I view massive open online courses with some skepticism, particularly when the source is a for-profit enterprise. Though the platform we chose has affiliations with credible post-secondary organizations and has been around for more than a decade, their intention is to be profitable and earn revenue through fees. The more learners who enroll in courses that have fees, the more money the company makes. My skepticism is rooted in questions around how much rigor is applied to evaluating student performance, and the temptation to be overly generous about prerequisites to enroll in a course to increase the number of students who are eligible.
The term ‘diploma mill’ is one that has come to mind when thinking of online learning. Whether that is a fair term to use in this case is beyond the scope of this blog post; I am merely reflecting on points that have been raised in our readings related to credential inflation, the awarding of digital badges, and the still-held belief that face-to-face learning is more credible than education delivered online.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic shifted our threshold of acceptance for how we work, learn, communicate, receive services, information, and conduct business, what should not change in all of these transactions is a desire for quality, critical thinking, and user-centred design. After reading George Veletsianos’ keynote remarks from the 2021 Congress, I thought about the learning event we are analysing, and indeed, where is the application of the four Es of effectiveness, efficiency, engagement, and equity? Proponents of platforms like Coursera can argue that MOOCs bring a measure of efficiency (meeting learning goals with a minimal expenditure of resources); however, what is the arbiter of other Es such as engagement and equity?
After experiencing this course intended for teaching personalized learning strategies, my view on this particular mode of delivering learning is still mixed. While I can see a utility and practicality of MOOCs in delivering skills training (particularly as I am a believer in life-long learning and upskilling throughout one’s career), I am influenced by Veletsianos’ remarks about being vigilant about the presence (or lack thereof) of the four Es in educational technology in all forms. This is especially salient if we are looking now at online courses which purport to instruct teachers on how to use generative AI to develop personalized learning strategies.
What are the criteria for these courses? Who reviews the curriculum for standards, ethics (a fifth E), veracity, accessibility, and sustainability? MOOCs may have expanded the reach of course content beyond the halls of a bricks and mortar school, but we cannot confound this with accessibility.
Reference:
Veletsianos, George. 2021, May 31. OTESSA (Congress) Keynote – effectiveness, efficiency, engagement. Where’s equity? https://www.veletsianos.com/2021/05/31/otessa-2021-congress-keynote-effectiveness-efficiency-engagement-wheres-equity/
You’ve raised several valid concerns regarding MOOCs, including the potential for credential inflation through digital badging and the questionable rigor in student evaluation. Additionally, you’ve highlighted George Veletsianos’ framework of the four Es in educational technology, one of which is engagement. If the badges lead to enhanced engagement, do you think they are a net positive or a net negative for MOOCs?
Hi, Matt. Thanks for the question. If we define engagement as generating qualities such as interest, participation, and favourable attention, I think MOOCs can be beneficial here. I think of the example from a few years ago when actor David Levy shared on his social media that he was enrolled in a free MOOC on Indigenous History in Canada offered by the University of Alberta and encouraged his followers to do the same. He was able to leverage his influence to bring this course and its aims into a greater spotlight. Therefore, in some contexts, like I mentioned in my blog, there is an element of reach here that MOOCs can achieve.
Hi Tracy, nice blog post! Reading Matt’s question and your response, I wanted to also touch on engagement. There is a section of my company’s onboarding content that speaks to engagement being defined as an emotional connection to the work being done. This is clearly from the corporate view point, but I’m curious about your thoughts if we add that emotional connection piece to MOOC engagement; do you think that the diplomas, or singular class successes, are generating sufficient positive emotions for the student’s to connect to the knowledge taught? And if so, does that not bring us closer to a possible end goal of folks becoming life long learners?
What a good articulation of a critical perspective, Tracy! You do an excellent job here of asking difficult questions of MOOCs in general and your chosen example in particular, including getting at complex ideas like the intention of the service and its larger place in an educational landscape. This is careful and credible engagement with the critical aspects of this course and really nice to see.
I totally get your skepticism about for-profit MOOCs and how they evaluate student performance. Have you found any research comparing how they stack up against non-profit ones? Also, you’re spot-on about the importance of transparency. On the four Es, I’m curious—how do you think MOOCs could make things more engaging and fair, especially regarding personalized learning? And about standards, who should ensure these courses are up to snuff, especially on topics like AI? Additionally, I’m interested in your thoughts on ensuring that course materials remain accessible beyond the course duration, considering some platforms restrict access after a certain period.
– Radhika.A