This Harvard study & Atlantic article by the study authors give the same 5% completion rate you cited, but give a completely opposite interpretation: basically

This Harvard study & Atlantic article by the study authors give the same 5% completion rate you cited, but give a completely opposite interpretation: basically, that the MOOC broadened access, allowing more people to get what they wanted out of the course. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/the-tricky-task-of-figuring-out-what-makes-a-mooc-successful/283274/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/the-tr... https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263 "In these course[sic], “dropping out” is not a breach of expectations but the natural result of an open, free, and asynchronous registration process, where students get just as much as they wish out of a course and registering for a course does not imply a commitment to completing it." ... Also the discussion of the "Colbert Bump", where increased publicity to less-motivated (just curious) students doubled completion but tripled registration (thus reducing completion rate). Also the point about whether to allow or disallow registration after the course begins (late registrants are ineligible for certification, so they are automatically "failed"). "HarvardX could boost its certification rate by closing those courses to new registrants or restrict courses to those most likely to complete them. Instead, it keeps courses open to maximize the number of students who are learning something new." I absolutely agree that (at least some) users can be helped by live instruction or supplemented online instruction, but I disagree that commonly cited, low completion rates measure students with the "same level of motivation".