a rough port of the classroom material with a slight amount of interactive window dressing.
As I try to pull myself from being a crap programmer to being a good software/hardware developer I am begging for difficult content. Everyone has a bunch of lower division courses in various subject available. I want hard courses that shape my thinking as I try to solve them rather than easy courses that stroke my ego about how "smart" I am.
Also I really wish Udacity and GIT would have opened their 7000$ masters up to people that never finished university. Though I probably wouldn't attempt all the coursework quite yet, I feel shut out of that option. The whole point of pervasive online learning was to remove barriers and friction to learning. By having a arbitrary degree requirement it just takes a step back to the old system that it shouldn't have.
With respect to the Intro to Linux course, I think you probably overestimate the intended audience. I'm not sure the typical Windows user who has seldom or never touched a command line would find it "amazingly easy." That said, the course covers well-plowed land in a pretty pedestrian way. Working through any of dozens of books on the market would probably suffice just as well for the motivated learner.
I agree that most MOOCs seem to be rather watered down relative to what I expect their parent university classes are like. I suspect part of this is that a lot of both problem sets/projects/etc. and outside reading tend to be removed. Some of this don't well with the MOOC format. I also suspect there's a limited appetite for MOOCs requiring many hours of "homework" every week. They do exist but they seem to be in the minority based on what I've seen.
I thought that was an adequate use of digital technology to enhance learning, and I learned significantly more than I did from my failed attempts at taking introductory electronics in a live lecture setting. The ability to pause, rewind, and speed up the lectures was priceless.
Have subsequent MITx and edX courses been less impressive?