The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Policy and News » mathed-news

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Beyond MOOC Hype
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Jerry P. Becker

Posts: 16,576
Registered: 12/3/04
Beyond MOOC Hype
Posted: Jul 9, 2013 4:11 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (10.8 K)

From INSIDER HIGHER ED, Tuesday, July 9, 2013. See
Beyond MOOC Hype

By Ry Rivard

As scores of colleges rush to offer free online classes, the mania
over massive open online courses may be slowing down. Even top
proponents of MOOCs are acknowledging critical questions remain
unanswered, and are urging further study.

Dan Greenstein, the head of college access at the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation, now wonders aloud if MOOCs are a "viable thing or
are just a passing fad." Gates has agreed to spend $3 million for
wide-reaching MOOC-related grants. But Greenstein said higher ed is
suffering from "innovation exhaustion," and MOOCs are part of the

"It seems to me, at least with respect to MOOCs, that we have skipped
an important step," he wrote in an Inside Higher Ed op-ed last week.
"We've jumped right into the 'chase' without much of a discussion
about what problems they could help us to solve. We have skipped the
big picture of where higher ed is going and where we want to be in 10
or 20 years."

The American Council on Education is working with Gates; it also
recommends colleges grant credit for some MOOCs it has reviewed. But
ACE President Molly Corbett Broad said the free online classes have
perhaps been greeted with more hype than is appropriate.

Broad said innovation exhaustion "may be overstated," but she said
there is a "settling out" about the future of MOOCs. She said they
have received more hype than any higher ed development in recent

"It is right at the intersection of high quality and lower cost, so I
think those things are indeed linked to why it has been perhaps
overexposed," Broad said in an interview. "So I think all of that
makes good sense. So now is the time for us to step back and do what
all of us at universities are the best at doing: criticizing or
evaluating or recommending changes or improvements - or some will
choose to walk away from this strategy altogether."

She said this would not affect ACE's ongoing review of certain MOOCs
for credit.

If anything, MOOCs are going through what the technology consulting
firm Gartner has identified as the "hype cycle." The firm says any
much-hyped product goes from a "peak of inflated expectations" to a
"trough of disillusionment" before institutions figure out how to
really use and benefit from a new technology.

The MOOC disillusionment is coming from a number of corners. Faculty
groups are worried MOOCs will cost them their jobs, rob them of their
intellectual property rights and fail to educate students.

Some administrators are also becoming dubious in big ways. The
provosts at the Committee on Institutional Cooperation -- the Big 10
universities and the University of Chicago -- directly challenged the
hype and MOOCs and signaled last month in a position paper that they
could walk away because of worries that corporations and not
universities will end up controlling the future of higher ed. About
one-sixth of the MOOCs offered by Coursera come from those
universities. The CIC statement is typical of many of those urging a
more careful analysis of MOOCs: it doesn't suggest they have no
value, but expresses a need to study how they may or may not fit into
university goals and priorities -- and to do this at a calm pace.

The new rhetoric in discussion of MOOCs may also be showing up from
MOOC providers themselves. Sebastian Thrun, the CEO of Udacity,
predicted last year that within a half-century there would only be 10
institutions of higher education left in the world.

Now, Thrun is a bit more modest. "Upfront, I believe that online
education will not replace face to face education, and neither is it
supposed to," he wrote in a blog post last month. "Just as film never
replaced theater plays and many of us prefer to watch sports live in
big stadiums, online will not abolish face to face interaction." He
also said ed tech innovators should be "willing to learn from our
failures and to forge on."

Andrew Ng, a co-founder of Coursera, said he too is thinking about
the future of MOOCs.

In a wide-ranging telephone interview with Inside Higher Ed, Ng said
his company is not just about MOOCs, though it sees great promise in
them, particularly their scale.

Ng said he and Coursera's co-founder, Daphne Koller, who are both
computer science professors at Stanford University, had debates even
before they founded the company about the best use of technology.

