Don't aggravate. Integrate!
It is a affectation of academic discourse that things need to be set against each other to provide enough contrast for the basis for an argument. No point in arguing if it is one sided. The term for this is Binary Opposition. It is a very clever version of I say it's black you say it's white. A slightly different version of this game is the territory grab. To build your own ivory tower you must first dynamite someone else's to make room for your own. The point of this preface is this. In order to construct an argument you must find something to oppose or destroy. Something like this is going on in the MOOC debate:
- cMOOC vs. xMOOC
- the elite vs. the mass (ification)
- commercialisation vs. altruism/democracy
- technology being the master of administrators of universities vs. being the servant of professors
This list is not exhaustive, but I hope this illustrates my point. My thought is that all these may be true simultaneously and that the need to bring things into opposition of necessity ignores some of the other moderating factors.
I don't have the research but all these facts are probably true: 1) at this moment all but a tiny minority of students/lecturers/professors are carrying one or more Internet connected devices; 2) more communication takes place electronically between them than takes place face to face; 3) all the resources used on their course are either born digital or have been digitised and can be accessed right now through those internet connected devices.
While universities are undoubtedly changed by technology, things that act on universities such as the behaviour of students with regard to technology have also changed. Not to mention the small business of the transformation of the production and dissemination of knowledge. The MOOC to my mind is not technology changing the University but the University trying to adapt to changes technology has already created in the society it serves. It embraces the things that we have already been embraced in every other aspect of life, communication over networks (eMail and synchronous or asynchronous messaging of all kinds), being members of large diverse electronic communities (Facebook?) and being comfortable with accessing content online (YouTube?). Of course the scale is massive, networks do that, they scale up the numbers, and its open a bit like the Freemium model of every internet start up. Try before you spend 30 000 GBP on higher education or cash in if you have already done this.
The MOOC in effect is a brand extension, but it cannot replace being there in the room and getting the full deal. Most MOOCs I have seen are cut downs of the best courses delivered in person. MOOCs far from cannibalising the Universities "in person offering" are selling it. The Freemium aspect is something I and 10 000's of other have joined in with. Even if we will never attend an elite British or American university. If I were to go I will know which "superstar" professors I will meet. Seen them online of course!
Lets also not pretend this is a zero sum game for the professors and teachers. They are not loosing their audience but gaining a new one. In the part vanity game that is academia, MOOCs can make reputations in the real world as well as the virtual. How to exploit and manage reputation in virtual space may be a new skill for many, but not too challenging I suspect for those who have made a career out of standing and talking to large groups of people.
So MOOCs are not going to change the world, MOOCs have been created in response to a changing world. They may extend but not replace the role of the University. Perhaps they will reinvigorate extramural departments. The interplay of the pedagogy between the MOOC and traditional University might crack the age old problem of the 1 hour lecture where the only real challenge is to maintain the will to live to the end. Students who have experienced a MOOC might make better and more informed choices about their education. The very able might extend their education through an additional MOOC? Universities night find a channel to reach a wider audience and meet any philanthropic remit they might have. Professors might find new and challenging ways of teaching and developing their own personal mission/reputation.
MOOCs Technology and the end of Universities, not.
I don't have the research but all these facts are probably true: 1) at this moment all but a tiny minority of students/lecturers/professors are carrying one or more Internet connected devices; 2) more communication takes place electronically between them than takes place face to face; 3) all the resources used on their course are either born digital or have been digitised and can be accessed right now through those internet connected devices.
While universities are undoubtedly changed by technology, things that act on universities such as the behaviour of students with regard to technology have also changed. Not to mention the small business of the transformation of the production and dissemination of knowledge. The MOOC to my mind is not technology changing the University but the University trying to adapt to changes technology has already created in the society it serves. It embraces the things that we have already been embraced in every other aspect of life, communication over networks (eMail and synchronous or asynchronous messaging of all kinds), being members of large diverse electronic communities (Facebook?) and being comfortable with accessing content online (YouTube?). Of course the scale is massive, networks do that, they scale up the numbers, and its open a bit like the Freemium model of every internet start up. Try before you spend 30 000 GBP on higher education or cash in if you have already done this.
The MOOC in effect is a brand extension, but it cannot replace being there in the room and getting the full deal. Most MOOCs I have seen are cut downs of the best courses delivered in person. MOOCs far from cannibalising the Universities "in person offering" are selling it. The Freemium aspect is something I and 10 000's of other have joined in with. Even if we will never attend an elite British or American university. If I were to go I will know which "superstar" professors I will meet. Seen them online of course!
Lets also not pretend this is a zero sum game for the professors and teachers. They are not loosing their audience but gaining a new one. In the part vanity game that is academia, MOOCs can make reputations in the real world as well as the virtual. How to exploit and manage reputation in virtual space may be a new skill for many, but not too challenging I suspect for those who have made a career out of standing and talking to large groups of people.
So MOOCs are not going to change the world, MOOCs have been created in response to a changing world. They may extend but not replace the role of the University. Perhaps they will reinvigorate extramural departments. The interplay of the pedagogy between the MOOC and traditional University might crack the age old problem of the 1 hour lecture where the only real challenge is to maintain the will to live to the end. Students who have experienced a MOOC might make better and more informed choices about their education. The very able might extend their education through an additional MOOC? Universities night find a channel to reach a wider audience and meet any philanthropic remit they might have. Professors might find new and challenging ways of teaching and developing their own personal mission/reputation.
No comments:
Post a Comment