Slashdot Mirror
The MOOC Revolution That Wasn't
An anonymous reader writes: Dan Friedman at TechCrunch is ready to call Massive Open Online Courses a failure. Originally hailed as a revolution in learning, MOOCs have seen disappointing course completion numbers. Coursera and Udacity, two of the most prominent online learning hubs, have seen about 8 million enrollments in the past few years. Unfortunately, half of those students didn't even watch a single lecture, and only a few hundred thousand completed the course they signed up for.
Friedman says, "[N]ew technologies enable methods of "learn by doing" that just weren't possible before we could deliver immersive experiences to people's laptops and phones. In the 1960's, Jerome Bruner expanded an educational theory known as constructivism with the idea that students should learn through inquiry under the guidance of a teacher to grasp complex ideas intuitively. That process of trial, failure, and then being shown the correct path has been proven to drive student motivation and retention of learning. What we don't yet know is if that process of trial and failure can become 10x more engaging when delivered through a new medium such as Minecraft or Oculus. ... These new immersive worlds promise to hold the attention of students in ways textbooks never could."
Friedman says, "[N]ew technologies enable methods of "learn by doing" that just weren't possible before we could deliver immersive experiences to people's laptops and phones. In the 1960's, Jerome Bruner expanded an educational theory known as constructivism with the idea that students should learn through inquiry under the guidance of a teacher to grasp complex ideas intuitively. That process of trial, failure, and then being shown the correct path has been proven to drive student motivation and retention of learning. What we don't yet know is if that process of trial and failure can become 10x more engaging when delivered through a new medium such as Minecraft or Oculus. ... These new immersive worlds promise to hold the attention of students in ways textbooks never could."
From TFA:
Having the full attention of an instructor accelerates an individual’s learning by focusing them on the right problems at the right times, and having a real relationship with one person provides students with accountability. At Thinkful, we see a spike in learning the day before students have sessions with their mentors. Students want to achieve more because of their relationship, and that motivation translates to more efficient learning. We’re now working to apply that same social pressure throughout the week to bring up overall learning time further.
In other words, our competitors in the online space have been doing it wrong. But we've come up with something so New and Improved, we don't call it MOOC. Whether you're an angel investor or just want to learn some new stuff, you owe it to yourself to check us out today.
I have signed up for 3 of these from Coursera. I've completed two and dumped one. They do involve a fair amount to time to get through, depending on how familiar you are with the subject matter to start with. I'm guessing most of the people who do this are people who sometimes think about going back to college but aren't quite willing to dump an existing career that pays the bills but perhaps leaves them not completely satisfied. I guess the question I would have is how important is it to these places that people finish their courses? Given that the price right now is $0, maybe they could charge a nominal free (like $20) to sign up, refundable if the course is completed.
When it's free, and there's no penalty for failing to participate, and it makes the news as a fad, then this is the expected result, not some outlier.
If anything they should be happy that a few hundred-thousand of the eight million actually completed it; assuming they're around 5% completion that's pretty good for something that there was no obligation to participate in, that required a fairly large amount of time committed that might not have been considered in advance, etc.
It's like an extreme version of the affluenza-type kid that's had everything handed to him going off to college because it's automatic; he does poorly and skips a lot because he has no stake in what happens. His parents pay for everything and he has none of his own cost on the line.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
All MOOC courses largely resemble university courses. You are supposed spend 1-2 hours per week on the videos, do extra reading from the textbook and do the assigned homework. After all this effort, you might get an online certificate that's useless for job purposes. This is too much work for casual students. We want courses designed for casual learning and that means flexible hours, fewer homework assignments.
Also some of the science and tech courses are very demanding but the teachers don't simplify it leading to many whooshing sounds for the student throughout the courses. Such courses could benefit from a simplified overview of the course material.
The same thing that happened to the 1950's and 1960's era dream of delivering education by television, so that schools would be nothing more than broadcast studios and children could learn comfortably nestled in their suburban homes. People (cue indignant dissent here) like interacting with people, and classrooms, whether university or grammar school, are inherently more suited to most people's personalities and social desires than 1960's television lectures or today's failing MOOCs. Technology can cut corners and increase efficiency ("one prof for 100K students" chant the university accountants), but it can't provide the subtle reinforcements of being in a room with people.
I completed the Stanford AI course, recently did a course in communications from the University of Amsterdam. In both cases, time management was a problem for me, I simply had other things to do, and drifted away... catching back up in the nick of time. Trying to fit distance learning into the regular schedule of campus life seems to be the problem here... it is definitely not the depth of material that is any kind of a stopper.
I think that guided deep dives into topics we would otherwise not understand, is going to be how we keep accumulating knowledge as a species in the future. Deep diving takes time, and unlike the real diving... it doesn't all have to happen in one shot.
