Prior to experiencing one of Coursera’s MOOCs, the ideas that I had surrounding MOOCs were limited, other than to think that they were providing high-quality educational content to many people who might not otherwise have access. I did not blindly accept the claims of MOOCs’ goals to “democratize education,” but I recognized significant strengths in the variety and quality of content, and the open access (as in “free”) to these courses for people with access to technology and digital literacy skills. However, after engaging in a critical inquiry with a team of peers on MOOCs: Barriers to Access (Einarson, Goodes, McCarthy, Reid, & Samokishyn, 2020), as well as reviewing a presentation by another group of peers surrounding MOOCS out of the Khan Academy (Ambata-Villanueva, Kuipers, Monsell, & Pottinger, 2020), I have more concerns about the learning technology of MOOCs than I do about the opportunities that they afford learners.
My greatest concerns surround the following three issues: the digital divide (device, internet, bandwidth), the content divide (language, culture, socially and culturally relevant pedagogy models), and digital literacy skills. These three issues make MOOCs more exclusive to English- speaking students, often university educated, who have access to technology and digital literacy skills (Rohs & Ganz, 2015; Watters, 2015; Weller, 2020). We have observed the strengths that emanate from the massive element of the MOOC acronym, however, the open element of the acronym remains the most questionable to me of Massive Open Online Courses. MOOCs are indeed open, largely free for people to take a course, yet part of the original openness of MOOCs is that of open educational resources (OER) and open educational practices (OEP), which are not as prevalent in many of today’s MOOC models (Weller, 2020). The difference between “open” and “proprietary” MOOCs have far-reaching consequences to educators and learners around the world (Ambata-Villanueva et al., 2020; Watters, 2015; Weller, 2020).
One question in particular has resonated with me during this course of study, discussions, and critical inquiry: “What could be done to make MOOCs better?” I see a vital element of the answer to this question in the openness of MOOCs. One missing element of MOOCs is the absence of local governments and communities funding or supporting MOOCs based on their cultural and pedagogical models (versus Western models), and in their languages (versus English)(Rohs & Ganz, 2015). In fact, there is a need to decolonize the content and language structures of MOOCs on many levels (Clement et al., 2012; Houlden & Veletsianos, 2019). Similarly, working to promote ‘openness,’ promoting the use of Creative Commons Licencing to make MOOCs more open internationally, to be adapted to very educational different needs and settings, would make MOOCs ‘better’ (Ambata-Villanueva et al, 2020; Weller, 2020). Weller (2020) posits that “while we bemoan the fact that MOOC themselves are not really open in the sense of openly licensed, they do form part of a larger system, which helps drive openness” (p. 133). Similarly, approaching the planning of MOOCs by moving beyond a “means-end thinking” (Boody, 2001, p. 7, in Selwyn, 2010, p. 68) and approaching the critical study of them through micro, messo, and macro levels, could make MOOCs better, having more of a ‘democratizing’ effect. These three levels, in the context of MOOCs, need to apply the “understanding technology is ‘socially-shaped’ [and] therefore allows, for analyses that “open up the black box of technology’ (Biker et al., 1987) and consider the organizational, political, economic and cultural factors which pattern the design, development, production, marketing, implementation and ‘end use’ of a technological artefact” (Selwyn, 2010, p. 69).
For MOOCs to be ‘better,’ to democratize education, people around the world need access to technology, but equally as important is the social infrastructure of local communities that needs to support local creators, versus consumers, of MOOCs (Clement et al., 2012; Watters, 2015). Part of the social infrastructure of local communities involves supporting students’ in the acquisition of digital literacy skills. When technological access is combined with supporting local social infrastructure, the potential for MOOCs to empower learners will have fewer barriers to access and become more of the democratizing force they were predicted to be in 2012. I appreciate Dron’s (2014) reminder in speaking to teaching and learning technologies, that “we also need to be mindful that change is, for the most part, not a wave so much as a diverse rippling tide that fills in gaps very unevenly” (p. 260).
References
Ambata-Villanueva, Kuipers, S., Monsell, C., Pottinger, S. (2020, May 15). Team 2: Critical Inquiry of Educational Video [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0118/team-2-critical-inquiry-of-educational-video/
Clement, A. H., Gurstein, M., Longford, G., Moll, M., Shade, L. R. (Eds.) (2012). Connecting Canadians: Investigations in Community Informatics. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.
Dron, J. (2014). Chapter 9: Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120233/ebook/09_Zawacki-Richter_Anderson_2014Online_Distance_Education.pdf
Einarson, E., Goodes, J., McCarthy, J. L., Reid, S., & Samokishyn, S. (2020, April 21). Addressing Barriers to Access in MOOCs: Critical Inquiry [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0125/addressing-barriers-to-access-in-moocs-critical-inquiry/
Houlden, S., & Veletsianos, G. (2019, March 28). A posthumanist critique of flexible online learning and its “anytime anyplace” claims. British Journal of Educational Technology. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1111/bjet.12779
Rohs, M., & Ganz, M. (2015). MOOCs and the claim of education for all: A disillusion by empirical data. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6), 1–19. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2033
Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65-73. doi:10.1111/j.13652729.2009.00338.x
Watters, A. (2015, April 8). Edtech’s inequalities [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://hackeducation.com/2015/04/08/inequalities
Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from https://www.aupress.ca/app/uploads/120290_99Z_Weller_2020- 25_Years_of_Ed_Tech.pdf
May 22, 2020 at 7:26 pm
Hi Leigh, thank you for your provocative post. I examined MOOCs in a previous debate assignment and, like you, do not “blindly accept the claims of MOOCs’ goals to democratize education” (McCarthy, 2020). Although the claim of MOOCs democratizing education is not new, the research presentations you mentioned in your blog actively challenged this claim and provided new perspectives into the critical realities. Neocolonialism, commercialization, social inequities, language discrimination, digital literacy barriers, the digital divide; and academic elitism were only some of the new considerations offered as key-takeaways (Ambata-Villanueva, Kuipers, Monsell, & Pottinger, 2020; Einarson, Goodes, McCarthy, Reid, & Samokishyn, 2020). Further complicated by the “rippling tide” of educational technologies are these issues (Dron, 2014, p. 260), and as student researchers, we can swim along with the current and analyze the murky waters below us with a critical eye. Thank you for continuing the much-needed dialogue surrounding these “open” courses.
