Researchers have carried out a detailed study that shows that massive open online courses (MOOCs) really can teach at least as effectively as traditional classroom courses—and they found that this is true regardless of how much preparation and knowledge students start out with.
"It's an issue that has been very controversial," says David Pritchard, lead author of the study. "A number of well-known educators have said there isn't going to be much learning in MOOCs, or if there is, it will be for people who are already well-educated."
But after thorough before-and-after testing of students taking the MITx physics class 8.MReVx (Mechanics Review) online, and similar testing of those taking the same class in its traditional form, Pritchard and his team found quite the contrary: The study showed that in the MITx course, "the amount learned is somewhat greater than in the traditional lecture-based course," Pritchard says.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28 2014, @05:30AM
the original source of the study is http://www.irrodl.org/ [irrodl.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 28 2014, @05:34AM
Sitting through an on-line course, especially one that is not interactive, (recorded) takes a lot more motivation, in my opinion.
In a live setting, there is enough going on around you that it takes some effort to pay attention but at least the fact that its live holds your attention.
But on-line, Jeez! I get board just waiting for the intro slides to finish, and god help me if they feel compelled to
precede it with some sappy music for some asinine reason.
So from my perspective anyone who can sit through an entire course on-line, is probably more motivated than
someone going through the motions of filling a prerequisite.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday September 28 2014, @05:51AM
But on-line, Jeez! I get board just waiting for the intro slides to finish, and god help me. . . /quote?
with spelling? I have seen students get wood, but never students get board! But despite all that, and your chances for divine intervention, I agree with your point. Doing it live commands a certain amount of attention that online courses lack. As with correspondence courses in the age of print, those who are motivated succeed. Yes, they can use some guidance, but often do as well without it. The less motivated need structure and supervision in addition to guidance, in order to actually learn.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday September 28 2014, @06:15AM
Oh, Jeez! Here I am Grammar nazi-ing frojack, thinking "the worst thing I could do right not is to make a grammatical error!", and I forget to close the quote tag??? Alright, it is time I signed up for the MOOC on basic HTML.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday September 28 2014, @06:54AM
do right /not/ now
Double facepalm of shame.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 28 2014, @07:39AM
Muphry's law strikes again.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Sunday September 28 2014, @08:14PM
That's why it's so much better to be a jazz nazi than a grammar nazi *double jazzhands* :)
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28 2014, @08:41AM
The fine art of grammar-trolling is best demonstrated by short sharp replies that leave little room for fucking up.
(Score: 3, Informative) by crutchy on Sunday September 28 2014, @06:04AM
being trapped in a lecture theater forces at least a token amount of attention (enough so that if you see something in an assignment or exam it may jolt one of those "i know i've seen that somewhere before" reactions).
online courses (even watching lectures on youtube) is much more flexible and probably much more efficient, but requires a greater level of discipline since you aren't trapped in a lecture theater, so any distractions could lead to procrastination.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday September 28 2014, @12:01PM
I think some of it is old guys (pre-powerpoint as sole educational tool) impacting against modern powerpoint is the only educational tool.
Whiteboard technology works, because educators, being lazy, prioritize and focus and don't overthink what they write on the whiteboard (mostly...)
But powerpoint is just inherently Fed up as an inherent aspect of the technology. And most MOOC courses I've seen are pretty much audiobook style readings of powerpoint presentations, which are extremely ineffective at teaching, so recording it doesn't magically make it better.
For a good time google for
“The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within"
which is a dead tree book by Edward Tufte
And
"The Gettysburg Address" by Norvig
http://norvig.com/Gettysburg/ [norvig.com]
Its not that recording makes a bad presentation technology, its that they're recording a bad presentation technology.
If you go on archive.org you can find non-powerpoint lectures that are actually pretty good. I like Strang's math classes.
As a side issue, I find the TV style editing of intro and out-tro pushing up against three minutes each to be quite obnoxious on TV and unbearable in MOOCs or podcasts. That stuff just isn't cool, but there's a lot of people who's jobs depend on wasting everyones time with that garbage, so we're stuck with it. Anybody publishing something with three minutes of fluff at the start really needs to publish an alt feed without the fluff, for MOOCs, podcasts, TV shows, everything. Fluff sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @04:03AM
Sitting through an on-line course, especially one that is not interactive, (recorded) takes a lot more motivation, in my opinion.
All learning requires motivation. If you don't have it, you will not learn. The setting is irrelevant. The money is irrelevant. Even the quality of the lecturer is also irrelevant. It's all about motivation of the student. They either want to learn the material, or they don't.
Attempting to deflect that motivation is something to be "transmitted" to the student from the teacher - sorry, that is bullshit. A teacher can only peak the student's curiosity, but they can't make them want to learn things. MOOC, live lectures, or even just a book are all valid learning tools. The lowest common denominator for learning is a book and literate, motivated student. Nothing else is required.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 29 2014, @05:36AM
Attempting to deflect that motivation is something to be "transmitted" to the student from the teacher - sorry, that is bullshit.
