Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education MITx

Wow, Howler, that's some rant :-) I share some of your concerns.

But I think some of your irritation is misplaced. The first O in MOOC stands for Open, not for Open-source, and one of *my* bugbears is people conflating anything open with open-source. (For example, there are many, many occasions when open *standards* are essential but open *source* is unachievable: it's hard work to convince people that their explaining why you can't have the latter doesn't let them off providing the former.) MOOCS are open in the sense that anyone can enroll, without needing to convince anyone that they satisfy the prerequisites, for example. Who said it was supposed to be open source? (As a potential content provider, I can tell you I'm not open sourcing my content, although I've delightedly contributed to many open source projects over the years. Different thing.)

Also, I heard yesterday that the University of Washington has joined up with Coursera to offer online degrees, so you're out of date there :-)

I definitely see what you mean; there's a lot of ambiguity in the term. Likewise, I'm someone that has done both open-access (meaning free to anyone that wants it) and open-source (meaning feel free to use what I've done in any way you like, attributed or not), and I agree that they aren't the same thing at all.

There is also a third category of "open" that means both, and yet more than the sum of those things, too. That is the collaborative open-source movement; I think this is probably the driving force behind AI/DS106 efforts. That can, in the right group of people, be an incredible force multiplier. I'd love to see more efforts to harness that particular ephemeral thing in order to effectively foster it and graft it into a learning community, which is what the open-source MOOC advocates are after, I think. Rhizomicity is the favorite buzzword there; the result is something like a specialised Wiki which develops organically over time as the learning community works together on it; tinkering, debating and fact-finding as they go. That already exists in myriad guises on the net, and most of it is informal. I wish that I could pin down the precise mixture of ingredients necessarily to turn on that particular magic, but it seems to rely on high levels of motivation, a shared objective (and that seems to be the sticky thing for a learning community), and willingness to tolerate dissent (sometimes aggressive). Size isn't a huge factor, in my experience. Less than a dozen super-users and a few dozen 'regulars' are enough. Message boards like this one often develop in this direction if they have a stable core membership of super-users and regulars over a period of years.


And yes, my irritation is that I suspect that some of those touting how the MOOC will save the world are more-or-less using the ambiguity of the term "open" as an exploit to imply something that isn't meant. It feels like the term is being absconded with, in light of the early experiments with MOOC, which are nothing like the quiz-heavy, canned instructional offerings that are being given the name at this point. I'm not sure that MITx/Coursera/Udacity were really the originators of that misapplication, though-- I suspect it may have been overzealous media coverage that saw huge enrollments in both and decided that they must be the same animal. So you're right. I'm probably misplacing some of that angst. Udacity and Coursera have not stated that their objectives are identical to those of MITx or the free-range MOOC crowd.

To be clear, MITx intends (apparently) to make their offerings "open-enrollment" and "open-source" (at least as far as platform goes, if not content). The others have asserted standard copyright, as opposed to the open-source factions which rely upon creative-commons licensing.

As far as UW goes, it's not exactly clear (yet) whether UW's plans are for regular course credits or for certificate credit, as I understood this--

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018714077_coursera19m.html



That's essentially what the other institutions are envisioning, too. Pay-for-certificate and mastery-certs via proctored testing centers.


I very much like the idea of opening access. At the same time, though, I very much dislike the idea of no longer feeling obliged to teach content in a live and interactive environment. I guess at heart, my pedagogical orientation is so firmly Socratic that canned curriculum for an audience of millions just feels wrong to me. That's "training" not education.

I also dislike the idea of choosing one (and only one, by subtext) means of teaching "X" because that's how Professor Z at {prestigious institution} does things and most students there like that.

Plurality is a very good thing, I think. Content standards I'm all for. But that's just a "must-see" list on a tour that shouldn't have a mandated route, IMO.

I know that friends in higher ed have concerns about the nature of academic freedom in teaching over this whole thing. I don't blame them. Research may be much better at tier one institutions, but the teaching isn't. Not inherently. Sometimes the best teachers are actually found at smaller undergraduate institutions (which is a very good reason why those students tend to be so competitive in admissions to certain graduate programs). This movement makes very little sense unless one believes that to be untrue.

For most institutions, this is (my prediction here) going to amount to an acceleration of outsourcing to for-profit providers. Not too thrilled with that development, myself. If this worked, then why haven't Universities been loaning out copies of The Great Courses and then giving people certificates when they send them back? (Oh, nevermind; there is a part of me that thinks that maybe that'll be NEXT...)

