Bored with the MOOC Backlash – 2

Given that this site was created to provide perspective that might tamp down some of the over-exuberance I was seeing from MOOC boosters earlier this year, I’m surprised to find myself spending a week taking on the MOOC backlash.

While pieces like the NEA story I described yesterday are harsh but informative, recent stories reacting with schadenfreude over changes at Udacity represent a MOOC backlash that might be on the verge of jumping the shark.

Given some of the bold predictions the founder of Udacity made during the early stages of MOOC hyper-zeal (statements even he later regretted), I can understand the desire to gloat when someone who predicted the imminent closing of all but ten colleges and universities in the world was forced to “pivot” away from revolutionizing higher education towards the more mundane field of corporate training.

For those unfamiliar with the term, “pivot” describes the way startup companies change course once they realize that the product they’re in love with might not interest any paying customers, or a market they thought could be measured in the billions turns out to not exist.

As it happens, I learned this term by taking a class in entrepreneurship from Udacity (an extremely informative and valuable class I should point out), and while this change in strategy by one of the pioneers in MOOCdom is significant (with a significance I hope to get to tomorrow), it’s important to first highlight what this move doesn’t mean by dealing with some of the backlash-driven interpretations that represent the same level of uninformed zealotry we saw from the MOOC boosters that critics so decry.

Yesterday’s piece covers issues such as drop-out rates and the dynamic vs. static nature of MOOCs, so I won’t go over that territory again.  But given how much emphasis many MOOC-dislikers place on premature remarks one leader in this field made years ago, it’s fair to consider the far more circumspect and temperate language that’s been used by him and other MOOC leaders since.

This language, which stresses the experimental nature of MOOCs and talks about what they might mean both inside and outside the residential college system, does not simply represent consultant-scripted gobbledygook designed to ward off criticism from the academy.  Rather, it represents important reflection by a group of educators from within the academy who both appreciate what technological innovations can do to bring education to more and more people while also remaining cognizant of the fact that such innovations must simultaneously serve to enhance rather than tear down the existing college system.

MOOCs (and associated programs designed to fit them into various college credit schemes) have been around long enough to suggest that even if experiments like Degree of Freedom demonstrate that it’s possible to get a college-level education through massive open courses, that this will not end up an option of choice for most (or even many) actual students contemplating their higher ed alternatives.

No doubt there will be some energetic and enterprising students who will use MOOCs and other alternative learning opportunities to get a degree in 2-3 years vs. 4.  But anyone that entrepreneurial is more likely to be attracted to programs like Uncollege which allow kids to give the finger to the diploma entirely, rather than just cutting down the time and money needed to obtain a credential they never cared for in the first place.

So rather than cannibalizing the applicant pool, MOOCs are likely to end up just one of many alternatives for students looking to shorten their time in school or (more likely) place out of entry level courses.  In fact, if colleges weren’t putting themselves at risk by raising prices at twice the rate of inflation, a conversation about MOOCs (or anything else) totally replacing college would likely have never gotten started.

Getting back to the Udacity story, a fair amount of tut-tutting surrounds the company’s failed effort to successfully teach remedial math to students at California’s San Jose State University.  Which places them alongside every other failed program designed to increase core-skills performance by struggling students (including whatever programs allowed them to move onto college without knowing these basics in the first place).

Now I suppose the money that top-hatted venture capitalists or educational megaliths like Harvard and MIT have invested in companies such as Cousera or edX could have been better spent hiring thousands of math teachers to teach every struggling student one-on-one.  But one could use that same zero-sum logic to challenge the value of spending money on anything (including the publications running all those “Down with MOOCs” stories).

Finally, cards on the table, I’m one of those educated, middle-class, suburbanites with time on his hands who seem to make up the bulk of MOOC students, which means that I could be learning the same things I’m studying without Harvard investing tens of millions to create really cool online courses.  But who’s to say how these courses are impacting the lives of other students who fall outside this demographic?  And even we suburban dads might end up using what we learn to try to do some good in the world, rather than just indulge ourselves intellectually.  Anything’s possible, after all.

Rounding out that list of benefits I ended yesterday’s piece with (which included changes MOOCs have already created in the academy with regard to sharing and reflecting on what the value of residential college truly is), I’d like to end today’s entry with a few more plusses that MOOC skeptics should keep in mind and MOOC supporters can take inspiration from (while not letting it go to their heads):

(1)    MOOCs have raised the bar with regard to the quality of every aspect of online learning, making it that much harder for future course providers to get away with substandard, unimaginative work.

(2)    The culture of experimentation within the field means that creators of MOOCs are ready to admit to mistakes, learn from errors and improve what they offer (dare I say “pivot”), rather than just pretend problems and challenges don’t exist.

(3)    MOOCs have drawn thousands of people into studying subjects (including liberal arts subjects) long feared in peril, even as business and computer programming majors become a bigger and bigger percentage of the traditional undergraduate student body.

(4)    Finally, MOOCs are just plain cool, so please please try one (or preferably more than one) before sneering at them or cheering for their demise.


3 Responses to Bored with the MOOC Backlash – 2

  1. Shona November 21, 2013 at 12:27 pm #

    MOOCs are fascinating; and it is great to witness their birth and development first hand. I’ve enrolled in MOOCs and dropped out in the past….due to timing and resource issues. I am currently 1/2 through a course on Coursera that I really hope to finish. It is a great experience. But still very different than my online master’s studies. The self- motivation needed to complete a MOOC is very high. Since they are free, and you are pretty much anonymous, you can drop out, and no one will be the wiser. Your pocketbook doesn’t suffer…so why not? For those that complete MOOCs, I think that says a LOT in regards to their character and their attitude towards self-development.

  2. Elizabeth November 21, 2013 at 7:42 pm #

    I am also one of those educated middle class folks, and I’m loving the MOOCs I’ve taken, and plan to take more!
    I think if there was a way to actually get college credit for them I think the retention rate would increase, but as long as they are mostly self-improvement only it’s not going to reach its full potential.

  3. Ritobrato November 24, 2013 at 11:55 am #

    When I was studying for my MBA in a post-grad engineering college with excellent professors/lecturers, (many of them with credentials in IVY leagues or top universities from USA or elsewhere), I had developed an interest in linear programming models. Most professors, although enthusiastic, had no clue or training about writing/modelling linear programs/codes, and they had asked me to visit the engineering faculties, which I did.

    To make a long story short – the place where I eventually learned about how to write computational codes and models about Linear Programming is at the MOOC (precisely Coursera’s Linear and Integer Programming – ). The writing of program codes, getting them auto-graded, were only the glimpse of what a well thought out course with active interaction from the course instructors could do.

    And I learned Python from edX/MITx, too.

    Now I am able to write computer programs that could simulate real-world models and test them in my computer before putting them on the ground.

    Also I hope to learn a lot about electrical circuit design so that I could build simple devices, like alarm systems or power consumption systems in my home.

    These are the two immediate benefits of MOOCs, that came to my mind.


Leave a Reply