July 24, 2014

Guest blog: MOOCs: Disruptor or Indicator of Something Deeper?

Listen with webReader
Guest blogger: Nicole Christen

Guest blogger: Nicole Christen

Introduction

I don’t usually do guest blogs, and when I do it’s always because I know they will be of the highest quality – and I NEVER accept unrequested guest blogs from people I don’t know.

However, I was a participant in a study on MOOCs by Nicole Christen for a paper as part of her Master in Educational Technology program at the University of British Columbia. She kindly sent me a copy of her final paper. I was so struck by the quality of this paper and its significance that I immediately asked her if she would be willing to provide a summary in the form of a blog post. Here is the summary of her paper. I found no need to change it. I strongly recommend though that you read the paper in full, which is available here.

Nicole Christen

MOOCs: Disruptor or Indicator of Something Deeper?

Why have massive open online courses, known as MOOCs, established a stronghold in the educational marketplace? Are they responsible for disrupting the traditional system of higher education? And, how can post-secondary institutions survive the changes taking place?

In the summer of 2013, amidst the early hype surrounding MOOCs, I conducted a qualitative research project. My objective was to explore the motivations driving institutions to launch MOOCs and join MOOC consortiums. MOOCs have been labeled as a disruptive force to the traditional system of post-secondary education; however, my research argues otherwise. MOOCs, themselves, are not the source of disruption. Deeper forces are at work.

About My Research Project

In order to understand the reasons behind the rapid implementation of MOOCs by post-secondary institutions, I interviewed educational technology thought leaders from around the world whose areas of expertise included distance learning and open learning at the post-secondary level. During each 30 minute interview, I asked a series of questions designed to help me identify common underlying themes surrounding MOOCs and the overall concept of open learning. The themes extrapolated from my interview data provide a solid overview of fundamental shifts that have occurred as a result of the technological revolution and remain relevant regardless of any changes to MOOCs that have taken place since this research was conducted.

Forces Driving the MOOC Movement

Media hype that portrays MOOCs as an all-powerful disruptive force overlooks the underlying factors behind the adoption of MOOCs. In particular, the post-secondary marketplace is becoming increasingly driven by learner desires. Self-directed, distance education at the post-secondary level has existed for decades; however, the relative ease with which people around the world can now access the Internet, has created a tipping point. In many cases, learners are no longer as limited by geographical boundaries or technological limitations. Open learning initiatives, such as MOOCs, remove financial barriers as well. Instead, learners can (and do) go where their needs will best be met. The educational marketplace is becoming learner-driven.

Interpretations and Implications

Why, then, are MOOCs significant? Because MOOCs are a clear indicator that the realm of post-secondary education is changing as a result of advances in technology. The shift from a top-down, institution driven marketplace to one where a learner can use technology to create a  personalized, piecemeal learning experience from multiple institutions requires institutions to ask themselves what they offer learners that is unique. If one institution meets a unique need, and can fulfill this need on a mass scale for learners better than any other institution, then other institutions need to find a different competitive edge.

Furthermore, if MOOCs become a viable educational option (viable in the sense that employers begin to value emerging credentialing systems created by MOOC providers), then there is a real risk that MOOCs will encroach upon the territory of undergraduate education. Post-secondary institutions rely on heavy enrollment of first and second year students to fund their operations and programs. Losing first and second year students to MOOCs will be detrimental to any institutions.

With that said, according to many of the people I interviewed, there will always a be place for research universities and Ivy league schools. These research-based schools fulfill a market need for an element of prestige attached to credentials, networking opportunities with leaders in the field of study, and the opportunity to conduct innovative research. The institutions most at risk of losing students to online and open learning initiatives are those that simply disseminate information generated elsewhere (typically from prestigious research-based institutions).

Given the potential impact of MOOCs, they can certainly be classified as disruptive; however, they are not a disruptor. The shift toward a learner-directed marketplace, widespread access to high-speed Internet, and the ever-increasing global network of information are the true disruptive forces. If MOOCs had not emerged, then some other form of open learning would have emerged to meet the need for low-cost access to educational resources.

Additionally, MOOCs may not be a lasting phenomenon, especially because a sustainable model for operation has yet to be proven; however, if their popularity fades, another innovative open learning opportunity will arise. Things will not go back to the way they were. The demand for open learning will not disappear.

How can institutions survive the disruption taking place in post-secondary education?

My hope is that my research can provide a starting point for institutions to explore the ways in which they can withstand the changes taking place within post-secondary learning by exploring new niches to fill and discovering which specific learner needs they are best equipped to meet. For example, open learning programs (such as MOOCs) often provide information in a way that can be considered akin to a free, interactive textbook. Certain institutions can build on MOOCs by providing classes that help students understand the material being presented to them. In essence, the institutional programs would complement MOOCs.  The most important take-away from my research is that the conditions which have lead to the rise of MOOCs have also created new gaps in the educational marketplace, opening the door for many other innovative approaches to adult education.

My formal research report is titled Open Online Learning: This Changes Everything and can be found at http://nicolechristen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Open-Online-Learning.pdf

Bio: Nicole Christen is a digital media strategist and a recent graduate from the Master of Educational Technology program at UBC. Read more about Nicole’s professional background and areas of interest at www.nicolechristen.com/portfolio.