I have pretty strong feelings about what higher education is-- and what it isn't (task training). I also have an extremely strong opinion that there is very high quality undergraduate education outside of the Ivies. This entire movement seems to be based on a completely antithetical foundation, and I think that may be what I'm viscerally objecting to. It strikes me as insufferably arrogant to think that only ONE person at Harvard (or anyhwere else) can/should be teaching everyone in the world... Western Civ (or anything else) because he's the best that they have to offer. I object because while Professor Harvard might be good and he might be well-read, that doesn't make him better as a teacher of introductory material than Professor Untenured at Missouri State. KWIM?


(I think that I did start my initial rant with the assertion that my feelings about this are quite scattered at this point. I'm definitely agitated over what it all means-- but for such a wide variety of reasons that I'm having trouble condensing them.)

A few more exploratory articles about this movement:

The New Public Ivies (Slate)-- some of the commentary is just as insightful as the op-ed.

What's the Matter with MOOC's? (op-ed from Chronicle of Higher Ed)

http://stevendkrause.com/ I really like Steve's commentary on this, though I don't completely agree with all of his opinions. His views have touched on a lot of the things that I've already been pondering as this unfolds... and I've considered some thing that I hadn't thought about in reading some of the more insightful comments posted at Steve's blog.

So hard to know.

I'm always just a touch wary of movements that put "anti-elitism" (or even just egalitarianism) front and center, or seem to offer something for nothing.

It makes me want to dig a little harder to find out what's behind the curtain. So far I haven't found anything that makes sense behind this one, and I find that quite worrying.

The only way that this makes any kind of real sense is with no assessment or expert guidance/feedback for participants, and there's no "there" there, if you see what I mean. No way is that going to be credit-bearing. Nobody is going to grant me a license to practice law just because I say that I should be able to, based upon my years of study, and they shouldn't, either. Now, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't study the law as a means to enrich my own life and that I might not even attain a level of understanding that rivals the pros.

Peer-grading, robo-grading, or multiple choice only assessments is where this is all headed, and Coursera has tipped their hand already-- both in statements made to the media and also in partnering with Pearson. That is not real "education" in my estimation. 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.

I'm all for flipped classrooms. I like that very much, in fact. I'm also all for providing as many enrichment opportunities as possible for GT kids (obviously) and for lifelong learning for anyone that wants it. 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??

It bothers me that there isn't a coherent whole here when one looks at it carefully.

I'm that kind of person. It just bugs me. So I keep worrying at it, trying to ferret out an explanation. No question where DD gets this trait from, I guess.

Um.

Except for reading law under an attorney's supervision.

See California and Virginia for details.

Just work in a law office for a few years and take some exams, apparently.

http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Education/LegalEducation/LawOfficeorJudgesChamber.aspx

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 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.

You need to read more by libertarians . Occupational licensing is largely a scam by incumbents to keep out lower-priced competition. Someone who passes the bar exam should be able to practice law without going to law school. For much of American history, there was no such requirement. Abraham Lincoln did not go to law school. Forcing to people to pay for four years of college before three years of law school is doubly egregious. To put it bluntly, academics at undergraduate and professional schools have long benefited from a credentialing monopoly they have lobbied for. I want that monopoly broken and for students save time and money -- which means a lot of professors will be out of work. Online courses alone won't burst the higher education bubble. Deregulation of the labor market is also needed.

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.

The NYT has a column today "The Trouble With Online Education" by Mark Edmundson http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/the-trouble-with-online-education.html that expands on your thoughts:

...

But can online education ever be education of the very best sort?

It’s here that the notion of students teaching teachers is illuminating. As a friend and fellow professor said to me: “You don’t just teach students, you have to learn ’em too.” It took a minute — it sounded like he was channeling Huck Finn — but I figured it out.

With every class we teach, we need to learn who the people in front of us are. We need to know where they are intellectually, who they are as people and what we can do to help them grow. Teaching, even when you have a group of a hundred students on hand, is a matter of dialogue.

In the summer Shakespeare course I’m teaching now, I’m constantly working to figure out what my students are able to do and how they can develop. Can they grasp the contours of Shakespeare’s plots? If not, it’s worth adding a well-made film version of the next play to the syllabus. Is the language hard for them, line to line? Then we have to spend more time going over individual speeches word by word. Are they adept at understanding the plot and the language? Time to introduce them to the complexities of Shakespeare’s rendering of character.

...

QFT. (And I say that as someone who has one of those licenses intended to keep out the riff-raff.)

Here's the outcome of that first MIT online physics class:

Quote:


EdX officials say 154,000 students from more than 160 countries registered for MIT's first online course, "Circuits and Electronics," this past spring. Only about 7,100 students passed the course, but that's still a lot more than can fit in a lecture hall.

More than 120 universities have expressed interest in joining the consortium, said edX President Anant Agarwal, who heads MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/08/05/us/ap-us-elite-colleges-online.html?_r=2&smid=fb-share