Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday September 12 2014, @11:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the hard-lessons dept.

Techcrunch has an article by Dan Freidman on the promises surrounding the massive open online course (MOOC) movement in revolutionising the world of higher education, and how that hasn't quite turned out as expected.

Only half of those who signed up watched even one lecture, and only 4 percent stayed long enough to complete a course. Further, the audience for MOOCs already had college degrees so the promise of disrupting higher education failed to materialize.

This article appears to be more focused on the "structured course" MOOCs, rather than the more free-form tutorial approach of (say) Khan academy, and looks at the problems and possible solutions to making this style of MOOC more effective for students.

The article author is the co-founder of the online learning site Thinkful, and this article gives something of a background to the ways in which Thinkful appears to be structured as well as some data on the experiences they have with students and one-on-one mentoring (although there are obvious questions as to how well their approach can scale).

The future of online learning isn’t about accessibility: it’s about taking what we already know works offline and combining it with what you can only do online to create the most engaging experience.

So is Thinkful onto something here, or is the MOOC approach better for exploring a subject, rather than acquiring a certificate?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by migz on Friday September 12 2014, @12:45PM

    by migz (1807) on Friday September 12 2014, @12:45PM (#92366)

    What genius decided completion rate was a good metric for measuring MOOCs?

    There is only one metric that should concern the bureaucrats cost per pass. And screw the burocrats, most people digning up for MOOC's are doing so for SELF enrichment. Not to jump through hoops for credit, nor to get a noddy badge for completion.

    Clueless.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by spxero on Friday September 12 2014, @01:36PM

    by spxero (3061) on Friday September 12 2014, @01:36PM (#92379)

    I've taken a few courses here and there, mostly because I want to learn a new skill but don't want to pony up the $$ for a certification or education. At the same time, because I haven't paid anything I don't have any skin in the game- there's nothing to keep me from quitting and starting over later. I'm part of the 96% that haven't completed a course, but I've gotten quite a bit out of the courses.

    My take on the experience is that it isn't about how the class is structured that makes success, it's how recognized the classes are when it's over. If this was truly something I was needing for a job, I'd expect the education or certification to be universally accepted and help me land a better job (e.g. Cisco certs). But they're not. They're currently for personal learning and growth, and so the levels of attendance and completion will match accordingly.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday September 13 2014, @01:14AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Saturday September 13 2014, @01:14AM (#92636) Journal

      When MOOC get the recognition of a college degree at employers like IBM etc and will get you an NSF grant. They will be a serious competitor. But not until then. Of course if you need to dig into a subject to make an invention or great discovery any accreditation (recognition by humans) become less important.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday September 12 2014, @01:48PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday September 12 2014, @01:48PM (#92387)

    Humans pick up a lot just by being in the same room with another human that can't be put into words or even video. A lot of our communication is non-verbal. That's why Facebook conversations are nowhere near as satisfying as meeting up with a real-life friend for a drink.

    In education, MOOCs cannot fully replace in-person time with a smart person with knowledge in a subject and the desire and ability to teach. Everything I've seen suggests that the fastest way to learn is to sit down with a mentor and solve problems together, and an online chat simply can't capture the experience of doing that.

    Also, MOOCs are not really what's revolutionizing higher education: What's really revolutionizing higher education (and not in a good way) is the death of tenure-track faculty [agb.org], and the ridiculous increase in non-faculty administrators [washingtonmonthly.com].

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @03:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @03:03PM (#92423)

      That's why Facebook conversations are nowhere near as satisfying as meeting up with a real-life friend for a drink.

