If 2012 was the 'Year of the MOOCs' as proclaimed by New York Times, 2014 started on a downbeat note, with Harvard Professor Eric Mazur talking about 'MOOC Bust'. It is difficult to understand what accounts for such fickle sentiments, except that current pessimism is just a correction of the hype.
There were indeed talk of low completion rates - only a handful of students who register for a MOOC ever completes a course (Times Higher Education reported a figure of 7%, but that seems way too high) - but then completion rate itself is such an old economy model out of sync with Long Tail thinking: Kevin Carey wrote a fairly persuasive piece on why the completion rates of the MOOCs is simply the wrong measure ('Pay No Attention to Supposedly Low MOOC Competion Rates').
There was also the Fast Company article on Udacity founder, Sebastian Thurn, the Stanford Professor whose Stanford course on Artificial Intelligence may be claimed to have started it all. That article gave a sense that all is not right in the MOOC world, with Thurn admitting that his courses are not teaching people as well as he would have wished. 'We have a lousy product', was the soundbite from that interview which made the headline. Indeed, this article, for the first time, indicated the change of heart at Udacity about their 'change of course', a shift of focus to corporate education and an effective abandonment of their ambition of turning the world of Higher Education upside down.
News such as this encourage those who always questioned the MOOCs, primarily because it was free. Indeed, everyone knew that one can't keep dispensing good quality education for free for a long time; none of the MOOCs were countering these doubts with a robust answer, other than pointing out to various incidental benefits such as insights on learner behaviour and influencing the university recruitment strategies. These benefits counted, but whether these could generate enough revenue to cover the costs of continuing the high profile enterprise was always questionable. Thurn's remarks just substantiated this apocalyptic vision of a coming implosion, an exemplary failure such as U21 (a high profile international collaboration of leading universities offering online courses, which failed and was eventually sold to India's Manipal, who reoriented the brand and platform away from Higher Ed and into Corporate Education: See 'Another One Bites The Dust' here)
But this counter-hype about the demise of the MOOCs is surely overdone, as the proliferation of various new MOOCs, no doubt with fresh investments, bear witness to. Not only new universities offering courses, platforms in different languages and learners from all over the world have multiplied over the last year, some of the old platforms, such as Alison, which was around for quite a while, have gained traction (and earned mention in the media, including The Economist) with the MOOC effect. An ecosystem of MOOCs are clearly visible in developing country universities and colleges, where an EdX room (or MOOC room) has become somewhat common. There are even businesses which are producing teaching materials around MOOCs, and teachers in less known institutions have caught onto MOOCs as additional material for the classes. Meetups are springing up all over the world - isn't it exciting to see an Indian entrepreneur and a German Engineer talking about Whitman sitting in the cafe at British Museum - and the public education, long dead with as the money economy progressively sought to enclose the learning commons, has indeed had a shot in the arm with the MOOCs.
Given this, one can possibly view this cycle of counter-hype not just as a regular pushback against the initial surge of rhetoric, but a reminder that we have been having the wrong discussion all the while. The discussion around the MOOCs were economic, rather than pedagogical. This is somewhat down to timing: MOOCs came to view just as concerns were growing about student debt in the United States. This focused minds on the costs of Higher Education, though the real problem was always that Higher Education was not earning people good enough jobs that could help pay for it. MOOCs appeared as a handy thing to cut the costs of delivery - it is magical to be able to teach a class of thousands with just one professor - and media, investors and policy makers (including Britain's David Willetts) loved it. Whether or not this was in the mind of the creators and tutors of the MOOCs (Michael Sandel, as an example, was teaching large public classes without the MOOCs for years anyway), this is what caught the investors' and analysts' imagination.
But this was indeed the wrong point, pushed to the fore by those who saw education as an industrial activity. The debate, centred around costs, rarely asked the question whether this could enhance education. The educators, sensing the further loss of privileges, disengaged from the debate and were left to oppose any moves to introduce MOOCs in their institutions (well, mostly). However, these cost advantages failed to materialise: As Professor Diana Laurillard argues in her recent piece in Times Higher Education, unsupervised learning was never the answer to the problems that Higher Education sector faced ('Five Myths about MOOCs').
On the other hand, the confluence of Online Video, Machine-based Assessment, machine capacity to handle a large number of learners at the same time, social media based spread of word and all the other technologies that were to enhance and change learning, did come together and enhanced and changed learning through the MOOCs. It did open up a new public sphere of learning and conversation, stoked people's curiousity and created a new architecture of Lifelong learning. However, we chose to have the wrong conversation: We were trying to use the combustion engine to light up gas lamps. Instead of looking at the possibilities of enhancement of learning, the wonderful capabilities of technology to connect people and enable conversations, we were looking at MOOCs as if they are the next textbook, as if they are the panacea of the cost disease in Higher Education, we were expecting it to reach out to those who never had Higher Education (we fail to learn: This was what Open Universities are for, but they tend to reach out to people who already had degrees, mostly).
The current sobering, therefore, is in order. It is the return to real world of learning from the rosy universe of the moneymen, but there is enough to do in the real world, enough demand and enough problems to solve. As for solving Higher Education's problems, that will surely need another solution. Higher Education's problem is not that it is so costly to deliver, but that it is often not worth it. This needs a different conversation: Part of this problem may be solved within the academia, but certainly there are other parts of the equation for the employers, the policy makers and the public to solve. The institutionalised universities, the blinkered employers, the learners who are adept at the game of social recognition but nothing else, all need to participate in a new debate on how the 21st century learning should look like (apparently, it needs to be different than 20th century's, but nothing so far has changed). And, while we write off MOOCs from its world-changing roles, one thing is worth noting: Any 21st century education system will probably involve a re-ignition of the public sphere of learning, where people, regardless of their previous track record and credentials, can come together to learn subjects that they want to learn, in an affordable way, suiting the structure of modern lives. MOOCs may still be a very good part of that future.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
Meritocracy is a convenient lie, as Socrates foretold, and it is the ballast of the social system we have built. The story goes like this. Once upon a time, we had kings and queens and their families and nobles, who got the best meat and the best mate, and everyone lived happily. But then the things fell apart as luxury corrupted the nobles and feebled the spirits of their offsprings - and the peasants and the artisans came claiming their fair share. So we had the age of revolutions in Europe and North America, when we created a new, fairer social system, under a 'natural aristocracy of men', where destiny was no longer shaped by birth but by intelligence and hard work, and anyone could make it in life. And, everyone again lived happily ever after. Of course, this did not really happen. Slavery persisted, at least for a long time. The 'fair' system mostly excluded the real peasants and workers and once they have done their duty dying for various revolutions, they were s
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.