As
I observe, and occasionally read, the ever-escalating number of articles,
polemics, assessments, testimonials, and critiques of MOOCs, I sometimes
wonder: “what am I missing here?’
It seems to me that MOOCs are a 21st century,
university-level textbook. Take a
star professor (or at least a successful teacher), add state-of-the-art
presentation and graphics, mix in a student guide with exercises/problems/study
questions, include course and reference materials for instructors, build a
marketing campaign, and in the 1990s you got a textbook. In 2013, a MOOC may
result. Both reflect the
perspective and pedagogical approach of the author(s). Both may be used by
thousands of students simultaneously, who may, or may not, interact very much
with each other, or with the instructor for that matter.
More
importantly, in this context students largely split into two major groups. I was able to learn a lot from
textbooks or monographs. Most academics likely share that ability; it’s an
attribute that helps us succeed over a lifetime in the academy. Most of the
students I taught at Amherst College or Montana State University had difficulty
learning material solely from a book, no matter how distinguished the
author. The early results on MOOCs
appear to suggest a similar divide among students, based on actual completion
rates. MOOCs, like textbooks, will
likely become a very useful tool for learning. I am skeptical that MOOCs, by themselves, will be adequate
for a majority of students to actually master material at the level
required. I also think the
Provosts associated with the Committee on Institutional Collaboration (see the
link below) did an excellent job outlining the advantages and issues associated
with MOOCs and other online learning approaches.
But
none of this gets at the real issue. My concern about the current debate
regarding MOOCs is that it distracts us from the more important task of
fundamentally remaking undergraduate education to meet the urgent challenges of
the 21st century. Consider
this: the vast majority of colleges and universities continue to structure
education around an academic calendar originally designed to accommodate
agriculture, and continue to use some version of an arbitrary credit system vaguely related to occupying a seat
in a room for a specified period of time. Further, progress towards a degree is
largely measured by the satisfactory accumulation of such credits within
specified time periods. I would guess that most of us who have taught in
universities have encountered students who could complete all the work
associated with a 14-week semester course in 10 weeks, or even seven. We have
likely also had students who probably could have succeeded in that same course
if they had 15 weeks to do so. In
addition, our grading systems and standards are highly idiosyncratic, and
comparisons among and between institutions are frequently fraught with
difficulty. To be sure (and when done well and systematically), the definition
of specific educational outcomes and the implementation of assessment
strategies is an incremental improvement.
We
can do better, and we must. The
magnitude and complexity of the global challenges we face simply demand a more
highly educated populace. We must
be able to improve access and student success without driving the cost of
public education beyond the means of our average citizen. To do this we must be serious about
creating a 24/7 learning environment for students that takes full advantage of
all the relevant and supportive technologies, enables students to learn at the
rate best suited to them, continuously challenges students to excel, engages
students in research, scholarship, and creative work, and provides
opportunities for them to engage in solving real problems. MOOCs may become a very valuable tool
in this endeavor, but only that.
