"Education" For All By: Camille Nuttall--Final Draft

"Education" For All

The wheel, the automobile, the light bulb, the spaceship. What do all these things have in common? They are inventions that have changed the world and created a more efficient place to live. While innovation and development of a better society can come through spontaneous acts, overall the world is able to change with an individual’s commitment to learning through education.

For hundreds of years, the basis of obtaining an education has been through going to a brick and mortar college. There are teachers, books, pencils, tangible items that bring to life the concepts that one is learning. These standard methods of learning have created individuals in society who seek out learning and have changed the world for the better through their experimentation. Recently, new developments and ideas relating to education have brought a change to the mindset of learning. No longer do you need to be present with a professor and in a classroom setting, but rather you can learn online through a Massive Open Online Course, or MOOC as they have been named. This is a recorded course online which students can learn from. MOOCS are fairly new to the education scene and have caused many to wonder the lasting effects of this MOOC movement. MOOCs are attempting to provide education to those who otherwise are unable to receive a proper education. While education for all is an honorable goal, MOOCs lack fundamental principles of learning which encourage innovation and abstract thinking that are necessary to make a difference in the lives of the students and the future of American education.

Lack of Idea Flow

MOOCs decrease person to person contact

MOOCs do not allow for an adequate idea sharing forum and therefore are limiting the opportunities of growth through different viewpoints. With the ever growing world, people’s views are becoming more polarized and each individual has many different experiences from the person sitting next to them. World travels, family circumstances, and cultural norms allow people who appear to be “similar” to actually be completely different. One principal that is key to allowing students the best education is diversity. In classroom settings, many people from various walks of life are brought together to share and interact, allowing for the flow of ideas. In quoting Condoleezza Rice, authors Alter and Dockterman prove that MOOCs do not allow for the effective flow of ideas which are necessary for change. Rice stated, “Video lectures can’t create the kind of environment that produces Silicon Valley level innovation” (Alter, Dockerterman). The Silicon Valley is a leading place in California for innovation and technological inventions. Rice recognizes that while these video lectures may be an effective tool for surface level learning, in the end to develop and further technology, our students need to be a part of a classroom setting where there is a greater opportunity for the flow of ideas. Everyone has their own story and experiences that are beneficial to others when shared. MOOCs do not allow for the exchange of ideas between students and therefore lack the promise of idea flow necessary to create progress and change for our world through education.

Alienation and No Art

In addition to the lack of idea flow, MOOCs alienate students from the one person they should be closest to, the professor and create a false promise of an A+ teacher. Some “classes” have over 150,000 students from all across the world. In many cases the students have been told to not contact the professor. Some have countered saying that in many top tier colleges, class sizes are so big so the professor is out of reach anyway to the students. While this may be true, the fact of the matter is that the professor is there, tangible and available if it becomes necessary that the student needs to talk to them. In a recent New York Times opinion article, author A.J. Jacobs said,
“It creates a strange paradox: these professors are simultaneously the most and least accessible teachers in history. And it’s not the only tension inherent in MOOCs.” Jacobs points out that even though it may appear that the professor is accessible through these online classes, in fact the reverse is true. Students are unable to fully connect on a personal level with the professors. When students learn, it works best when they have a mentor, someone they can be held accountable to. MOOCs are not helping the students because there is a lack of communication between the professors and students.

Also, most of the professors who have been selected to create a MOOC are chosen because of their extreme charisma and love for the subject area. Why would a MOOC company pay someone to create a boring MOOC? Obviously, those who are selected are the best of the best and because of this, they can create a false sense of what teachers are actually like. Don’t get me wrong, there are some great professors at a brick and mortar college, but the fact of the matter is that many professors are, let’s just say, very intellectually “stimulating”. With the rise of MOOCs, the balance and our “academic ecosystem,” as Jacobs puts it, are allowing for the casualties of our biodiversity in education. Each student has a different learning style, and some work well with the charisma and jokes that these MOOC professors bring, but others work best when there is focus to the daily topic and with a more straight forward approach to learning (Kolowich). A brick and mortar college allows for students to choose their professors, and many times, if the learning styles do not click, they are able to find another teacher. A MOOC allows only for one professor’s learning style for over 150,000 students, and this is not a feasible method to maximize student’s educational growth.

