MOOCs

[Jose T]

Personally, I really enjoyed my undergraduate lectures in maths. But that was Gen X era :D

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have that thought when reading this thread .

The problem with lectures though is they're not scheduled for my convenience and I can't rewind. I like taped lectures and I love books on tape. Just like George Costanza, I wish there were textbooks available in audio format.

MOOCs are pretty new. I'd give them more of chance to get their act together before declaring them dead.

 

[bigbadwolf]

MOOCs are pretty new. I'd give them more of chance to get their act together before declaring them dead.

They won't die. They won't be any worse than the 300-student calculus classes. The problem is such classes are a travesty of true education, which involves more interaction between teacher and taught.

 

[Jose T]

They won't die. They won't be any worse than the 300-student calculus classes. The problem is such classes are a travesty of true education, which involves more interaction between teacher and taught.

I have a my share of lecture room classes and the format was never conducive to learning. As a country though, it seems like we're educating a lot more people than we did in the past. Are relatively small classrooms (<30) a realistic possibility given the dynamics of the modern university?

One thing I like about MOOCs is the potential to give more access to knowledge to people in less developed countries. Someone with internet access in Kerala may very well have access to a lot in terms of books, google and pen and paper. But something has to spark that interest for them.

 

[bigbadwolf]

I have a my share of lecture room classes and the format was never conducive to learning. As a country though, it seems like we're educating a lot more people than we did in the past. Are relatively small classrooms (<30) a realistic possibility given the dynamics of the modern university?

I don't know whether more people are getting "educated"; certainly a lot more are getting credentialed. And the modern university seems to have been set up along the lines of an assembly line, taking standard inputs and producing standard outputs. We've become factory farm animals. The modern mass university is one more institution of mass society dealing with and classifying and ordering large anonymous masses of people.

One thing I like about MOOCs is the potential to give more access to knowledge to people in less developed countries. Someone with internet access in Kerala may very well have access to a lot in terms of books, google and pen and paper. But something has to spark that interest for them.

Knowledge has been commoditised and decontextualised. We don't ask about insight or understanding or wisdom. We ask about "knowledge" -- and preferably that kind that can be assessed through standardised tests or short-response questions.

 

[Jose T]

I'm actually in agreement with what you wrote. However, do you see any alternative is the question?

 

[bigbadwolf]

I'm actually in agreement with what you wrote. However, do you see any alternative is the question?

Your guess is as good as mine. I think in the next fifteen years or so, conventional second-tier US universities will be under increasing stress -- lower rates of state support, inexorably rising fees, and no jobs for their graduates will have an impact on student numbers to the extent that many of these institutions will bite the dust. I think the postwar trend towards a more credentialed white-collar workforce will go into reverse: the jobs aren't there and those that are are wilting in the face of this depression. MOOCs will remain in some form -- but probably won't live up to their promise and probably won't be a business success.

 

[Polter]

http://www.realtimerendering.com/blog/dirty-little-secret/

 

[Ed Schembor]

MOOCs will remain in some form -- but probably won't live up to their promise and probably won't be a business success.

I'm going to have to go against this. I took MIT's pioneer MITx course (essentially an intro to EE) and it was very well run for a first time thing. Yes, there were some issues, but it was an awesome free MIT course. Yes, you don't have the classroom feel and perhaps don't learn at the same rate. However, MOOCs are growing tremendously and I think are the future for extracurricular learning. And I don't think MIT and other institutions care too much about business success; they care about giving the ability to learn to those who can't afford it.

I agree with you though that these courses should not have associated certificates, etc. No matter how good these MOOCs get, they can't replace classroom learning. For supplemental learning, they're great, but not as a primary source of learning.

 

[bigbadwolf]

No matter how good these MOOCs get, they can't replace classroom learning. For supplemental learning, they're great, but not as a primary source of learning.

I'm not sure classroom learning is that much better in many cases -- if you're sitting in a class of a hundred or two hundred (not unusual in lower-division courses), your level of interaction is essentially nil. The whole commodified US system of education can be questioned. It is run on factory farm lines, infected with poisonous commercial values regardless of whether or not the objective is to make a profit. The apotheosis, the logical culmination of this commodified "education" can be seen in MOOCs, in standardised testing, and in standardised curricula. It is a depressing sight.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

In my undergrad lectures we had approx. 7 students per prof. which when looking back was a huge privilege. The profs were very approachable. Most were in their early 30s.

 

[bigbadwolf]

In my undergrad lectures we had approx. 7 students per prof. which when looking back was a huge privilege. The profs were very approachable. Most were in their early 30s.

But in Ireland, I presume? Not factory farm USA?

 

[Polter]

But in Ireland, I presume? Not factory farm USA?

bigbadwolf, I'm wondering, any particular reasons for singling out the US?
As in: are you pretty sure it's <= 7 students per class in, say, China or India?

 

[Daniel Duffy]

But in Ireland, I presume? Not factory farm USA?

yes, in TCD and it was Special Maths. That was in the days that people did what thet could (on merit) and these days it would be called 'elite'.

I do remember lecturing (calculus ) a group of 100 nuns, priests and lay people in Maynooth and that was experience.