References
Ambata-Villanueva, Kuipers, S., Monsell, C., Pottinger, S. (2020, May 15). Team 2: Critical Inquiry of Educational Video [Blog post]. https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0118/team-2-critical-inquiry-of-educational-video/
Dron, J. (2014). Chapter 9: Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press. http://www.aupress.ca/books/120233/ebook/09_Zawacki-Richter_Anderson_2014Online_Distance_Education.pd
Einarson, E., Goodes, J., McCarthy, J. L., Reid, S., & Samokishyn, S. (2020, April 21). Addressing Barriers to Access in MOOCs: Critical Inquiry [Blog post]. https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0125/addressing-barriers-to-access-in-moocs-critical-inquiry/
McCarthy, L. (2020, May 19) What Will it Take to Make MOOCs Better? Leigh McCarthy: Educator, Curious Student, and EdTech Enthusiast. malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0108/tools-of-the-trade/
May 23, 2020 at 2:18 pm
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my blog post! Lots going on! 🙂
I remember your presentation with Sanjay; in fact, I believe I have cited that presentation somewhere along my latest MOOC journey!
Indeed, as you point out, there is a myriad of “murky” issues surrounding MOOCs: “Neocolonialism, commercialization, social inequities, language discrimination, digital literacy barriers, the digital divide; and academic elitism…” (Ambata-Villanueva, Kuipers, Monsell, & Pottinger, 2020; Einarson, Goodes, McCarthy, Reid, & Samokishyn, 2020). An overwhelming myriad of issues, and ironically, the benefits of MOOCs could be positively overwhelming to learners around the world if we could overcome some of the key barriers to access such as: technological access (devices), internet access, content, and digital literacy skills.
You pointed out that “as student researchers, we can swim along with the current and analyze the murky waters below us with a critical eye.” Always better to swim in a school of fish in these murky waters. AND I enjoy swimming and making the journey with you!
Thanks, Lisa!
Leigh
May 28, 2020 at 5:56 pm
Leigh, it’s good to see that as part of your critical inquiry you are also exploring what kinds of alternative directions MOOCS could take with different intentions behind them. I agree, revisiting openness in a broader sense beyond no-cost access invites opportunities to embrace such possibilities as localization and decolonization (cultural, linguistic, pedagogical) towards a more democratizing approach. Lisa, thanks for amplifying Leigh’s post and swimming with the current while analyzing “the murky waters below us with a critical eye….” both alone and, as Leigh notes, “in a school of fish.” Nice wordplay!
May 28, 2020 at 6:42 pm
Thank, Irwin and Lisa! AND remember… “No good fish goes anywhere without a porpoise.”
Lewis Carroll
June 1, 2020 at 5:59 pm
Hi Leigh,
Great post and excellent job highlighting how MOOCS may not be as openly accessible as they aspire to be.
You asserted that “‘For MOOCs to be ‘better,’ to democratize education, people around the world need access to technology…” This gave me pause to think about whether it would be more plausible to address the digital divide in all cases, or to adress the seemigly singular delivery format of MOOCs. Does every learner need to experience the MOOC in the same way? In either scenario though, I agree with you that increased government funding and support would have a postive impact on the potential reach of MOOCs.
I also wanted to share that in my own perusal of the Khan Academy webiste, Iwas pleased to see that the enitre platform is offered in over 40 languages. I see this as being a postive step in terms of the language barrier that you identified in your post.
Good luck with the rest of your reserach!
Laren
June 1, 2020 at 8:47 pm
Hi Laren,
Thanks for your feedback and thoughts! I TOTALLY agree that “it would be more plausible to address the digital divide in all cases,” versus “to address,” as you point out–“the seemingly singular delivery format of MOOCs.” That is indeed where I went for my Individual Research Paper for this course (“Online Learning and the Digital Divide in Canada” :). I wanted to build on my team’s work and research on MOOCs, hence this blog post; however, my personal and professional passion lies in better understanding and trying to be a part of ways to lessen the digital divide in Canada.
As I explore the digital divide, for the purpose of my paper, I identified the digital divide as threefold: 1) access to technology (carriage – device, Internet, broadband speed), 2) culturally sensitive content, 3) and digital literacy skills TO ENGAGE with the technology and content. The digital divide in Canada — and around the world — is multi-faceted, to say the least. Nonetheless, I had to simplify it to “threefold” to address it in our 2,500 word paper. 🙂
It is VERY encouraging that the Khan Academy offers its content in 40 languages! That IS a fantastic start in terms of more accessible content.
Thanks,
Leigh