Not only are the professors aloof to the needs of students, but the MOOCs are unable to teach a broad amount of subjects because there is lack of interaction between peers and teachers. The classes that are most popularly taught through MOOCs are math and science course. These courses are fundamentally based on equations and formula and can be effective when taught online. Concepts such as the social sciences are more difficult to learn online because there is a lack of structured group discussions, and therefore there is less you are able to learn. Methods that have been used for centuries emphasize the need for interaction when teaching subjects that insist on using creativity. Author Ann Kirschner reflects on her experience with MOOCs, “…too many of the postings were at the dismal level of most anonymous Internet comments: nasty, brutish, and long.” MOOCs account for too many people, and not enough time for reflection and thinking about what others have to say. To learn skills necessary for the work place and in life, you need to be put into actual uncomfortable, difficult situations in order to learn how to deal with other’s differences. Behind a computer screen, taking a MOOC, you are unable to do this and are therefore limiting your education as a well-rounded person (McCully).  MOOCs fail to allow the adequate setting to teach classes in which discussion is necessary. MOOCs take away critical situations for problem solving and learning to work with a group and instead allow for internet brutality and rudeness.

Writing and art classes in particular are unable to be fully appropriated MOOCs because there is no way for a computer to grade these tests. Classes such as these require personalized attention from the professor and knowledge of the subject base and topic of explanation. These aspects in learning are necessary to having an overall education, rather than just the math and sciences. This is why many colleges require general education courses which allow students to graduate with a well-rounded education, rather than just classes for their major. MOOCs do not allow for creative thinking as the answers must be black and white in order to reach the wide range of students. Author Philip DiSalvio argues that MOOCs will generate people who have learned rather than people who have developed through their knowledge. He says, “Instead of colleges existing to provide instruction, colleges will have to exist as institutions that produce learning” (DiSavio). MOOCs will produce “educated” people, and thus the college experience will become less about instruction and learning of the students and more able the memorization of facts and figures. Without the using the right-side of the brain through creative classes such as art, writing and drama, students are not developing themselves fully to make an impact in the world.

When will the online education stop? The fact is, having MOOCs as a way to complete college opens a Pandora’s Box of other consequences. Author Greg Graham states, “It is not hard to imagine a day when a face-to-face education could be a privilege of the elite. The great masses would be educated online.” This will impede the development of not only college students, but also primary and secondary education could turn to the use of MOOCs or a similar online fashion. This will lead our society to lack the social connections necessary to learn and grow. Some may counter that MOOCs promote ideas and social interaction because so many people are able to comment and say what they think. In reality, in an online setting, it is easy to become “anonymous” and post nonsensical posts. If there are over 150,000 students in a MOOC, ideas will be shared too fast and they will become lost in cyber-space. There is little chance that one voice will be heard and no true social connections are being made. Each individual will merely focus on what they are saying rather than pausing to think about the points others are trying to make.

College is College

MOOCs do not allow students to fully experience the college life and are therefore taking away opportunities for growth in students. The college experience can never be replaced. If the future of education lies within MOOCs, it will be difficult for future generations to learn life lessons typically learned while at college. MOOCs cannot replace brick and mortar college’s altogether because students need to get away from home and be able to experience life on their own. While MOOCs have a qualified purpose, much of the education received in college is in learning about yourself and others while developing on your own. MOOCs could give you book smarts, but the true value of an education is in the overall experiences that will benefit one throughout their life. While MOOCs could benefit those seeking more education after college, they should never replace the entire college experience.
 