      While you might think so, a lot of people are content to move much of their social life online. Meeting up with a friend for a drink not only imposes costs of money (transportation there and back, the drink itself) time (besides the time spent with a friend, one must consider the journey there and back), as well as opportunity costs of money and time (instead of meeting a friend, one could be working more overtime or staying home with family). Within my circle of friends, everyone has noticed that while people still meet up, it's much less common than it used to be, but everyone continues to follow each other's posts on FB.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by CRCulver on Friday September 12 2014, @03:19PM

      by CRCulver (4390) on Friday September 12 2014, @03:19PM (#92425) Homepage

      I agree that in some fields -- namely sciences that involve lab work, or graduate-level seminars among people working on journal submissions -- people coming together for lecturers may be worthwhile, and that seems to be the stereotypical view of university life for Americans. However, in much of the world, it is not obligatory for students to attend lectures, with the result that many learners simply do the reading on their own and come in only a couple of times a year to take the exam. At the undergraduate level, it's often simply a waste of time to go sit in lectures, especially when the lecturer is simply reading straight out of his book, and there is no "group discussion" or other interaction among the people present. In this respect, nothing changes with a move to online courses.

      • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Saturday September 13 2014, @08:15AM

        by Magic Oddball (3847) on Saturday September 13 2014, @08:15AM (#92701) Journal

        The same still also applies to the humanities and social sciences. That the students aren't solving mathematical problems doesn't mean that the in-person problem-solving isn't as beneficial. How lectures & discussions are handled also varies more with the quality of the school than the educational level -- especially at the really good universities, which usually have their undergrads doing work 2 years ahead of the average or 'good' campuses (so upper-class courses there are graduate courses elsewhere).

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday September 12 2014, @03:56PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday September 12 2014, @03:56PM (#92447)

      You forgot another bad factor: Professors don't teach anymore, TA do.

      So new students pay a lot more money than they used to, to be taught by people with almost no experience.

      • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @04:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @04:28PM (#92470)

        You forgot another bad factor: Professors don't teach anymore, TA do.

        So new students pay a lot more money than they used to, to be taught by people with almost no experience.

        True, that. But you should also consider that even though the professor may have "more experience" that does not necessarily mean that they are any good at teaching the subject. Most of them--particularly those in STEM subjects--see their real job as bringing in research grant money for their labs. You really are fucked every which way 'til Sunday on this one. That doesn't mean that everything is completely hopeless, though. One thing that many (most?) students haven't caught onto is that the real onus in learning the material is on the student. A student who has no interest in learning likely won't pick up the material no matter how good the teacher is. Conversely, a good and motivated student can still learn quite a bit no matter how bad the professor and TA are. Remember those thingies called "libraries" on the university campus? (Yeah, I thought you might.) All too frequently they are vastly under-utilized by the students. Imagine that! A building full of books which are very rarely read by anyone!

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @04:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @04:03PM (#92450)

      Best way I have found to learn a new subject?

      Teach it to the other classmates. It isn't until you try to teach something that you learn exactly what it is you don't know.

      • (Score: 1) by WillAdams on Friday September 12 2014, @06:00PM

        by WillAdams (1424) on Friday September 12 2014, @06:00PM (#92526)

        Agreed. I've found that I've been able to learn a great deal more by trying to update the instructions for the Shapeoko milling machine and attendant wiki:

        http://docs.shapeoko.com/ [shapeoko.com]
        http://www.shapeoko.com/wiki [shapeoko.com]

        than I might've learned if I'd just purchased a book.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by monster on Friday September 12 2014, @04:27PM

      by monster (1260) on Friday September 12 2014, @04:27PM (#92469) Journal

      In my opinion, the real problem with MOOCs is not in the MOOCs but in the people: Most people have very little willpower.

      I worked as a teacher many years ago and can tell you how many people who wouldn't complete a course otherwise got carried by the class and ended learning many things, but those were normal, live classes where they had to go physically (which gave them a sense of investment) and they also had classmates to socialize with. Probably because that they were more ready to try and learn. With MOOCs, it's the same "sit in front of your screen, see some videos, do some homework" routine one day after another, and that's hard. It's the same reason why most people who start a diet abandons it after a few days, it's hard and takes longer than their will will last.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 13 2014, @12:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 13 2014, @12:47AM (#92629)

      death of tenure-track faculty [agb.org]

      The graphics and the text don't match (21 percent is less than 1/4).
      In this case, a picture is worth much less than 1000 words.

      I hope this wasn't done by a tenured instructor.

