Over the weekend, the Guardian
published an article
on the disruptive effect of MOOC's, massive online courses.
As someone's who's pontificated
about universities in the past I read it with a degree of
interest.
And it does contain a word of warning
to existing universities. For example, at the university where I work
we've put a vast amount of coursework onto our VLE, which allows
students to catch up when they miss classes and simplifies and speeds
up marking of assignments, and also means that large classes can be
taught more easily.
Interestingly, we have arrangements
where student from some other universities that do not teach some of
our specialities study them via our VLE but get credited for the
module by their home institution. And it's not one way, we do the
same for specialities we lack the resources to teach.
MOOC's are an extension of this. They
represent a step change because of their scale, but they are only an
evolution of what's already happening.
The other thing to understand is that
VLE based courses have limitations. They're great for all the basic
knowledge functions, like naming anatomical structures or describing
chemical reactions.
Great for what used to be called
General degrees some thirty years ago in Scotland, where people
studied a range of subjects and once they had enough credits
qualified for a degree.
The real difference is where you want
people to think and discuss material. In my discipline of animal
behaviour it consisted of trying to work out what a behaviour meant.
In languages it consists of trying to
understand better in order to better communicate complex material.
I'm sure anyone with a different
academic heritage will have other examples, but it has the common
thread of moving from demonstrating knowledge and competence by
dealing with closed questions to being able to apply it to the
analysis of open questions – something for which discussion and
interaction is essential.
In other words, I've no doubts that
MOOCs can replace lectures but not special topic tutorials. I may be
being snotty and out of sorts with the times but I always thought the
purpose of a university education was being able to think and
analyse, and along the way being extremely knowledgeable about a
specialist subject or two.
It's like IT training courses – its
one thing to learn how to install and configure an application –
it's another thing entirely to understand the end to end design of
the process in which it will be used. One is analytical, the other is
not.
So MOOCs will be disruptive. But not in
the way people expect. Some universities will use them as way to
supplement their teaching. Others will undoubtedly give credit for
successfully completing them – either as foundation material or to
allow students to skip some of the entry requirements for an advanced
or honours course.
And some universities will stop
teaching a whole range of courses purely because the MOOCs are
better.
But the thing to remember about
disruptive change is that it's disruptive – things will undoubtedly
turn out differently to how we expect ….
Update
While we're on this theme, Clay Shirky has a well argued post on this theme that's well worth a read and much of what he says has resonance with the above
Update
While we're on this theme, Clay Shirky has a well argued post on this theme that's well worth a read and much of what he says has resonance with the above
2 comments:
That Shirky post is really good, thankyou for linking it. Yours also is interesting, of course, as ever, but his analogy with the music industry really resonates with me, and I find it disturbingly hard to argue with. Much to think about here...
Been using MOOCs ... here are my thoughts
http://datagrad.blogspot.com/2012/11/using-moocs-while-in-grad-school.html
Post a Comment