Ng had been posting course material online free; Koller had been
working on blended learning, where she would give students online
courseware to study before coming to class. Ng said their debates
came down to whether they should focus on serving hundreds of
thousands of students with free courses or using online courseware to
free up class time for students enrolled at a university.

"We actually had these debates for a long time until we both realized
it was a silly debate and we realized we should work with instructors
and universities and then do both," Ng said.

But Coursera's MOOCs have clearly received the most attention so far,
at least until late May when the university announced a series of
experimental partnerships with a network of public colleges and
universities in nine states. Some of the partnerships were focused on
MOOCs; others on blended learning.

"We're a hosting platform and the same platform can and has been used
to offer free online content and can and has been used to offer
content to students attending university campuses," Ng said.

Some observers accused the company of scrambling to find a business
model amid pressure from its venture capitalist backers to make
money. Observers also wondered how the company had gone from offering
free classes taught by professors at elite universities to a
fee-based series of partnerships with less-than-elite public

Ng said he isn't facing pressure from investors. "This is so not a
search for money. I think it's a search for student benefits," he
said of the public university deals. He said internal projections
show the company can become "sustainable" by charging some MOOC users
for verified completion certificates. But, the public university
deals do broaden the company's business model, he said.

Responding to a broad series of criticisms about MOOCs possibly
reducing the quality of higher ed, Ng said the company is looking out
for students.

"For as long as it's Daphne and me running the company, I'm confident
we'll do what's best for students," Ng said.

Carol Geary Schneider, the head of the Association of American
Colleges and Universities, worries that MOOCs can amplify the "least
productive pedagogy" in American higher education, which she calls
lectures followed by multiple-choice tests. But she does see
potential for MOOCs to help flip classrooms so professors can spend
less time lecturing in class and more time engaging students.

"It would be a tragedy if you substituted MOOCs in their current form
for regular courses," she said in an interview. "But it would be a
creative breakthrough if you take advantage of MOOCs and other forms
of online coverage to make more space and more time for students to
apply concepts and methods appropriate to their field to real

A host of faculty and administrators are studying the issue. ACE
announced a group of university administrators who will be studying
technology innovations, including MOOCs. The Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, which co-founded MOOC provider edX, is going through
its own extensive campus-based exploration of the future. Campuses
across the country are taking deeper looks at the use of technology,
though Greenstein accused some governing boards of " 'me too'-ism,
where innovation itself becomes the goal without a clear and
compelling strategic purpose."

Susan Meisenhelder, the former president of the California Faculty
Association and an active member of the faculty-led and MOOC-wary
Campaign for the Future of Higher Education, said she is encouraged
by what she sees as a slowing in pro-MOOC rhetoric.

"We're just relieved, because of the scale of this thing, because of
the scale of MOOCs themselves, because of the scale of the frenzy
around this," Meisenhelder said. "Many of our folks thought we were
going to do serious damage to a generation of students by just
throwing them into MOOCs and feeling like we've done them a favor --
we're hoping the conversation can now be a more grounded one."

If academic leaders are eyeing a new technology with skepticism to
make sure it doesn't hurt their business model, this would not be the
first time, said John Thelin, a University of Kentucky professor who
studies the history of higher education.

When television came along and began to broadcast college football
games, Thelin said colleges worried fans would stop coming to games
-- a worry similar to the concern that MOOCs could end on-campus
education. So higher ed leaders strengthened the NCAA, which tightly
limited the number of games broadcast each week for more than three
decades, until the early 1980s.

"It was a way of slowing down this fear that if you had this
unregulated medium it was going to drain off traditional attendance,
so that people would stay home and watch games on TV," he said. "So
the MOOCs would be very, very similar."
Jerry P. Becker
Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction
Southern Illinois University
625 Wham Drive
Mail Code 4610
Carbondale, IL 62901-4610
Phone: (618) 453-4241 [O]
(618) 457-8903 [H]
Fax: (618) 453-4244

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.