      -- gewg_

  • (Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday September 12 2014, @03:51PM

    by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Friday September 12 2014, @03:51PM (#92442)

    We used to call MOOC a Dover math book back in my day. And my experience is that I'm really interested in a topic. I would get a Dover math book on it - excuse me, sign up for an MOOC - and want to learn about it. Then one thing comes up. Then another. Then something else. With a technical subject like math, it's hard to make any progress at all when you have 15 minutes every few days to study something. Unless you are a student in school and your full-time job is studying, it's really, really hard as an adult to make any progress with anything because there are so many demands on your time. Something like studying a new math topic always gets put on the back burner.

    I think the MOOC fad is funny, since it's always been possible to inexpensively take college-level courses using cheap Dover math books or The Teaching Company cassettes - I mean MP3 bittorrent downloads - no I don't, no one would ever do that - what were we talking about again?

    There's a Star Wars analogy about the time a Miraluka signed up for a planar geometry MOOC, but I don't have time to type it all up. Let's just say the compass and straight edge constructions involved calling a medical droid and leave it at that. Ouch.

    --
    (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by pnkwarhall on Friday September 12 2014, @05:05PM

      by pnkwarhall (4558) on Friday September 12 2014, @05:05PM (#92499)

      Then one thing comes up. Then another. Then something else. With a technical subject like math, it's hard to make any progress at all when you have 15 minutes every few days to study something. Unless you are a student in school and your full-time job is studying, it's really, really hard as an adult to make any progress with anything because there are so many demands on your time. Something like studying a new math topic always gets put on the back burner.

      And this is why I laugh when it's mentioned that hobbyists make serious contributions to society/science/culture/etc. Sure they do -- over years and years of effort "in their spare time". It's like the claim that "hobbyists" build open-source on their own time, and the argument that we should all train ourselves constantly (again, on our own time) to stay abreast of technological "upgrades".

      Progress on anything serious takes, well, **serious** time. Since time is such a limited commodity, prioritization probably pretty quickly weeds out "online coursework w/ no concrete benefit" (you know, like a degree). I'm not suprised that there was such a "poor" completion rate, and in fact that 4% doesn't sound to bad in the context of the short attention-span Internet.

      --
      Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
      • (Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday September 12 2014, @05:51PM

        by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Friday September 12 2014, @05:51PM (#92522)

        Right you are, especially if for people who already work in a demanding field like software development. I'd love to look at the toy language of the month or do a project in a framework that already has the hourglass of abandonment dripping its sand down, but ... I already go all out doing my job, and by the time I get around to something like this, my brain is fried and I mainly can't do much of anything. And if I did, it would be staying up to date in what I'm working on. Sure, college kids can download the flavor of the month and do a calculator app or whatever in it, and list it as experience with a hot new technology and seem like experts.

        Time is one thing, but maximum brain expenditure per day is another thing - people simply can't do that much thinking in a 24-hour period without their brains shutting down. There was a story recently here about taking breaks, and it's funny how often I get fried out on something, take a break, and only then get the answer I need while I'm doing something else. And if you program all day, the last thing you want to do is more programming, even if something is really interesting and worthwhile.

        --
        (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 13 2014, @01:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 13 2014, @01:29AM (#92638)

        like the claim that "hobbyists" build open-source on their own time

        Well, *somebody* has to get the ball rolling.
        You do need that initial guy with an itch that needs scratching. [toolbox.com]
        After that, yeah, if it's interesting, it can become really tasty Stone Soup. [wikipedia.org]
        ...but, true, most FOSS development is done by an employee on the timeclock of a for-profit company. [techrepublic.com]

        Did I mix enough metaphors? I'm sure I can find more if I try. 8-)

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 1) by pnkwarhall on Sunday September 14 2014, @01:00AM

          by pnkwarhall (4558) on Sunday September 14 2014, @01:00AM (#92861)
          Speaking of Stone Soup [wikipedia.org], Nethack is a great example of serious/influential hobbyist-only OSS. But doesn't that prove my point?

