"Technology is just a tool. It terms of getting the kids working together and motivating them, the teacher is most important." - Bill Gates
I do not expect this to be my one and only post on Massive Open Online Courses - better known as MOOCs. It is a very current issue with too many stakeholders for me to fully wrap my head around in one go. In addition, I do not yet know how I feel about it - and the same can be said for many professionals and educators much more experienced than I am. There are clear benefits: access, low costs, time management. The caveat is that these only come if MOOCs are utilized with the intention of better-serving students. If not, the clear deficits arise, the most worrisome being the undermining of public education and the decrease in value of the campus experience. Not to mention businesses replacing administrators. Yes, I am slightly biased.
Today's discussion revolves around two articles from the Chronicle. One concerns Google and EdX's new venture in providing an open-source site for anyone - literally anyone - to post their own MOOCs. The other is in regards to a renowned MOOC professor "defecting" due to his worries that supporting this movement will help justify lower funding for universities. Thus, we have two sides of the same issue.
As far as the invention of MOOC.org, I think it is safe to say that it is too early - both in the MOOC movement in general and in the life of this -3-month-old site - to see where this will take us. In general this movement is taking us back to the goals of higher education, which I recently learned are too many and too diverse to attempt to delineate. Do they match the purposes of MOOCs, though? I have my doubts. Both have excellent goals, assuming that MOOCs have general purposes lying in the engendering of a better-educated society and wider dispersion and sharing of research and knowledge. And the fact that this site will be open to any aspiring teacher makes it all the more intriguing and impressive. While I worry about regulation of courses, I am sure that the CEOs running this venture will be careful. Furthermore, I have high hopes for educated, proper use of the data collected on the students using MOOC.org.
In the case of Professor Duneier, I trust that he is making the decision that is best for him, and it is clear from the article that there is no general opinion coming from higher education professionals or professors on MOOCs. I do share concerns for the future of public education and the place of living, breathing professors who make their living teaching these introductory courses in person, though. The article alludes to cutting costs. I would prefer that the institutions be open about whether or not those monies are being repurposed, and then what they are being repurposed to. If you are taking the money that you would be using for your Intro Psych classes and putting it toward starting a new academic program, say so. If it is going towards the football team, tell someone. Either way, there are always going to be stakeholders agreeing and disagreeing with that decision, so you might as well be transparent. Hopefully cutting costs is the reality, though, and not Duneier's fear of cutting funding.
Article Citations:
Kolowich, S. (2013). Google and edX create a MOOC site for the rest of us. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/google-and-edx-create-a-mooc-site-for-the-rest-of-us/46413
Parry, M. (2013). A MOOC star defects - at least for now. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/A-MOOC-Star-Defects-at-Least/141331/
Quote Citation: Gates, B. (n.d.) BrainyQuote. Retrieved from: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics/topic_technology.html
Photo By: Me =)
No comments:
Post a Comment