Clearing Up Some Myths About MOOCs
- Let's Talk about MOOC (online) Education--And Also About Massively Outdated Traditional Education (MOTEs)
- What Can MOOCs Teach Us About Learning?
- Want to Learn More About MOOCs? Here's a MOOC on MOOCs.
- Why Have Students Been Left Out of the MOOC Discussion?
- MOOC MOOC: Dark Underbelly; or, How a Cave Troll Can Help Revise the Syllabus of Education
There are so many myths out there about MOOCs that I decided to teach one in Winter/Spring 2014. I've been an advocate of open, peer-to-peer, collaborative online and face-to-face learning, research, and resource-sharing for a long time. HASTAC is dedicated to this project. Please note, world: MOOCs are not open, not peer-to-peer learning. There is a huge difference between a "collaboratory," where (according to HASTAC's mottos, we are "learning the future together" and where "difference is our operating system, not our deficit"), and a MOOC where a handful of professors at very elite schools lecture from a computer screen to tens of thousands of students. So that's why I decided to teach a MOOC of my own: because my knee jerk response is critical and negative. . . and I am always self-critical knee-jerk responses (especially my own).
We're doing a Coursera-Duke-based MOOC on "The History and Future of Higher Education." And we are documenting everything: all the questions we ask, answers we have and don't have, all our time, all our expenditures, everyone who is helping us, everything. I want to be informed before I pronounce (imagine that!) and will try to communicate what I learn as I learn. I'm hoping in the process that I'll learn not only about the mechanics, costs, posibilities, and limits of MOOCs but also gain some interesting insights about learning and teaching that I might also pass on.
I am also hoping that my MOOC on "The History and Future of Higher Education" will be a bit "meta." A MOOC about MOOCs and instilling the principles of open learning and creating a world-wide forum on behalf of (a) increased and restored funding for public higher education and, simultaneously, (b) a clarion call to rethink the possibilities, forms, apparatus, assessment, silos, and the mission of higher education---all of which have been inherited from the Taylorist Industrial Age and are not well suited to the requirements of educating us for the current social, financial, and professional arrangements that have been radically changed since April 22, 1993 and the opening of the Internet and the World Wide Web to a general public.
My MOOC will focus some on the financial and other arrangements of MOOCs but will mostly be about pedagogy. However, side-by-side with this MOOC, the HASTAC alliance is supporting a series of face-to-face and ad hoc classes, workshops, conferences, and events on any aspect of "the history and/or the future of higher education" and the business and legal arrangements of commercial, corporate MOOC enterprises such as Coursera's will be part of the research and critical thinking in all these co-located supplementary endeavors. You can read about those here: http://hastac.org/collections/history-and-future-higher-education In the HASTAC manner, this co-located project is community-driven. If you decide to teach a course and write a workshop, blog about it on hastac.org and then we will add your name and institution and course and workshop title to the curated director. Anyone is welcome to contribute.
MOOC MADNESS AND ITS MYTHS
The current version of the MOOC that is commanding public attention (as in the Coursera version I will be teaching) is a commercial, for-profit, hierarchical, online set of courses that students can take for free and without prererequisites so they often draw in massive numbers (hence the acronym: Massive Online Open Courseware). I share all the fears of so many colleagues about whether or not these corporate or even nonprofit (but heavily VC funded) MOOCs, emanating from Stanford, Harvard, and MIT and private corporations like Google, will further erode the already desperate state of underfunded public education in America. Will professors at underfunded state universities and small liberal arts colleges all be replaced by a few dozen elite profs blabbing away from some laptop? Are MOOCs a "game changer" for higher education that, in fact, spells "game over": Will MOOCs destroy the financial structure of the professorate and the very fiber of learning---all that is interactive, immediate, human, loving, and great about learning? That's a short form list of many of the MOOC fears.
