Moocs: students in the global south are wary of a ‘sage on the stage’

from Diigo https://ift.tt/1gONtov
via IFTTT

It may come as a bit of a surprise that the range of MOOCs and opportunities they offer are still far from catering to the needs of certain communities. This seems to be the case with emerging communities that do not always have the resources or the infrastructure to allow open access to online courses and so see MOOCs as a form of blended learning.

Even if a course is free, language, learning design, learner support, quality, authenticity, accreditation, institutional appropriateness and cultural relevance can all exclude students.

(Charlotte Gunawardena, 2014)

A similar study conducted in 2014 corroborates this evidence. The UNESCO guidelines to policy-makers in developing countries do offer some suggestions as to how MOOCs can benefit economically developing areas, yet they are still aware of their limitations.

In some quarters it is argued that MOOCs are not optimally inclusive and accessible to a wide and diverse range of citizens. Consequently, they cannot and must not be seen as the only solution for making quality education accessible to all, or for addressing other social challenges.

(Mariana Patru and Venkataraman Balaj, 2016)

It would be interesting to see how MOOCs have developed over the last four years to satisfy the needs of these communities.

 

References:

Gunawardena, C., (2014) Moocs: students in the global south are wary of a ‘sage on the stage’. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/19/cost-barrier-students-global-south#comments. (Accessed: 15th February 2020).

Patru, M. and Balaji, V. (2016). MOOCs A Guide for Policy-Makers in Developing Countries. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245122.  (Accessed 16th February 2020)

Liyanagunawardena, L., Williams, S.A. & Adams, A. (2014) The impact and reach of MOOCs: A developing countries’ perspective. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282017429_The_impact_and_reach_of_MOOCs_A_developing_countries’_perspective. (Accessed: 16th February 2020).

 

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.