On a side note... it is worth at least $20 to me... possibly much more... if someone can give me the deep dive that results in me understanding the Higgs field, and the Higgs particle. A true understanding... not some vague notion of mexican hats and potential.
Well I have a theory. I has help up in all circumstances I have observed over the few decades I have spent as a tax paying citizen.
When things are free, expected outcomes, which would generally benefit subject populations never materialize..."
I have a few examples:
1: Collapse of the Canadian cod fishery industry
2: The extreme stress experienced by the so called "socialist" medical care system wherever it can be found. Result will be failure inevitably.
3: The obvious poor quality elementary and post elementary pupils western countries produce compared to kids from the Asian subcontinent where monies paid by hard-working parents, or even students themselves.
4: Hunger in some so called underdeveloped countries where starvation is obvious in the midst of lush green vegetation.
the people who go to MIT, Harvard and other top schools aren't more intelligent than anyone else, they put the effort in. they study until they are sure they will get an A, do their homework, etc. that's why the schools are selective.
MOOC's take anyone who wakes up one day with dreams of being a top programmer. when it's time to put the work in they go back to their old ways and find reasons why they are too busy to do the work. TV, netflix, going out drinking with the Bro's, gaming
Isn't Sesame Street the original, and most successful, MOOC?
For another point of view ...
This week, Russ Roberts chatted with former Stanford professor and Coursera co-founder Daphne Koller about the present and future of online education.
http://www.econtalk.org/archiv...
For the record, correspondence courses have been around since 1892. But somehow MOOCs are "disruptive" (have classrooms and disruption ever gone well together?). Here's a quotation from Wikipedia to add context:
In the United States William Rainey Harper, first president of the University of Chicago, developed the concept of extended education, whereby the research university had satellite colleges of education in the wider community. In 1892 he also encouraged the concept of correspondence school courses to further promote education, an idea that was put into practice by Columbia University.[12][13] Enrollment in the largest private for-profit school based in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the International Correspondence Schools grew explosively in the 1890s. Originally founded in 1888 to provide training for immigrant coal miners aiming to become state mine inspectors or foremen, it enrolled 2500 new students in 1894 and matriculated 72,000 new students in 1895. By 1906 total enrollments reached 900,000. The growth was due to sending out complete textbooks instead of single lessons, and the use of 1200 aggressive in-person salesmen.[14][15] There was a stark contrast in pedagogy:
The regular technical school or college aims to educate a man broadly; our aim, on the contrary, is to educate him only along some particular line. The college demands that a student shall have certain educational qualifications to enter it, and that all students study for approximately the same length of time, and when they have finished their courses they are supposed to be qualified to enter any one of a number of branches in some particular profession. We, on the contrary, are aiming to make our courses fit the particular needs of the student who takes them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
The eye is bigger than the stomach. That is certainly part of the MOOC "failure". However, I don't consider it a failure. They have hundreds of thousands of students that finished a course. Is that failure? In comparison to the 8 million enrollments perhaps, but in comparison to the zero that would have done the course without MOOC, it isn't. I did a course. Followed all classes, didn't bother to get a grade or certificate, because (a) I couldn't put in the effort in the single week there was to do the project, (b) I didn't care about the certificate. It was just to learn something new. And I'm grateful to coursera that they offered this possibility.
When you're in a distracting environment where the wife and kids keep demanding attention, your mind will inevitably wander. Working remotely is more practical when you can be in a satellite office, not far from home but still a working environment as opposed to a home environment. If you're seriously taking MOOCs, try this sort of office instead of the house.
I'd be interested in seeing completion rates if people had to pay (put some skin in the game). The free concept could still apply too. Pay up front, if you complete the course with anything better than failing, you get your money back. It's a security deposit against yourself.
The same thing that happened to the 1950's and 1960's era dream of delivering education by television,
So, you never heard of the Open University?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I got through my courses on Cousera by white knuckling it.
Watching videos on the computer is very hard for me. I have to play them at 1.5x at least. Many lecturers suck - their lectures can be half as long and they speak too slow.
The quizes can be horrible. You get a wrong answer and do not understand why; well, you cannot discuss quiz answers on the forums.
Then there is the format and organization. Back in college, everything about the course was decribed in the sylabus. On Coursera, that my be the case or the details about the course is spread out over a bunch of links and outside websites - like a course Wiki.
On Coursera, we are encouraged to use the forums, Unfortunately, like the entire Internet there are Trolls and assholes. I asked a question and was told that "You do not belong here for asking such a stupid question!"
The fact that the Troll wan't removed tells me that the Troll's opinion was shared by the course instructor and his TAs. I finished the course with distinction - so much for not belonging there.
When learning, one needs to be able to ask "stupid" questions occasionally and if the teachers cannot accept that, then they have no business teaching.
