There's just no way to teach Composition without interaction. Oh, and another thing-- it's not really possible to teach introductory chemistry or linear algebra without it, either, in spite of what some reports have said in recent days.
Whether someone has learned X should be measured by what they know and what they can do (outputs), not how they learned (inputs). I agree that a composition course should have some human interaction, but it need not be face-to-face. CTY offers online composition courses in which instructors make written comments on students' essays.
Some smart and motivated people have taught themselves introductory chemistry and linear algebra by reading on their own. Gifted homeschoolers often prepare for AP exams in this way. These exams have long-answer questions, not just multiple choice questions. The College Board has done studies showing that students who get high scores on AP exams do as well in the following college courses as students who earn high grades in introductory college courses.
We likely will pay our kids way through a residential college, because we are well off. I do see value in having professors and classmates. But the cost of college has risen so much that many families are looking for cheaper alternatives.
I'm more than a little alarmed by the notion that "video" is intended to replace...
expert-written textbooks?? (Seriously-- this is a quote by someone in this MOOC-consortium push.) The rationale behind this statement? This person
believes that people learn more from video than from "dry textbooks." Oh, well then. If you think it hard enough, I suppose that makes it true??
I agree with you that textbooks written by knowledgeable authors are valuable, and I can learn faster from a book than a video.
People who don't like to read should not be going to college.I agree with you!! (Red letter day on both our calendars, probably.
) FWIW, so does my 13yo DD.
I think that you nailed it there, though in another way, too. I think that my DH and I figured out what this
is ultimately envisioned to be. Oh, sure-- right now there is a lot of buy-in from higher ed and a big kerfuffle over that.
Ultimately, I think that what Coursera, Udacity, and maybe ALISON (though more openly) are probably after is a huge marketshare on what they see as being the successor to the Bachelor's degree. This isn't about college at all. Well, other than as an 'alternative for the masses' but it isn't EVER going to be "college" the way higher education has existed for over a millenium.
JOB TRAINING. Made to order by client employers who pick and choose from a menu, pay a finder's fee, and wait for the field to train itself on it's own time and at no additional expense, then sit back and pick and choose from those certified trained persons.
This way, there isn't any "waste" in the system from the employers standpoint, and when looked at fairly crudely, there isn't any from the systematic standpoint, either. People who are motivated and do more certifications are going to be most appealing to employers, and they'll have exactly the training that those potential employers have 'ordered' in a candidate pool. When employers move on, the candidates return to the pool and do different training modules and the process can be iterative. Like a giant temporary labor pool that trains itself.
THAT makes sense to me. Yes, I
have been called cynical. Why do you ask?
I might not like the subterfuge of dressing this up as "college for everyone" or what I see as a bait-and-switch approach (college credit? A degree program?? I hardly think so-- more like "continuing education"). But it makes sense. (Whew-- feel much better about this now and I'll sleep better for it!)
The MITx program
is different, I think. That one has years and years of planning behind the execution, and the underpinnings of it have been different all along. That one IS about 'outreach' IMO.
______________________
Another thing that occurs to me is related to our earlier discussion about causation fallacies and things like forcing
all kids into AP coursework, or preventing them from taking AP exams until 11th and 12th grade arbitrarily, etc. all based upon aggregate data. I suspect that these pushes toward autodidactism in students are based upon the observation that the MOST SUCCESSFUL students
are autodidacts by the end of high school.
Ergo; (you all know where I'm going with this, right?)
if we just remove all that pesky instructional support, you know-- making autodidactic the ONLY option... then VOILA! they'll all be like those success stories! Oooo, and it's so much cheaper to only have one teacher (er-- 'facilitator') per thousand or so students, too. BONUS-- we fixed the budget problem too, everybody!
I think that initiatives like Khan and our school's "students-should-OWN-their-learning-process-so-we-aren't-teaching-them-anymore" idée fixe are based in this backwards line of thinking. Truly.
It's sort of the opposite of hothousing. But that is literally the ONLY way that Coursera's operations
can work with the enrollment numbers they envision relative to the staffing they suggest is adequate. The answer that they have for this is "quant-stuff, not to worry" or "peer evaluation." Well, that's great if you happen to have a peer that has the experience and insight that a professional in the subject area has... but what if your peers are... well, learning and at about the same level of competence as yourself? Apparently "the rubric" is intended to take care of such things. I'm skeptical.
But I sure appreciate a chance to hammer out my thoughts on this. Thanks for putting up with me. I'll be quiet now. Probably. LOL. It's really been bugging me, and I couldn't put my finger on exactly why. As a parent, I'm actually kinda thrilled at the enrichment opportunities.