The flipside or positive view about MOOCs tends to center on students, the digital divide, and access. We now have an appallingly exclusionary system of higher education worldwide, where only a tiny fraction of those who need some form of advanced learning have access to actual, formal higher education. There are 450,000 students on the waiting list for California community colleges right now. The average GPA of a student entering UC Irvine this fall is 4.1 on a 4.0 scale. Only the top 2% of the tiny fraction of students allowed to take the entrance exams to South Asian technical colleges get in. MOOCs may (or may not) help this crisis but the terrible worldwide problem of access is the expressed motivation many give for wanting to teach these courses. I love being able to offer training, skills, and even education to massive numbers of people who may otherwise be excluded or have no access at all to formal education. Half the world's population is under 25 and, by John Seely Brown's estimate, there are about 50-100 million qualified students worldwide who clamor for and cannot have access to education.
But are MOOCs the answer? Really? Is this the only pedagogy that can reach massive numbers of students otherwise excluded by wealth, location, jobs, other duties, prerequisites, age, disability and other other factors that impede taking actual, traditional courses? I really do not like hierarchical, top-down silo'ed and centralized face-to-face teaching---the so called Sage on the Stage model--so why in the world would I like that model automated, the Doc on the Laptop?
My knee-jerk reaction to these kinds of MOOCs is critical, cautious, even condemnatory. Whenever I find myself having a knee-jerk reaction, especially on a subject I care about, I like to get first-hand information.
I know it's a bit George Plimpton-esque, but I learn by doing . . . so here's an account of what I've learned about the MOOC myths from what I've done and learned first hand. I don't know what of these things is true beyond my experience but the point of first-hand experience is to counter myths with at least some substance and reality, however limited.
I. AS A MOOC STUDENT:
I began by taking a bunch of MOOCs and quickly discovered the very wide range of types and quality. I rarely make it past a few weeks in a MOOC, even the ones I love, because, well, life intervenes and I have other priorities.
Myth #1: MOOCS have a horrendous dropout rate. True, in most (not all) cases. And the problem? When I now read that 90% of people drop out of MOOCs, I have to think, well, they may have a life too and probably their life intervened and they had other priorities. I took about 20 lessons of the web programming (basically HTML 5) class I took with Udacity and really enjoyed it. Do I know HTML 5 now? Not on your life--I haven't programmed anything with it since I stopped the course. But I thoroughly enjoyed the experience and know a lot more about how it works. I was also very impressed by the CMU statistics course that several colleagues take to supplement the pretty poor face-to-face teaching of some statistics profs. Like my Udacity HTML5 class, it gave me problems to solve and my right or wrong answer generated another problem, geared to either take me forward (if I did it right) or to go back to something a little more easy and exemplary. It even changed the kind of challenges it gave me based on the ways that it could tell I was learning and even informed me of patterns I wasn't aware of myself (i.e. I learn better when I try to solve a problem, then get an explanation, than if the explanation about what I did wrong comes). Also, in cases where the MOOC is accompanied by real attention to student response, real human feedback and interaction, and the whole tradition of peer-to-peer learning, including real-presence study groups, the completion rate goes way up. Let's hear another one for open peer-learning! (It is my wish, of course, that the version of online learning is free, open, nonprofit, and peer-to-peer, plus hybrid and community-based... but anyone who reads HASTAC knows that. The whole point of this exercise is to try to find out what I don't already know, not to reinforce my deepest convictions.... )
Myth #2: MOOCs make for terrible pedagogy. Sometimes, they are terrible. I've taken some ridiculously bad MOOCs ("taken" is not quite the right word; I dropped out before the first lesson ended.) But in some cases, especially certain kinds of problem-based work, they may offer a more successful model than the prof with chalk at the blackboard (the "technology," by the way, that caused Yale students to riot--literally--and be expelled for their protest when blackboards were introduced as a technology in Yale classrooms in the 1830s). I found some of my problem-based coding and statistics MOOCs offered me a pretty granular level of knowledge about myself and my own learning patterns. Most of us do not know that much about our students even teaching a seminar, let alone 300 students in a lecture. I didn't know it about myself.
