I keep trying to marshall my thoughts on this one-- but they are all over the map, honestly. What ALISON, MITx, Udacity, and Coursera are offering is not necessarily MOOC in the same sense of the word as the AI experiment last year at Stanford, or the juggernaut of DS106. "Massive" it may be, and "open" (well, at least in terms of enrollment), certainly, but not open-source or student-led. Nor is all of it 'college' coursework. Much of what ALISON has to offer is pretty basic computer skills training. Hardly "collegiate" in the way that most of us think of it.

NONE of the providers have any intention thus far of offering college credit (of any kind) for any of this free online content. I find that quite telling in and of itself. I think that one of the underlying problems here is a lack of validation/credibility. More on that in a moment. (I have a bit of an insider's view having had my DD enrolled in a major online-provider for elementary, middle, and now high school, and having been in on some of the 'ground floor' development for distance learning objectives 1996 through 2003).

More troubling to me personally is the seemingly sly or seductive commodification happening here, under the guise of the "open source" movement. Udacity and Coursera are both for-profit endeavors; neither has anything "open" about it; both have aggressively conventional copyright associated with ALL content. They've both refused to discuss their business plan. With anyone. I find that really troubling. frown

Pros:

access to pretty much anyone with a high-speed internet connection (which still, in case anyone is counting, leaves the majority of the developing world utterly out in the cold )

access to content which is different/higher level than anything available in remote locations (though again, see note above about high-speed internet)

access to low cost alternatives to enrichment (this seems like a VERY positive thing for EG/PG children and for adults, too, for that matter)

Cons:

see note above about lack of transparency re: business models-- what is fueling this, monetarily, once the venture capital runs out, hmmm?

what if this just leads to repetition for kids that do these courses in high school but... cannot get any kind of 'credit' for having done them??

Coursera has now teamed up with VUE (Pearson.... ahhhhhh, the stories that I could tell about Pearson and assessment...) in order to 'validate' mastery via end-of-course, ON-SITE testing at a 'validated' testing site, run by Pearson. For a modest fee, of course. Of course. This is currently the ONLY real way to 'certification' and even this is fraught with pragmatic problems. There already exist persons whose sole occupation is apparently to take exams for others. Why would this be any different? Answer-- it won't.

_________________________

While I love the idea of MOOC for some endeavors (ds106, anyone?? WOWSERS!), I simply do not think that it is valid to draw comparisons between grand experiments like DS106 or AI, with many MATURE participants all learning from one another and conducting an inquiry-led course with undefined objectives and therefore no particular goal-based outcomes (hey-- sounds JUST like a large graduate seminar course!)... to introductory content like the canned instruction offered by S. Khan or elsewhere... (Yeah, something tells me that there is a VERY good reason why introductory calculus isn't taught like "advanced topics" is).

I really have some irritation over the misappropriation of the term MOOC, for starters (because there is nothing "open" about what Udacity and Coursera are doing), and secondly, some angst over the idea that, with respect to foundational material;

a) 'canned' instruction-- of any caliber or from any institution-- is a good substitute for interactive, real-time instruction from even a moderately effective teacher-- for students of any ability...

or that

b) the 'organic/exploratory' approach is an appropriate means of teaching/learning the basics in any discipline. The MOOC is not a viable model for teaching basic skills.


These two highly antithetical approaches (both profoundly incorrect, IMO), are both being termed "MOOC" and offered for free. They have little to do with one another and probably fairly little to do with good formal education to start with. Personal enrichment? Fine. Substitute for good instruction in the basics? Not-so-fine, and that is my problem with this; because that is what seems to be the subtext of all of the cheery press on the subject. Well, not 'all' since there are a fair number of ed bloggers and higher-ed consortiums/thinktanks that seem to be as wary as I feel. It's not just me, in other words. This just isn't a solution to higher ed's cost containment woes. But it's being touted that way, and I think that is deeply unfortunate, since it is ultimately leading to wholly unrealistic expectations that may doom the entire thing to be judged as a 'failure' on that basis.


I should add that I have been horrified that my child's online school has decided that 40 minutes of weekly math instruction is "sufficient" time with a live expert instructor. Yes-- you read that right. In courses through precalculus, no less. Oh, sure, there are canned "video tutorials," (about four minutes each day) and those are (supposedly) sufficient. The subtext is that if you can't get it from that, you're placed inappropriately, or that maybe you should spend time watching MORE canned instruction on youtube or Khan Academy. (HUH?? Maybe if you're lost on some smaller foundational point, a real teacher could ferret that out in a few minutes, whereas you could easily-- as a student, I mean-- spend weeks not knowing why you were going wrong, or where.) What school is this, you might rightly ask? Connections. Yes, the same Connections which was recently snapped up by Pearson. I have nothing but bad things to say about their supposed "expertise" in assessment, by the way. Mostly, it can be summed up with... "Wha??" or "I spent fourteen weeks learning this material, and THIS is what you wanted me to get out of that?? REALLY?" (In the case of the latter, think "What is the fourth word of the Bill of Rights?" Truly that bad. In the former, incomprehensible questions and/or technically incorrect answers or even multiple equally correct answers.) Lowest levels of Bloom's taxonomy, which some of the assessment experts I've spoken to don't even seem to understand when I've expressed concern over this point. So yeah-- certification by Pearson? Puhhleeeeeeeez. My point in sharing that anecdote is to note the natural endpoint of this kind of thinking in action. Sure-- students should "own" their education. Sure. What this really amounts to is that teachers aren't going to actually be interactively teaching kids anymore. Oh well. Good for kids that are complete autodidacts, but honestly, that isn't even most GT kids.

*********************************************


While we may elect to use MITx for enrichment, I have deep misgivings about Coursera and Udacity; this is not politically motivated. Frankly, I could care less about whether or not a company makes money by providing services, as long as they don't adopt cost-cutting that harms quality and/or price-gouging of students/families. Unfortunately, all of my experience (both as a parent and educator) suggests that is virtually inevitable. At least MITx/Edx is nonprofit, even if I don't see how the model is sustainable.

There is also no way that I'm going to encourage DD to take content that is likely to be duplicated in required college coursework. The reason is that she doesn't tolerate repetition very well.

For some creative, truly MOOC activities, though? Absolutely thrilled with the option (though I doubt that ALISON, Coursera, MITx, or Udacity are going to offer such inquiry-led courses anytime soon). laugh


Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.