 

[bigbadwolf]

bigbadwolf, I'm wondering, any particular reasons for singling out the US?
As in: are you pretty sure it's <= 7 students per class in, say, China or India?

Same problem of numbers in China and India (I've written about the abysmal standards in India on this forum in the past). But there's something additional operating in "higher education" in the USA: a McDonald's (or Walmart) model of standardising curricula, lecturing, and testing along with a techno-fetishism (e.g., Sidney Pressey's "teaching machine" in the 1920s). It's this lethal combination of commercial values and commercial organisation and this techno-fetishism in US "higher education" that interests me. MOOCs and digital diploma mills like U of Phoenix are one aspect of it. The drive to standardise testing and teaching in American schools another. What essentially is being killed is the possibility of spontaneous interaction between teacher and student by this mediation of technology and bureaucracy.

Addendum: And along the same lines, look at the sheer number of posts on this forum that run like this: "I've got a GPA of 3.47. Will that affect my chances of entry into a top program?" Education's been reduced to numbers in commercial and soulless USA. It's profoundly depressing reading these posts.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

What I find noteworthy (and depressing) is that many numerical methods in PDE in quant are seriously outdated. There seems be more reliance on shoddy numerical recipes instead of intellectual curiosity and looking for new methods.

 

[bigbadwolf]

What I find noteworthy (and depressing) is that many numerical methods in PDE in quant are seriously outdated. There seems be more reliance on shoddy numerical recipes instead of intellectual curiosity and looking for new methods.

This thing is stomped on with jackboots. Intellectual curiosity presupposes an atmosphere of intellectual criticism and debate. Instead there's this obsession with the grade and the grade point average. Mustn't annoy the instructor -- he could pull one's grade down. You've got to go along to get along.

 

[Polter]

Same problem of numbers in China and India (I've written about the abysmal standards in India on this forum in the past). But there's something additional operating in "higher education" in the USA: a McDonald's (or Walmart) model of standardising curricula, lecturing, and testing along with a techno-fetishism (e.g., Sidney Pressey's "teaching machine" in the 1920s). It's this lethal combination of commercial values and commercial organisation and this techno-fetishism in US "higher education" that interests me. MOOCs and digital diploma mills like U of Phoenix are one aspect of it. The drive to standardise testing and teaching in American schools another. What essentially is being killed is the possibility of spontaneous interaction between teacher and student by this mediation of technology and bureaucracy.

Addendum: And along the same lines, look at the sheer number of posts on this forum that run like this: "I've got a GPA of 3.47. Will that affect my chances of entry into a top program?" Education's been reduced to numbers in commercial and soulless USA. It's profoundly depressing reading these posts.

I see.

Well, I don't find expressions like "techno-fetishism" particularly enlightening or informative ("semantic content low to negative," so to speak). Similarly, I find "a McDonald's (or Walmart) model" in the context of education unconducive to a thoughtful conversation. IMO loaded phrases with debatable emotional connotations rarely work as good analogies (unless the intent is to show that what we see is a great development for the low-income consumer segment, just like Walmart clearly is :-]).

I mean, one could as well describe the opposite as Neo-Luddism and thus conclude the exchange of opinions. Private universities aren't exactly a US-specific phenomenon, either.

I don't really see the connection between MOOCs and the purported "drive to standardization"--perhaps we just see things differently, since, as I've mentioned earlier, for me MOOCs are simply akin to textbooks. Hence, I read your comment as isomorphic to "textbooks are one aspect of techno-fetishism and the drive to standardization in the US education," and I'm admittedly left somewhat puzzled. For me, there's still a variety in the textbook market. But perhaps that's too optimistic in your opinion?

You do have a point regarding the undesirable aspects of centralization in the education market (I think it's a better choice of word than "standardization" in this context). Similarly to you (I suppose), I don't think legislation like NCLB is necessary or, more importantly, helpful (as opposed to harmful). The problem is that in a political system (which, let's be honest, is not without a major influence here) there's a strong implied-incentives configuration which results in a similarly strong tendency to "sounds good" policies (judged on the intent) as opposed to "works well" policies (judged on the actual consequences). I remain quite skeptical, however, that "it's for the children" is only ever heard from the lips of American politicians. In fact, I'm pretty sure the phrase is quite "popular" within the Commonwealth of Nations, too

One note regarding the size of primary and secondary classrooms (in the OECD context)--it's worth noting the contrast between, say, Ireland and the UK (seems geographical proximity doesn't really explain much):
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/class-size-around-the-world/
http://oecdeducationtoday.blogspot.com/2012/12/how-does-class-size-vary-around-world.html

Correlation between small-class-size and student performance is not so clear-cut:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG02-02.pdf

Similarly for the university education:
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/LARCINES/class_size.pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00973793
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...zes-smaller-isnt-always-better/article620700/

Correlation between small-class-size and university rank is not so clear-cut, either:
http://www.usnews.com/education/bes...al-universities-with-the-smallest-class-sizes

Just something to ponder

 

[bigbadwolf]

Well, I don't find expressions like "techno-fetishism" particularly enlightening or informative ("semantic content low to negative," so to speak). Similarly, I find "a McDonald's (or Walmart) model" in the context of education unconducive to a thoughtful conversation. IMO loaded phrases with debatable emotional connotations rarely work as good analogies (unless the intent is to show that what we see is a great development for the low-income consumer segment, just like Walmart clearly is :-]).

