Give accreditation for MOOCs. Many are well designed (more so than community college and often regular college) and provide a far more social experience than showing up to class and not asking questions (which is the case 99% of the time).
Building name recognition and improving their brand. I think in the last ten years, colleges have seen that MOOCS don't reduce the demand for the traditional college experience, and have realized that creating their own MOOCS is actually an effective to create a new pipeline of potential students.
At some point we're going to have to ask ourselves, "what is a 'credit' and what is it really good for, anyway?"
At least in their current incarnation, MOOCs are not intended for credentialing, they are intended for learning and enrichment. I like it that way. I can learn as much about a topic as I want to, skip the parts I'm not interested in, and I don't need to care or worry about what's going to be "on the test" or whether I got a fair grade. And I don't have to go sign up and pay for a community college course and go to class at night to learn about how databases work or something--I can do it for free from the comfort of my own home.
I welcome high-quality MOOCs. I think competition will improve in-person offerings, especially at smaller colleges. I grow tired of getting low-quality students from my prerequisite courses. Sometimes I feel like removing the prerequisite requirements for some of my courses. The quality of some of them are so low.
Oh, I agree that MOOCs are a boon to people who could not otherwise attend college. But for those who can attend college, there is a lot of value that is hard to get from a MOOC, and I'm not talking about prestige or networking or credentialism.
Heck, I watch online course material while I do my exercising.
The problem with MOOC's is that there is no incentives to complete a single course at this time. There needs to a curriculum towards some kind of accredited certification that employers will notice
One aspect of MOOCs is that the completion rate is fairly low. This can be helped by increasing the value of the offered accreditation, but even then the main hurdle is that the environment of college is more conducive to long term discipline than the internet.
I've nothing against a good textbook, but MOOCs are so much more than simply substituting a book for a video - there's the online community, the structure that weekly exercises bring, and the possibility of a (nearly worthless) certificate at the end.
Why not give them accreditation? Clearly completing them is an accomplishment.
There are other reasons to 'drop out'. I like to save courses on coursera because I can't do them during the imposed timeframe. Sometimes I don't really need the full course and only bits and pieces. Maybe I just want to check it out and the opportunity cost was very low.
Don't solve problems when there aren't any. The biggest one is accreditation. I was trapped in college far longer than I would have been if MOOCs were accredited courses.
Well MOOCs may not appeal to everyone but they are extremely useful to anyone who wants to learn about certain advanced topics on their own. It will not disrupt college education, since its not the courses or content that matters but the credentials.
I really don't get why there are so many people that come out negatively against MOOCs.
A traditional college education probably is better than MOOCs, but the economics of MOOCs are so good that it just doesn't matter. It is literally like saying a $50,000+ product with 100% of "maximum benefit" is a worthwhile deal compared to a product that costs $0 and gets you, say, 70% of the benefit.
I agree. The physical interaction between a teacher and a student is irreplaceable by MOOCs. There's all of these externalities -- instant feedback, relations with peer and faculty, pressure to keep up with the course. That being said, the cost of a college education is too high right now and attending college is not right for everyone.
This is really the most important aspect of MOOCs. For me it's not about the students who would be going to college anyways, it's all the students(not just 1st world) that wouldn't be able to attend these colleges/universities still having the opportunity for a good education.
My bet is to reduce the competition from other MOOC offering sites. If colleges didn't offer MOOC's, then that model would stand in stark contrast to the traditional educational model. And when MOOCs showed to be effective and gained popularity, it would put the authoritative hold universities have on education into question. Now that they are leading the way in MOOC's, they can curb that authority building and reduce the dramatic contrast which makes their model seem absurdly anachronistic.
The accreditation issue can't be tackled until you build high-quality courses in traditional subjects. That's what many of these sites don't get. You need to look at what traditional university is offering THEN REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING BETTER. Physics 101 and chem 101 are still important and people need to learn these subjects. You can't just build a new "university" and then just have a bunch of buzz word named courses.
Until that happens, none of these MOOCs will obtain accreditation from any accreditation organization that is worthwhile. The quality offered by current MOOCs simply do not compare to what you learn from traditional university.
The problem w/ MOOCs are that many students lack the discipline to successfully finish the class. A blended approach (classroom + online) is the best combination, imo.
Why did you decide that MOOCs should be held to the same standard as libraries or bookstores?
MOOCs are marketed as courses, and sometimes as an alternative form of higher education. Furthermore, I doubt the people who go to the trouble of designing curricula for MOOCs expect students to drop out partway through. Comparing MOOCs to college courses seems like a better match to the image the MOOC companies themselves have promoted. And if we make that comparison, completion definitely matters.
What solutions though? Students, especially kids, still need some kick in the butt to actually do the work required to learn. I don't see MOOCs ever accomplishing that unless someone somehow finds a way to make an addictive and legitimately educational computer game that students are REQUIRED to play. Or some medication that helps students focus and absorb information without ruining their brains. I agree MOOCs can deliver superior quality education, but it will be a long time before they are motiviating in their own rights. And a lot of motivation in school comes from being near peers and having human connection with teachers and other supervisors. MOOCs fail that requirement almost by definition.
Yes, but most people get a degree from an accredited university because they feel eventually it will get them ahead in life. True or not MOOCs don't carry the same prestige. They need to fix that. Also, with no one pushing the student it's easy for them to give up. MOOCs are great to improve your skills and enhance your college transcript but not to get a degree.
But I see your point, they have value. I took a tv based class to get credits for my degree. Now I would do it online. In time, moocs value will improve.
I think replacing the traditional 4-year college with MooCs would be really tough, but at the same time there's a lot of value in them. Giving the common person access to education from some of the best schools in the country is really terrific. The fact that so many world-renowned universities have participated at Coursera and edX says to me those institutions see value in the endeavor. In fact, some of those top-notch institutions are not only participating but leading the effort. E.g., Stanford at Coursera and MIT/Harvard/Berkeley at edX. The other day I read an interview(can't find the link now) with Daphne Koller, one of Coursera's founders. At the end she says that much of what is written about MooCs tends to be hyperbolic one way or another.
reply