II. AS A TEACHER OF A STUDENT-CREATED MOCK MOOC:
I love the medical school adage, "See one. Do one. Teach one." So, as a pedagogy, when Dan Ariely and I taught "Surprise Endings: Social Science and Literature" to thirty students last year, we had them turn the course material into a MOOC of their own. They worked in teams, designed assignments for the rest of us, peer-graded, and then turned their unit into a final project that anyone could learn from. This summer, Malina Chavez, an MFA student here, is redesigning our site from an inward-looking Duke course site into a public site, but, even before then, you can view their final projects here: http://sites.duke.edu/english390-5_01_s2013/finalprojects/
Myth #3: Students require rigorous, expert top-down control and teaching. Nah, I gave up that myth long ago. My students give harder and longer assignments when they are in charge, and more creative ones, and are tougher on one another, and do better work. (There's lots of research, actually, that peers perform better when peers judge than when teachers do, retain better, etc etc.) Plus I learned a lot. I will forever be grateful for the group who worked on obedience, evil, and resistance and assigned us to read not only the sixteen experiments that Milgram did (the one where students blindly follow totalitarian leadership and pull a lever that, if it were real, would do permanent damage to their "captive"), but the fifteen leading up to it that show human resistance, rebellion, independence, and morality. In their hands, the topic became "why do we tell stories of those who succumb, not those who disobey? how can we tell better stories?" http://sites.duke.edu/english390-5_01_s2013/finalprojects/obedience-evil-resistance/
III. TEACHING A COURSERA MOOC ON "THE HISTORY AND FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION": http://hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/2013/05/15/storyboarding-future-higher-education
Here's what I have learned so far from agreeing to teach a MOOC of My Own in Winter/Spring 2014.
Myth #4: Elite profs are agreeing to teach these MOOCs because they are making huge sums of money, tens of thousands of dollars. I don't know what arrangements are at other universities, but, for teaching this six-week Duke-based course on "The History and Future of Higher Education," I receive a stipend of $10,000 dollars, none of which will come into my own pocket. Literally. A colleague who taught one last year received a $20,000 payment and used all of it on teaching assistants, technical assistants, and equipment. Similary, I am using 100% of my 10K stipend to support the time of some of my HASTAC colleagues who are helping me mount this extremely complex enterprise, plus permissions for copyrighted material, some equipment, travel to film segments and conduct interviews, and many other costs, and I'm told Duke is paying for more support help this year than last (which is why I'm getting 50% less) but it's still not a way any prof should be moonlighting. In fact, it is ridiculous to think of this as a way anyone would feather one's nest! And talking to other MOOC profs, this is not untypical. I've not yet met anyone who has received anything like adequate or even ordinary (compared to f2f teaching, even as a badly paid adjunct) compensation for their time. I am less worried than I used to be about this kind of MOOC replacing actual college professors in their actual jobs. So far as I can see so far (and I'm looking skeptically), this could supplement and add on to what a university does; it could augment what it does not have the funds or staff to do; in a consortial model it could allow universities to exchange expertise in highly specialized areas where they lack it and have never been able to offer a full array of courses (lesser taught languages, very advanced mathematics, etc), but it won't replace the core. It can't. At this point, I am pretty sure that, as a replacement for core educational costs (even when designed from the most cynical central administrator's point of view) MOOCS do not offer a sustainable business model.
Myth #5: It takes about 150 hours of back-end preparation for every one hour of a MOOC. This is turning out to be true. The storyboarding, the permissions, the questions, the queries, are insanely labor intensive. There is no way I could even do this without the brilliance of my HASTAC associate Kaysi Holman, who has the ability to wrangle million of bits of complex information into comprehensible plans (she made and printed out one index card for every minute of the six hours of screen time of this MOOC and we are filling in every card.) She is also trained as a lawyer and knows how to wield a video camera. No summer vacations for us! We work together on this MOOC every second we are not doing our regular work on our grants, projects, etc. No writing for me this summer either! This is a major, major commitment. I do not know how to use ScreenFlow video editing equipment, for example, and video editing is extremely laborious. And during the six weeks the course itself will run, I've been told I will be online in the discussion Forums probably eighteen hours a day---and I might need five or six or a dozen TAs or other apprentice teachers there too. Really. When people are fearful that MOOCs will replace college teachers everywhere, I am, at this point, skeptical. How many profs are crazy enough to do this? And the hard part--teaching the course itself next Winter--hasn't even begun yet! If I didn't have a professioinal interest in the process, as well as a conviction about how important it is to offer alternative methods of learning given how exclusionary education is now, there is no way I'd do this for free! How many professors would?
