The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

RUSSO: The merits of MOOCs

Massive Open Online Courses are valuable because they make academic resources globally available

February 27th, the Managing Board published an editorial entitled “The Shortcomings of MOOCs,” in which they argued that although Massive Open Online Courses represent an aspirational ideal of public education, they are not worth the resources that must be expended to surmount the obstacles that they present.

Although I recognize the challenges highlighted in the editorial, I believe that MOOCs are more worthwhile than suggested by the Managing Board, as they characterize the principle of intellectual curiosity which is central to the University and to the ideals of higher learning. I hesitate to use the word education in my response, as I believe that much of the heated debate over MOOCs stems from the misconception that they threaten to replace or permanently alter our traditional educational system. On the contrary, I believe that MOOCs simply broaden the reach that our distinguished and accomplished educators have, and are a worthy pursuit for the University.

One major critique of MOOCs is that they are essentially a watered-down version of a formal classroom experience. As pointed out by the Managing Board, as well as another Cavalier Daily article, MOOCs neither provide course credit nor grades. Thus, presenting them as a potential substitute for a formal class in an institution of higher learning is pointless. Rather, MOOCs should be thought of as a new academic venue altogether, separate from both a classroom and a library.

The best way for me to illustrate this point is by drawing from my own experience with a MOOC. In high school, I was involved in a politics and philosophy discussion club which convened once a week. One semester, we used a MOOC — an introduction to philosophy course — offered on Coursera by the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. Before each meeting, individual members of the club would spend time at home watching a lecture and doing a small amount of reading, which we would then use as a jumping off point for our discussions. Although we did not complete the course, or use all of the provided resources, it greatly enhanced our collective experience in the club.

I would challenge those who think of MOOCs as a weak form of individual learning to reconsider them as an innovative tool for collective education. In this particular case, our use of the MOOC could not have been replaced by a real-life course or individual research. For starters, no such class existed in my small high school. In addition, most students in the club were not willing or able to devote the many hours a week that would be required to garner the same information from print or Internet sources that could be gathered easily from the short lectures.

Another common complaint about MOOCs is that they may diminish the value of a traditional education. But the same argument was once made about the Internet, which has transformed the way that people learn, both in and outside of the classroom. MOOCs do not change the fact that a university degree is indispensable in our modern and hypercompetitive job market. However, they do change the fact that very few people have access to the University’s gifted educators. MOOCs break down the walls of exclusivity that are ingrained in the American system of higher education. Valuable information and educational resources should be shared with those who seek them, especially since we have the capability to do so.

Although ideals of untethered intellectual exploration are commonly expatiated by universities, and even by our founder, the reality is that many of us students are bound, either by choice or by virtue of our academic program, to a strict and rationed series of courses during our time at the University. MOOCs offer the opportunity for dabbling, for dipping your toes into a subject area that you might not be able to pursue formally due to other academic obligations. Although this argument may only seem applicable to University students, it can be applied to all who take advantage of MOOCs, who may have full time jobs, be living outside the US, or not have the resources or time to pursue the subject that interests them in a formal educational setting. The fact that MOOCs do not award a degree to these people, or even credit, does not imply that they are useless.

Looking into the future, I do not foresee MOOCs having any lasting negative impact. On the contrary, I think that once universities such as ours commit to free public online education, many other universities — both in the United States and abroad — will follow suit, and thus increase global access to the world’s finest educators and academic treasures. Like placing historically valuable artifacts in a museum rather than keeping them in a closed private collection, MOOCs will not ruin (or even change) the higher education system, but will simply broaden its reach beyond the intellectual and social elite.

Mary Russo is a Viewpoint Writer. Her columns run Thursdays.

Comments

Latest Podcast

The University’s Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admission, Greg Roberts, provides listeners with an insight into how the University conducts admissions and the legal subtleties regarding the possible end to the consideration of legacy status.



https://open.spotify.com/episode/02ZWcF1RlqBj7CXLfA49xt