What is bullshit is your reading comprehension.
I was suggesting nothing about motivation being transmitted. The motivation was in the student, and those students self selected for online courses. Those who don't do well in on-line courses self select themselves out of on-line courses.
These students weren't randomly assigned to the respective classes. They were simply tested before and after.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ls671 on Sunday September 28 2014, @06:11AM
Of course it can. Reading books can work also. I even remember teaching myself some language while no books were available when the first version came out quite easily because its has something called javadocs and source code available. Granted, I already had previous knowledge of multi-treading programming and OO concepts although.
So yes, depending on the students targeted, on-line classes might work, especially if the classes are well designed and if the students are more or less self learners. It could be harder for traditional students that need/perform better with a human teacher present. Of course, we may adapt or already be adapting to a virtual teacher as well.
Hence, in order to have more relevant statistical results, we might need to screen the student samples and analyze the background of the two groups; the ones who took the on-line classes and the ones who took the traditional classes.
—and they found that this is true regardless of how much preparation and knowledge students start out with.
This doesn't take for accounts whether the students are the self learning type, thus more tempted by an on-line course.
Everything I write is lies, including this sentence.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28 2014, @06:12AM
www.slashdot.org
beep! beta.slashdot.org
NO, I want www.slashdot.org
Beep! ha ha! beta.slashdot.org
NO!!! I WANT WWW.SLASHDOT.ORG!
BEEP! OH YEAH BABY! beta.slashdot.org
OH FUCK THIS SHIT
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28 2014, @06:49AM
/?nobeta=1 and be done with it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28 2014, @06:47AM
I just finished a degree program where 80% of the instruction was online. I never met most of my professors or classmates. Graduated with highest honors. It is not exactly the same as MOOCs, but the basics of the problem remain the same.
Most people are just completely inept when they have to account for themselves by themselves. To follow online instruction requires having initiative and discipline in high amounts. Many people do poorly at a class or two and never take online courses again. For me, online instruction was manna from heaven compared to the traditional method. I don't have to listen to boring questions from students that probably should not be in college. I don't have any commute time. I can apply myself whenever I am in a state of mind that makes me effectively engaged. Most importantly I can skip any bits that I already know. It is disgustingly shocking how much time is wasted with traditional lectures on things the students should already know from previous classes, common sense, or just reading the damned textbook before coming to class.
With skipping the commute, not having to suffer through students that need their hand held, and only listening to parts of lectures that I still need more instruction on I easily reduce the time in objective classes (STEM) by 70% and liberal arts classes by over half. I learn faster and can take more classes. It is incredible for highly effective people that can learn well on their own. For everyone else it can be a huge waste.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Magic Oddball on Sunday September 28 2014, @08:43AM
I've given MOOC videos, college TV-broadcast lectures/courses a few tries; I went to a midsize community college and whatever size university Berkeley qualifies as. I just recently started the Python course at Codecademy, which so far is very hands-on.
I'm finding the hands-on Python easy, I naturally can learn by reading or watching/listening IRL, and I did quite well in college classes of just about any size unless the instructor really sucked. When it came to the educational videos, with rare exceptions, I quickly become restless and had trouble paying attention. It's like I go from the autistic gal with laser-focus over to attention-deficit girl or something.
Part of the difference is that going to a location that I used only for paying attention to classes -- rather than my own home, where I relax, play games, do laundry, etc. or the library, where people hang out, etc. -- put me in the right mindset to learn. It's the same reason that a lot of people that work from home (or are retired/disabled like me) shower and get fully dressed every day, rather than lounging around in our pajamas or sweats.
Another aspect is that when I'm in an in-person classroom or lecture hall, paying attention involves focusing on a variety of visual targets: the instructor, whatever they write on the board/overhead, the clock, other students, my notes, plus perhaps a comment on the subject that that a friend seated next to me has jotted down for me. It's easier to stay alert & engaged (rather than becoming bored) under those circumstances than it is if I'm just staring at a single flat target (the screen) the whole time. I also noticed that in a IRL lecture, I can doodle on the paper while still absorbing the material, but I can't look away from a video much without losing the thread.
The subject matter also has a lot to do with how suitable a MOOC/video would be. A class where the instructor conveys factual information to the students is going to be very well-suited to a video format, obviously, but that format isn't going to work well if students are supposed to engage in a dialogue with their instructor. From what others have said, most STEM lecture classes could be taught via video because they fall into that category.
The problem is, if a humanities instructor is teaching in a way that would be suitable to videos, he/she is not doing a genuinely good job even if it's a large-lecture course. The good ones teach students to analyze the subject on a nuanced level and produce new insights rather than just come up with variants on the usual regurgitated ideas. Of course, the problem there is that new insights don't score as highly on essay-grading programs as the regurgitated stuff — so it may inaccurately seem like MOOCs are even more effective.
I think that's hinted at by the recent 'discovery' that rather than learning on their own or entirely online, MOOC students are physically getting together as classes -- essentially