Myth #6: You cannot teach the humanities and interpretive social sciences, or anything dialogic, imaginative, discursive with a Coursera-type top down MOOC. I thought so too. In fact, this weekend, the Los Angeles Time Book Review will publish a debate with four of us about MOOCs and I say something brilliant like "we don't yet have a good method for teaching the humanities and interpretive social sciences with a MOOC." I don't want to spoil the suspense of our debate but, let's say, two of my co-debaters exploded that myth to heck. You'll be able to read about it this week but,well, I'll make this sure: after reading Round 1 of the debate in order to get on the boxing gloves for Round 2, I was so impressed by Penn professor and poet Al Filreis's Modern Poetry MOOC that I signed up to take it this Fall. You can teach a great online MOOC, even with all of the technological impediments the Coursera platform offers, to 45,000 students worldwide. He's been teaching an online version of his course since 1994! Here's his video on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUok9h6uvO0
Myth #7: Anyone can teach a MOOC. Not. After a conversation about Al about his course, I realized that, for all my aspirations, I have a lot to learn. My bar just got reset about ten feet higher. Back to the storyboarding . . .
Lots of questions and myths still remain (Kaysi and I have several pages of them), including the very confusing and changing area of "intellectual property" and who owns what and for what purpose. I also have no more clarity than I began with about how Coursera itself will sustain itself, whether this is a boom business that will be sold, like Instagram, for a cool billion . . . or if the bubble will burst and this will be one of those silly episodes in the history of technology (like the ridiculous "advanced math" class I took in 6th grade with other math geeks in Chicago, huddled around a tv in a windowless classroom while some Famous Math Prof circled above us in a small plane lecturing us on pre-calculus. Really. It was stupid then. And quickly the experiment failed. Are MOOCs like the circling Piper Cub? We shall see and we shall see. . . I'll write subsequent posts as the mists surrounding these and other myths clear . . . if ever they do. )
Myth #8: MOOCs exploit faculty. I've already said I fear this on a general level. I don't like the implications, the assumptions. Not at all. Since this blog is about my personal first-hand experiences, I will say I am underpaid as a Coursera teacher and I'm often dismayed by the "start up" mentality where everyone at Coursera is making it up on the fly. I'm daunted by the amount of work (it's basically like writing another book, I think), and, having said all that, I also have to say: I. Am. Having. A. Blast. I love teaching. I love challenges. I love working with my amazing team. And, as frustrating as start-up mentalities and expediencies can be, it is also fun to be trying something new, experimenting, seeing if it has any value, any lessons that might be applied in more typical situations--or not. I don't know yet, and that's the fun, after decades of teaching. And I think we're going to be creating a pretty fabulous educational experience for tens of thousands of students and, given that we're also doing a series of face-to-face co-located courses and events, I hope we will even be able to create a national conversation, with urgency and importance, about society's need to re-invest in public education.
Investing in public education is the single best investment in all our futures that any of us can make, and we're hoping this course and this movement (see:http://hastac.org/collections/history-and-future-higher-education) will help. It would be pretty cool if the Massive number of students in this Online Course could be galvanized as a force to articulate the urgency of reinvesting in higher education. That will be the final exam.
And that passionate mission is my personal myth motivating this effort.
I hope this has been helpful. If anyone else has first hand experience teaching a MOOC, and has other myths to elucidate or dispel, please use the Comments section below to help us all understand this better. Or if you have ideas you would like to share (whether you've done a MOOC, open source peer-to-peer teaching, or not), please let us know. I am happy to say that I just found out I'll be able to Creative Commons license everything in the Coursera course so, if nothing else, there will be plenty to share when this is all over. And that, after all, is the point!