Tl;dr: after several Coursera classes, I found them to be tedious, abusive, and my time is much better spent reading a book and asking questions on a forum that specializes in that subject. For example, Computer Science. Stackoverflow is much beter than ANY Mooc.
Not just that. They would rather watch football or Game of Thrones than the current iteration of The Day the Universe Changed. It doesn't matter how much you impress random billionaires or the Ivory Tower education crowd.
You can provide the materials, but there's no gaurantee that anyone will want to use them.
On the other hand, The Great Courses see plenty of Torrent traffic. There's certainly demand for the stuff. Just less than for Expendables 3.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
There are a few fundamental issues here and people from both sides of the classroom tend to ignore them. I have some education as a teacher and did actually teach undergraduate and graduate classes at a Uni.
Students are surprised that these courses are often demanding, that there is homework, etc. Hello, these are university level courses, what did you expect? This ain't vacation or World of Warcraft, only with a free diploma at the end.
Teachers are surprised that their classroom-oriented methods don't work when put online. Surprise, recording a lecture on a video, slapping it online and expecting the students to not get bored from the droning and just give up on this is silly. Especially when various extrinsic motivation that keeps students staying put in the auditoriums (like having paid expensive tuition or actually being able to obtain a proper, full degree) is missing. Lectures are boring as hell even when in person, it is probably the worst way to teach/learn. Recording the lecture, removing the personal contact and slapping the thing online only makes it worse. No fancy "e-learning" platforms can fix that fundamentally broken model.
Unfortunately, many unis see the "e-learning", online courses and what not as a great way to save money - no need to pay for so many classes, so many teachers, teachers can spend time doing research instead of teaching, etc. Win-win, right? Wrong!
The technology alone won't make the students learn - the role of the teacher as a facilitator and guide to learning is indispensable. Give students Minecraft (or a tablet or some other technical gimmick) and they will spend 99% of the time fooling around because of the distractions. They need someone to actually show them the relevant bits, explain what is not clear and guide them through the classwork - that is what the teacher is for. Non-interactive video cannot really replace that. While the classic lecture is also horrible from this point of view, the drone at the blackboard can be at least interrupted and asked extra questions. With video this is difficult or outright impossible.
Another crucially important thing for both the student and the teacher is feedback - "Am I doing OK?" "What needs to be improved?" "How to improve it?" If the only "feedback" for the student are automatically marked quizzes or the final mark/score for the course/module, as is often the rule, that really doesn't help them at all - they have perhaps failed the course or received a poor mark already. They need the (formative) feedback while still working!
Also the feedback for the lecturer is important - very often the students don't get anything from the class, because the lecturer mumbles incomprehensibly, is not organized or overloads the students. However, the typical way to collect feedback are some satisfaction questionnaires at the end of the term/module - way too late to fix anything. And now add yet another layer of insulation between the lecturer and the students - the non-interactive videos - and the realistic amount of feedback both sides can expect becomes exactly zero ...
During my teaching I was trying to get away from lecturing as much as I could - which can be surprisingly difficult, with the university administration explicitly expecting you to lecture. Where I could, the classes were focused on discussion, group work and projects. I was even turning the classes completely inside-out - had the students read the classwork from the textbook, do the exercises at home and then the class was spent explaining what wasn't clear or needed more guidance. There is little point in spending class lecturing for hours stuff that the students can read faster and more comfortably in a book. It did work, for the most part - even though the classes I was teaching were "hard" stuff - like programming, basics of computer graphics, introduction to artificial intelligence, image processing. However, do this with an e-learning system that is explicitly structured around lecturing!
I find these onlin
Creator of a service says competitors service is inferior! Shocking!
Note: The article is written by a founder of Thinkful....which offers online learning. The whole article reads as an advertisement for thankful and an indictment of what their competition is doing wrong.
In other words, typical Slashvertisement. Nothing to see here.
Indeed. The same BS happens over and over again, because these "educators" are even too stupid to know the history of their own field.
A friend of mine was a lecturer at the German distance University (Fernuniversitaet Hagen) for a few years. The had no video-lectures, but made sure that student had local learning groups, could phone the lecturers on problems, and once or twice a year came in for seminars for a week. All this emulating the classroom is nonsense as it ignores that most of the learning is done outside of the classroom.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
What's being ignored is centuries of research has found the classroom environment really good for teaching. Books TVs and correspondence courses have all tried to replace it.
The latest whizbang technology isn't always the best answer.