Okay, so you don't.

I don't really see the connection between MOOCs and the purported "drive to standardization"--perhaps we just see things differently, since, as I've mentioned earlier, for me MOOCs are simply akin to textbooks. Hence, I read your comment as isomorphic to "textbooks are one aspect of techno-fetishism and the drive to standardization in the US education," and I'm admittedly left somewhat puzzled. For me, there's still a variety in the textbook market. But perhaps that's too optimistic in your opinion?

If MOOCs are akin to texts, why have them? What's their purpose? Surely the purpose is to substitute for a flesh-and-blood teacher in front of you with whom you can interact? You're right that there's a similar problem with texts -- they have their uses but they shouldn't be considered a substitute for a teacher. In fact we're having a bit of a discussion on a chess forum at the moment: our personal chess libraries have been scant substitute for having personalised chess coaching. What I have against MOOCs is the notion that they can substitute for live interaction with a flesh-and-blood teacher. That's what techno-fetishism means.

Correlation between small-class-size and student performance is not so clear-cut:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG02-02.pdf

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG02-02.pdf

This is the kind of unilluminating paper, dressed in obscure jargon, that I avoid like the plague. And what exactly is the criterion for "student performance?"http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG02-02.pdf

Similarly for the university education:
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/LARCINES/class_size.pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00973793
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/university-class-sizes-smaller-isnt-always-better/article620700/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...zes-smaller-isnt-always-better/article620700/

I don't agree with assertions like this:

A class with fewer than 10 students lacks energy, and is hardly worth teaching.

I'm happy teaching one-on-one. And happy being taught one-on-one. Call it a subjective preference.

Correlation between small-class-size and university rank is not so clear-cut, either:
http://www.usnews.com/education/bes...al-universities-with-the-smallest-class-sizes

University rankings and "student performance" are among the many things I'm railing against. It's the whole ethos of measurement which, when scrutinised, turns out to be built on the quicksand of arbitrary metrics masquerading as "objective standards" (whatever those are).

 

[Polter]

If MOOCs are akin to texts, why have them? What's their purpose?.

Supplementary. Again, for me this sounds like someone wondering about the purpose of textbooks.

Surely the purpose is to substitute for a flesh-and-blood teacher in front of you with whom you can interact?.

Well, I'm not so sure about this at all. In fact, what I'm pretty sure about is that "surely" is the exactly wrong sentiment here.

You're right that there's a similar problem with texts -- they have their uses but they shouldn't be considered a substitute for a teacher. In fact we're having a bit of a discussion on a chess forum at the moment: our personal chess libraries have been scant substitute for having personalised chess coaching. What I have against MOOCs is the notion that they can substitute for live interaction with a flesh-and-blood teacher. That's what techno-fetishism means.

I think this notion is a rather subjective one. For me this sounds like someone worrying about textbooks replacing teachers.

This is the kind of unilluminating paper, dressed in obscure jargon, that I avoid like the plague. And what exactly is the criterion for "student performance?"

While it's fair to complain about the ambiguity of the "student performance" criterion, it's somewhat curious given the accompanying focus on criteria such as "the possibility of spontaneous interaction between teacher and student" or the "atmosphere of intellectual criticism and debate." Are they any more exact, comparable, and well-defined?

// On a side note, I don't recall encountering an "obscure jargon" therein, pretty basic academic English, I'd say.

I don't agree with assertions like this:

A class with fewer than 10 students lacks energy, and is hardly worth teaching.​

I'm happy teaching one-on-one. And happy being taught one-on-one. Call it a subjective preference.

Right. And I don't think a study on "a wide range of class sizes from less than 10 to over 200" can be summarized in the single sentence you've quoted. I think most (if not all) of us here have had at least a TA experience and, sure, I also preferred smaller class sizes. But I don't think our personal feelings / preferences determine whether something is objectively better (or worse, for that matter).

University rankings and "student performance" are among the many things I'm railing against. It's the whole ethos of measurement which, when scrutinised, turns out to be built on the quicksand of arbitrary metrics masquerading as "objective standards" (whatever those are).

While railing might bring a temporary relief, in the longer term it's not constructive. You've mentioned that you were wondering whether "classroom learning is that much better." How do you propose to qualify the "better"?

 

[Daniel Duffy]

Speaking from my own experience, quality decreases exponentially after 12 students. I an talking about training people not lecturing _at_ people.

Judo uses the rule-of-three for learning (aka continuous improvement)

Since studies are grade-based these days students tend to be less rounded and mean lacunae in their knowledge.

One big problems is that many academics have not been trained in presentation skills. A counterxample is Gilbert Strang (coincidentally my academic grandfather in the geneaology tree).

See how he engages with his audience.

Some of the most enjoyable trainings have been 1:1 but classes of 20 MFE students need to be handled differently.

The business model/rationale of MOOC is not clear to me.