Those who would actually benefit from using MOOCs as an alternative to college because of the cost, such as lower income students who are unable to afford college, would not actually benefit from their implementation. In a TIME magazine article, Jon Marcus claims that the positive effects of MOOCs are not stable at this point. Marcus says, “At this point, there’s just no way to really know whether they’re effective or not.” MOOCs are not a class one can just blow off and squeeze by with a good grade. These are top tier caliber classes which are offered by some of the nation’s best universities including Stanford and MIT. MOOCs are free, but the cost to succeed in them takes a lot of motivation and internal drive to succeed. Each student must have the desire to learn and grow through the educational MOOC. Students in high school who have slacked (typically with the mentorship of teachers and other officials) will not be successful with MOOCs because they have no personal drive. With a MOOC, they must learn to motivate themselves, but by this point it may be too late. Intrinsic motivation is difficult to come by and is not readily a trait that one can develop spur of the moment (Carlson and Blumenstyk). If these students were not motivated to learn while at a brick and mortar school, the chance that they will be successful from an online course is low. We want the future of America to live effective lives and by placing students in a MOOC, you are setting many up for failure and without the chance to make a difference.

Job Loss

Brick and mortar colleges provide numerous job opportunities for professors, staff and even students that would be lost with increasing MOOCs. Brigham Young University has 1,500 faculty as well as 2,500 staff and other personnel (BYU). In addition, 14,000 of their students are employed by the university in on-campus jobs. Imagine if MOOCs took over and these brick and mortar colleges became obsolete. There would not be a need for so many professors because the classes are pre-recorded and can just be used over and over again. Many people would be forced to relocate and find other work that may not be possible in times such as these. Especially for the students who work on campus, these jobs give experience working with others and problem solving skills that are necessary for their future careers. Brick and mortar colleges give people access to jobs and life experiences that will benefit the future while MOOCs stunt the social development necessary to be able to find a job in today’s work field. Our economy cannot handle having so many professors and staff workers out of a job. There is no way to transition the future of our education system to MOOCs without putting many people out of a job. Some counter saying that brick and mortar colleges can still exist, but that MOOCs will just be another option. Still, in time admission may drop and therefore professors may be put out of work.

Looking Forward

There is not enough evidence to truly put the future education into the hands of a MOOC. MOOCs are a way for people to learn more, or who truly cannot afford higher education. MOOCs cannot replace the knowledge and experience gained from receiving your education from a brick and mortar college. MOOCs do not have enough credibility and impact to actually replace a degree from a brick and mortar college. While they could be used as a supplement, in the end the true education of a brick and mortar college is worth the cost and time. Brick and mortar colleges provide idea flow, group collaboration, a large variety of classes and jobs, aspects that MOOCs will never be able to provide. MOOCs lack certain attributes which contribute to an education that are necessary for the future students and education in America.

Works Cited

Carlson, Scott, and Goldie Blumenstyk. "For Whom Is College Being Reinvented?" The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., 12 Dec. 2012. Web. 05 Nov. 2013.

DiSalvio, Philip. "Pardon the Disruption … Innovation Changes How We Think About Higher Education." New England Board of Higher Education. Disqus, 04 Sept. 2012. Web. 06 Nov. 2013.

Dockterman, Eliana, and Charlotte Alter. "Back to the Future How College Classrooms Can Compete With MOOCs." Time. Word Press, 20 Sept. 2012. Web. 05 Nov. 2013

Graham, Greg. "How the Embrace of MOOC's Could Hurt Middle America." The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., 01 Oct. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.

Jacobs, A.J. "Two Cheers for Web U." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 20 Apr. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

Kirschner, Ann. "A Pioneer in Online Education Tries a MOOC." The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., 01 Oct. 2012. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

Kolowich, Steve. "The Professors Who Make the MOOCs." The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., 24 Mar. 2013. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.

Kolowich, Steve. "With Open Platform, Stanford Seeks to Reclaim MOOC Brand." The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., 04 Nov. 2013. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.

Marcus, Jon. "All Hail MOOCs Just Don’t Ask If They Actually Work." Time. Word Press, 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.

McCully, George. "“University Unbound” Rebounds: Can MOOCs Educate as Well as Train? New England Board of Higher Education. Disqus, 26 Oct. 2012. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.