Classrooms will be around until somebody find something that actually is better
MOOCs are great for disciplined students (like me). I carefully choose courses based on what I want to learn about and only take one at a time. It does not matter to me that no college credit is awarded (I already have a BS and MBA). I commit to completing courses just like I was paying for them which means I continue irrespective of how good, bad, or difficult I find the course to be. I always learn more that I expected. Sometimes the most important learning happens as the result of course discussion forum interactions! The key to success with any MOOC is to have a daily/weekly study schedule and stick to it. 'Free time' should be just that, time to do anything you want to - or not!
Sure, there's differences with the MOOC community. The biggest three in my opinion are that
1) The courses are free with no obligation. Because of this, people can and will sign up for trivial things like looking at part of a single lecture.
2) The environment is different. Because the dedicated school environment is replaced with the same environment where most people play their computer games, and there is no one to crack the whip, and there is no dedicated timeslot in people's schedules, people who intended to take a full course may have trouble motivating themselves to complete it.
3) The completion certificate is worthless. No one gives a crap if you completed a MOOC course or not, and if they did it would be too easy to fake/cheat. And the person taking the course has a pretty good idea of what they know, so to them it's just a pat on the back. Besides this being mildly discouraging in general, it means there is very little reason to do the often boring assignments that would be required to complete the course.
Basically, all the worst problems of a MOOC could be fixed by having a "school" where you went in on a schedule and had someone watching over you. This would provide the motivation and environment some people need to succeed, and because it wouldn't be free it would weed out the people who didn't intend to carry through and provide the motivation of a sunk cost to continue. It would also help the certificate to be worth something, because there is someone to verify that you didn't cheat and that it was, in fact, you who took the class. At this point you're probably ready to complain that doing it this way exactly eliminates every advantage a MOOC was supposed to have. However, this sort of thing would be cheaper than a regular school and would also help legitimize MOOC even for people who do it on their own.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
This whole line about "disappointing course completion numbers" is total BS. Online courses are a whole different beast than bricks and mortar ivy building courses. If I pay $1000+ to be in a course, I am going to plan my life around it and damn well show up and try hard. But if I see some free and interesting course online that has exactly zero consequences for withdrawal then I am going to sign up on the slightest of whims and figure out if I have time when the course starts. Also if the course annoys me in the slightest, then I will have probably signed up for 6 other interesting courses that I could try on for size. Also other factors can impose. For instance I was recently taking a really cool mathematical thinking course and lost my internet connection shortly before I finished an assignment. I would have aced the assignment and thus was really ticked off. With that huge honkin' zero on my score it burned my inner perfectionist who then decided that I would just take the course again in the future.
I could come up with 20 more reasons as to why I might sign up for yet not complete a course. But none of the above reasons diminish that these are great courses and those that I have completed have vastly improved those areas of my knowledge. Then there are courses such as those offered by MIT and Stanford which I didn't "complete" in that there was nothing to submit or be tested on. I watched the videos and did the recommended work. Again great knowledge was gained. Also depending upon the tracking they do, they may have seen me dip my toes into the first video or two of many courses. It is less that I didn't complete them then I really didn't take them.
Also as I take more and more of these courses I can see that they are starting to really get into a groove. The pacing of the material is becoming more even the associated work is in sync with the lectures, and the group forum stuff is becoming usable.
Really what I have been waiting for is that some major institution will (for a reasonable fee) actually give credit to the students who take a course (not just a whole program). This truly will be the leap that makes these courses a substantive part of modern education.
Where I originally thought(and still do) this leap would take place in an area aimed at highschool students who want to leap into University level material while still in highschool. The idea would be that a smattering of first year courses would be offered and that highschool students who are presently attending third rate institutions would have the opportunity to grow beyond the rats' nest of an education they were being offered and show major institutions that they have the will and the ability to go beyond the crap school that they attend.
The second group that I thought were perfect for online educations were those adults who for whatever reason were not able to attend university or other higher education and want to achieve some real certificate that would allow them to better their employment. An interesting example that occurred to me would be a twist on a degree. The idea is that the vast majority of the degree would be online at low cost and done at whatever speed the student could make time for. But that interspersed would be those real courses (at a normal cost) that require physical attendance. I see this applying to many degrees including an engineering degree.
This last could also apply to trade schools where a student would master the theoretical and then attend whatever physical classes that are required. For many adults stuck with a poorer education than their bright minds could otherwise handle 10 year degree programs would still be very attractive.
So the goal should not necessarily be some potentially unneeded replacement of existing higher education but a reaching out to make a higher education available to anyone who wants it for whatever reason. This would be a truly lofty goal and achieving it would not rate well by traditional metrics.
Indeed, interaction is key. The MOOCs try to simulate interaction and that cannot cut it. On the other hand, a classroom is just one form of interaction, even letters with some days or week until an answer arrives can work well, as long as it is genuine interaction. Most people are immediately able to tell when they are being ignored. MMOCs are basically "teachers" trying to ignore their students in order to have an easier life.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.