          20+ years of development and it still looks like s***!
          --
          Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 15 2014, @04:06PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 15 2014, @04:06PM (#93502)

      "The Teaching Company cassettes"

      Sorry for posting 4 days late, but I had to point out I've been listening to stuff like that and also convention lectures in my car during the commute and while exercising for about 30 years now?

      In the really old days you borrowed the cassettes from the public library, but starting in the late 90s I started copying whole bit for bit audio CD-r and then got one of the first mp3 cd-r playing car radios offered. Now I just bluetooth stream off my phone. Ambling audio book player on android after transferring the audiobook mp3 files using airdroid.

      I've listened to several convention lecture series also. Some of which I've been present at, but only attended one of the tracks. When my voice came up in the rotation of all the presentations, I was downright freaked out.

      There are some recording series just kind of laying out there on the internet, not even illegal. A surprising number of professors just put themselves online. There's a prof at Columbia who re-records and releases his "history of Persia" every time he teaches the class, for example, weird as that might sound.

  • (Score: 1) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday September 12 2014, @05:09PM

    by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Friday September 12 2014, @05:09PM (#92503)

    Only half of those who signed up watched even one lecture, and only 4 percent stayed long enough to complete a course.

    So, how is that different from traditional, brick-and-mortar colleges?

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday September 13 2014, @04:31AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday September 13 2014, @04:31AM (#92675) Journal

      This is very sadly a pertinent remark. I know of institutions that now have faculty reporting students that never show up for class, so counselors can contact them to let them know that they are signed up for a class, and they they really should attend and stuff, or drop. It seems that many student are just signing up for the money, some of it rather restrictions free, they can get to attend college. And they have figured out they do not have to actually attend! It is a win-win situation! Of course, after a few semesters they are expelled, but it doesn't seem that they are thinking long term to begin with.

      I think that MOOC are the exact opposite of what our approach to higher education should be. We should really do our best to keep people from college. Treat higher education more like racist Republicans want the southern boarder of the United States to be: high walls, entrance exams, landmines and moats with crocodiles! Then if a student manages to make it through that, they must really be motivated to learn. Or they thought something other than knowledge, learning and wisdom was hidden in the Ivory Tower.

  • (Score: 1) by ah.clem on Friday September 12 2014, @06:44PM

    by ah.clem (4241) on Friday September 12 2014, @06:44PM (#92542)

    I "attended" 4 on-line MOOCs on Coursera and I have to say, all but one seemed to be "Survey" courses hacked together from videos from a full-semester course. There were also pre and post surveys asking what I thought about the university presenting the course. Frankly, the material was pretty badly hacked together (except for one course on the special theory of relativity - that was obviously designed from start to finish, but I did notice that the "TAs" assigned to the course were having a bit of trouble with the math, a least in my opinion). I recently finished a class in Sound Design and I must say, I really didn't learn anything new that I wasn't already doing in my own studio, but I did learn about a new piece of software I wasn't aware of. Not a lot of return for my time invested. Unfortunately, I recently retired from an institution that offers these "on-line" experiences and I have always argued that the content was weak, but money trumps all. In my opinion, nothing is better than an actual class taught by an actual Ph.D. who has office hours and will actually help you understand the course content. I know these opinions are old-fashioned and neither students or faculty want this much work. Gosh, learning is hard!

  • (Score: 2) by naubol on Sunday September 14 2014, @12:47AM

    by naubol (1918) on Sunday September 14 2014, @12:47AM (#92853)

    It seems patently obvious that the format of the MOOCs is not taking full advantage of the didactic possibilities inherent in random access and the evaluation heuristics that are available in a Turing complete environment with lots of processing power.

    Moreover, until they gain some teeth with job-providers, most people won't consider it "education" anyway.

    Plus, this all seems to be following the hype cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle).

    While small amounts of anecdotes are not data, all the MOOCs I bothered to look at felt like traditional lectures with no sense of adaptive response and forced me to watch videos! It would be quite a wall of text for me to list all the reasons why videos seem so terrible in the age of deep-linking, hyper-linking, 3D libraries, and the abysmal information density of recorded lectures by time and data.