As an assignment involving a developing process, we are in the midst of an inquiry and reflection. My team (MOOCtastic) has conducted research into the specific modality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and elected to use the lens of a SWOT analysis. As a case study, we chose Courseras ‘Learning How to Learn’ due to:
- it’s status as ‘The most popular MOOC of all time (REFERENCE1, Refernce 2)
- the fact it is from a reputable institution (UCSD)
- it had a no charge option, allowing us to explore an instance where the option of paying, what would motivate a person either way, and how this may reflect in the financial models of MOOCs in general
- one team member having already completed it
It turned into a god choice, and a lot of great dialog in the team ensued. The instructors were very good, passionate, and well credentialed. It was interesting to be conducting a critical inquiry while actually enrolled in a MOOC; it brought the concept in academic literature and grounded them in reality.
I was surprised to learn there was so much debate in regards to MOOCs. My background as a pilot educator (and producer of one of the first pilot training open online courses in Canada BETTERPILOTS.COM) saw MOOCs as a hugely beneficial tool for aspects of technical training. When I read how disillusioned people are with them I was surprised, but came to theorize that the reason for that is they had been hyped as a panacea for all educational woes… not fair to the MOOC! There’s a lot of information in the literature of this controversy, and the direction of my studies in MOOCs has taken some fascinating turns.
A number of articles regarding MOOCs cite a ‘Turkish Villager’ as the archetypal student for whom MOOCs were created. But I challenge the notion that this is the case. I think the ‘average student’ is still being sorted out, but will emerge, and that the modality is much less flexible than assumed. Still an astonishingly powerful discovery, just not a flexible one. More on this soon…
Reference Articles:
Our Blog. (2014, September 03). Retrieved from https://www.australiawide.com.au/blog/the-future-of-professional-development-online-free-and-just-in-time/
Selingo, J. J. (2014, October 29). Demystifying the MOOC. Retrieved May 20, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/education/edlife/demystifying-the-mooc.html
May 20, 2018 at 2:19 pm
Hi Todd,
I wonder if some of the MOOC negativity might come from those in education feeling threatened by MOOCs? If Coursera released a program similar to MALAT that was based on MOOCs and had a low certification cost, I wonder how many of us might not be here today? If that did happen, I’m sure staff at RRU would slam the Coursera program and recite anything negative they’ve ever read about MOOCs. I’ve heard people in my office write off MOOCs as a fad that has already died, and these are people who should know better. The reality is that there are more MOOCs today than ever (1).
I also think that some of the disappointment in MOOCs has come from having “open” in the name and the assumption that they would remain open and free (I realize that open now often means other things). That always seemed naive to me. What’s the business model where that’s sustainable? Today, we have many high-quality courses that are still essentially free if you don’t need the credential on sites like Coursera, and other sites with high quality courses that are extremely cheap.
The current state of MOOCs seems pretty awesome to me.
(1) https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/moocs-not-dead-evolving/
May 21, 2018 at 1:01 pm
Those are good observations Jason, and I’m inclined to agree. I suspect that almost any established form of education would seem similarly dismal if the prime focus was on what it wasn’t and who it didn’t serve. Likewise, I’m excited by what’s going on and have benefitted immensely from more than one MOOC myself.
I also think it remains to be seen how the MOOC will evolve and where it hits its stride. When smartphones emerged, there was common banter that they were expensive and for the elite only. Online financial transactions were definitely not first adopted by the poor, but both of these technologies have had tremendous impacts in the lowest income populations on earth (and everyone else!):
“Across Africa, similar magic is being wrought as phones spur innovation and boost incomes: farmers use them to check market prices before selling to middlemen, and market traders can accept payments in mobile money. A study by academics from MIT, published this week, found that simply by gaining access to M-Pesa, Kenya’s mobile-money service, 2% of Kenyan households were lifted out of poverty between 2008 and 2014.” (2016, The Economist)
So while the most users may currently be Educated white men, it may be possible to argue that this is how MOOC early evolution needs to be funded. Once it’s mature, I’m optimistic.
I’m also curious to see if the legitimacy issue may be solved from the bottom up. If a farmer gains a skill on a MOOC that allows him/her to increase crop yields, keep goats alive, or gain a better grasp on finance, no certificate is required; that person will be in a better position than their non-MOOC exposed neighbour. This would incentivize the neighbour, and soon (diploma or not) the MOOC is a legitimate institution. Same could be said for vocational training where if you have the knowledge and/or skill, you get the job. It’s not hard to see this concept adapted to positions like coders and quants, in fact it may be absolutely necessary because higher ed institutions cannot possibly adapt curriculum fast enough to account for the rate of change in programming languages, data mining tools, etc.
In a decade or so, maybe we’ll grab a coffee and see how close to futurists we actually were 😉
Thanks for the comments Jason, I always look forward to your insights and dialog!
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2016/12/10/mobile-phones-are-transforming-africa
May 22, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Interestingly, one of the replies by Martha Cleveland-Innes (from AU) to the University Affairs article referenced by Jason links to this piece about the Commonwealth of Learning: http://www.nan.ng/news/mooc-technology-enabled-learning-reaches-94-countries/
CoL supports UN sustainable development goals to Commonwealth countries through supporting online and distance education initiatives.
Todd notes a corollary development – and you can then see how the two technologies (MOOCs and bandwidth) interact to help accelerate learning in developing countries.
Another issue to keep in mind, especially in regard to bandwidth, is the politics and economics of net neutrality, which came up big in India when Facebook tried to penetrate that market (caution, a longish read)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-free-basics-india-zuckerberg
May 23, 2018 at 1:36 pm
Hi Todd,
Very interesting points here with regards to the negative backlash around MOOCs. As mentioned by others, I agree that the proposed threat they present to higher education institutions definitely must contribute to the negative press. The fact they have yet to gain certifications and recognition on par with higher education programs also means that many must shy away from accessing them for the purpose of forwarding their careers.
I also am a bit foggy on what a MOOC really is in current days, as cost doesn’t fit into the concept of ‘open’ to me. I do though see immense possibilities for MOOCs to give experts opportunities to share key insights and competencies which directly apply to the world of work. In my own working experience, I’ve seen more and more employers hating the hiring process, as many with degrees don’t have key skills needed at work. It would be great to see MOOCs as being a way to build competencies in order to be somewhat competitive when seeking work.
Have you heard of many situations where employers require competency related testing for potential hires?