Posted on

Week 4- Reflections on MOOCs

The development of MOOCs has been somewhat criticised for a number of reasons, for lack of a ‘real instructor’ or for the considerable amount of drop-outs. Perhaps the lack of human contact or the possibility of taking on a course far from an institution does affect the way education is perceived as was discussed in a number of articles posted this week. Is ‘openness’ as observed by Knox (2013) really a liberatory concept or do online learners still feel the need for an institution behind their learning?

In the course of this week, I came to wonder how far MOOCs can be seen as another form of ‘cultural commodity’ (Lister, 2009). Most MOOCs make use of videos, audio and other media which could fall well into the model described by Lister whereby production is focused on the creation of services for profit. This might determine who studies for ‘free’ for personal satisfaction and who pays for a certificate in order to improve the chances of a better career.

I also tried to determine what economic models MOOCs follow. Do they encourage ‘free’ learning to advertise high numbers of those taking on a particular course or is there some other form of discreet advertising going on? O’Reilly (cited in Lister, 2009) predicted that development in Web2.0 would not follow the path of manufacturing better hardware but by an increase in the provision of paid data or data that can be acquired according to need. We might already be paying for that free course by leaving data trails whenever we access the course platform and other companies may already be paying for that data to enhance their online courses.

And now to the micro-ethnography…

 

References:

Lister, Martin … [et al.], (2009) “Chapter 3. Networks, users and economics” from Martin Lister … [et al.], New media: a critical introduction pp.163-236, London: Routledge

Knox, J., (2013). Five critiques of the open educational resources movement. Teaching in higher education, 18(8), pp.821-823.

Posted on

What’s Wrong With MOOCs, and Why Aren’t They Changing the Game in Education?

This an article that appeared a while ago as the structure of MOOCs has advanced considerably but it does question at one point the number of dropouts in MOOCs. One of the reasons seems to be the lack of a ‘live instructor’

It does point out though the ‘economics are on the side of MOOCs’ and the potential of having companies and MOOCs working together to encourage students to enter the workforce. This is not something that can happen at once.

This shift will not occur anytime soon, however, because the social pressure to go to college and get a degree still exists. Such pressure results in the ongoing issue of student debt in our country. When this pressure no longer exists, and when economics play a larger role in determining how students receive their education, it is at that point when MOOCs could potentially replace higher education as we know it. (Harman Singh)

Singh’s view does remind of one of the major concerns around MOOCs and TEL. Knox (2020) notes that education is a fertile ground for the culture supporting Silicon Valley enthusiasts and larger companies in search of profit. The interest behind MOOCs, therefore, can hardly be an unadulterated concept.

As Lister (2009) points out, ‘the new networked media has been influenced by commercial interests’ which have shaped the way we live and the ways communities are structured. Singh contends that modern educational communities that are based online do not always have all the elements necessary for the educational experience to be complete.

 

from Diigo https://ift.tt/2v9blah
via IFTTT

References:

H. Singh (). What’s Wrong With MOOCs, and Why Aren’t They Changing the Game in Education? Available at: https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/08/whats-wrong-moocs-arent-changing-game-education/. (Accessed 8th February 2020).

Knox (2020) Introduction to Community Cultures.

Lister, M. et al (2009). “Chapter 3. Networks, users and economics” . New media: a critical introduction pp.163-236, London: Routledge