A recent issue of Scientific American reprints a story from
Nature (here) by Mitchell Waldrop (who wrote a nice book on complexity several
years ago) that featured linguist + university bureaucrat Juan Uriagereka in
the opening paragraphs. The story
concerns MOOCS (massively online open courses) and the hysteria that they have
generated in universityland. Here are the opening paragraphs:
When campus president Wallace Loh
walked into Juan Uriagereka’s office last August, he got right to the
point. “We need courses for this thing –
yesterday!”
Uriagereka, associate provost for
faculty affairs at the University of Maryland in College Park, knew exactly
what his boss meant. Campus administrators around the world had been buzzing
for months about massive open online courses, or MOOCS: internet-based teaching
program designed to handle thousands of students simultaneously, in part using
the tactics of social-networking websites. To supplement video lectures, much
of the learning comes from online comments, questions and discussions.
Participants even mark one another’s tests.
The story goes onto
describe how MOOCS have been sprouting all over the place and how different
universities have been trying to cash in on what they see as the next big thing
(btw, it stands to reason that they can’t all
cash in for how many duplicate/triplicate/4-plicate/n-plicate internet courses
does one need?). It got me wondering,
and not in a good way. I am a seriously cynical person. A new fad hits town, one that gets administrators
(university presidents no less) all aflutter, and I cannot resist wondering
why? Why the sudden interest (panic)? As
the latin phrase goes “cui bono?” A good rule of thumb is to follow the money.
Thus the suggestiveness of the phrasing in the second paragraph above “designed
to handle thousands of students” (my
emphasis).
This suggests that administrators
see MOOCS as cash cows (hence ‘MOOCS’?), ways of cutting costs at a
time when education, at least in the US is getting ever more expensive. And this is what worries me. Why? Before I
tell you, I want to go on record as being a big fan of online stuff (duh),
especially online course material. On line courses are great (though, like very
large lecture classes, often boring (and for the same reason as they are often
just videos of large lecture classes)) and some are unbelievably terrific (I love the Khan Academy stuff). I would welcome lots more of this being
available to use and enjoy. However, what I am not at all crazy about is the
thought that MOOCS are money makers/savers, the main reason, I believe, for all
that hyperventilating by university provosts and presidents.
What’s the problem? The
advertised thinking behind MOOCS violates the Willie Sutton Principle (WSP) (he
of the famous quip “That’s where the money is” in answer to the question: “Why
do you rob banks?”). The WSP favors
technology that cuts costs where they are high. The problem with MOOCS relates
to how they are being sold. Whereas they might be reasonable substitutes for
big courses (say over 100 students in a classroom), these courses are already
very cost effective, as Atrios (aka Duncan Black) observes at the blog Eschaton
(here). As he notes, the large intro
courses (the big ones) “really don’t cost anything,” even taking into account
high senior prof salaries and TA support. Thus, there aren’t cost savings here
“because the costs are really low…for these kinds of students.” If this is so,
the WSP kicks in and you have to ask yourself where the cost savings actually
are? It’s the small courses stupid! When
you realize this, you begin to worry that the fascination with MOOCS can have
very bad consequences. Especially for a
discipline like linguistics.
Most of the important
teaching in linguistics goes on in small classrooms with lots of student
participation. At UMD, our undergrad courses have 20-25 students in them. Were
it possible to MOOC such courses it would be possible to save serious money.
So, I predict, that whereas the evangelists are selling MOOCS by pointing to
the large intro classes and observing that they would not be substantially
changed by moving to a MOOC format, this is not where MOOCS will earn their
keep for there isn’t enough money lying fallow there. The pressure will develop to MOOC the non intro small courses for following
the WSP that’s where the money is. And this will impact disciplines like
linguistics where heretofore most of the important teaching has taken place in
small class formats.
I’m not sure that MOOCS
can be stopped. Fads usually can’t be. I am sure of one thing: when university
presidents get all hyped up about some new fangled idea beware. The BS is about to flow. So, when you hear the hype remember Willie
Sutton, the patron saint of bank robbers and reformist bureaucrats.
Indeed. Another problem with MOOCs is that they are likely to become 'perfect', whereas, at least past the intro courses, an important aspect of university courses is watching the lecturer stuff up and having an opportunity to correct it (even in math, people get their wires crossed and the wrong stuff comes out). So that 'knowledge' becomes something you can participate in the making of yourself, rather than something delivered by Experts from Elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteAnother concern with the 'Experts from Elsewhere' aspect of MOOCs raised in the Faculty Senate here at UW-Madison, is that it is extremely common for the instructor to learn from the direct interactions with their students. This type of learning for the instructor can be 'wow, I taught that very ineffectively and this other way works better' or 'wow, I just realized this insight into the material after having to explain it 5 different times to these kids'. With MOOCs removing the direct personal interaction between the instructor and the students both sides are left with an impoverished learning experience.
ReplyDeleteTotally agreed about the insights for the instructor that come from direct interactions with students. I supplemented my undergrad course on language acquisition with podcasts for the first time this quarter, and the difference between explaining the material to a screen for the podcasts vs. explaining the same material to a live class was significant. It's very much the "whoa, good question - I hadn't thought of it like that before, but this is a *way* better way to explain what's going on here..."
Delete