A balanced research report on the hopes and realities of MOOCs

Listen with webReader

Columbia MOOCs 2

Hollands, F. and Tirthali, D. (2014) MOOCs: Expectations and Reality New York: Columbia University Teachers’ College, Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, 211 pp

We are now beginning to see a number of new research publications on MOOCs. The journal Distance Education will be publishing a series of research articles on MOOCs in June, but now Hollands and Tirthali have produced a comprehensive research analysis of MOOCs.

What the study is about

We have been watching for evidence that MOOCs are cost-effective in producing desirable educational outcomes compared to face-to-face experiences or other online interventions. While the MOOC phenomenon is not mature enough to afford conclusions on the question of long-term cost-effectiveness, this study serves as an exploration of the goals of institutions creating or adopting MOOCs and how these institutions define effectiveness of their MOOC initiatives. We assess the current evidence regarding whether and how these goals are being achieved and at what cost, and we review expectations regarding the role of MOOCs in education over the next five years. 

The authors used interviews with over 80 individuals covering 62 institutions ‘active in the MOOCspace’, cost analysis, and analysis of other research on MOOCs to support their findings. They identified six goals from the 29 institutions in the study that offered MOOCs, with following analysis of success or otherwise in accomplishing such goals:

1. Extending reach (65% 0f the 29 institutions)

Data from MOOC platforms indicate that MOOCs are providing educational opportunities to millions of individuals across the world. However, most MOOC participants are already well-educated and employed, and only a small fraction of them fully engages with the courses. Overall, the evidence suggests that MOOCs are currently falling far short of “democratizing” education and may, for now, be doing more to increase gaps in access to education than to diminish them. 

2. Building and maintaining brand (41%)

While many institutions have received significant media attention as a result of their MOOC activities, isolating and measuring impact of any new initiative on brand is a difficult exercise. Most institutions are only just beginning to think about how to capture and quantify branding-related benefits.

3. Reducing costs or increasing revenues (38%)

….revenue streams for MOOCs are slowly materializing but we do not expect the costs of MOOC production to fall significantly given the highly labor-intensive nature of the process. While these costs may be amortized across multiple uses and multiple years, they will still be additive costs to the institutions creating MOOCs. Free, non-credit bearing MOOCs are likely to remain available only from the wealthiest institutions that can subsidize the costs from other sources of funds. For most institutions, ongoing participation in the current MOOC experimentation will be unaffordable unless they can offer credentials of economic value to attract fee-paying participants, or can use MOOCs to replace traditional offerings more efficiently, most likely by reducing expensive personnel. 

4. Improving educational outcomes (38%)

for the most part, actual impact on educational outcomes has not been documented in any rigorous fashion. Consequently, in most cases, it is unclear whether the goal of improving educational outcomes has been achieved . However, there were two exceptions, providing evidence of improvement in student performance as a result of adopting MOOC strategies in on-campus courses

5. Innovation in teaching and learning (38%)

It is abundantly clear that MOOCs have prompted many institutions and faculty members to engage in new educational activities. The strategies employed online such as frequent assessments and short lectures interspersed with questions are being taken back on-campus. It is less clear what has been gained by these new initiatives because the value of innovation is hard to measure unless it can be tied to a further, more tangible objective. We …. conclude that most institutions are not yet making any rigorous attempt to assess whether MOOCs are more or less effective than other strategies to achieve these goals. 

6. Research on teaching and learning (28%)

A great deal of effort is being expended on trying to improve participant engagement and completion of MOOCs and less effort on determining whether participants actually gain skills or knowledge from the courses ….While the potential for MOOCs to contribute significantly to the development of personalized and adaptive learning is high, the reality is far from being achieved. 

Cost analysis

The report investigates the costs of developing MOOCs compared to those for credit-based online courses, but found wide variations and lack of reliable data.

Conclusions from the report

The authors came to the following conclusions:

1. there is no doubt that online and hybrid learning is here to stay and that MOOCs have catalyzed a shift in stance by some of the most strongly branded institutions in the United States and abroad.

2. MOOCs could potentially affect higher education in more revolutionary ways by:

  • offering participants credentials of economic value

  • catalyzing the development of true adaptive learning experiences

However, either of these developments face substantial barriers and will require major changes in the status quo.

My comments on the report

First this is an excellent, comprehensive and thoughtful analysis of the expectations and realities of MOOCs. It is balanced, but where necessary critical of the unjustified claims often made about MOOCs. This report should be required reading for anyone contemplating offering MOOCs.

Different people will take away different conclusions from this report, as one would expect from a balanced study. From my perspective, though, it has done little to change my views about MOOCs. MOOC providers to date have made little effort to identify the actual learning that takes place. It seems to be enough for many MOOC proponents to just offer a course, on the assumption that if people participate they will learn.

Nevertheless, MOOCs are evolving. Some of the best practices that have been used in credit-based online courses are now being gradually adopted as more MOOC players enter the market with experience of credit-based online learning. MOOCs will eventually occupy a small but important niche as an alternative form of non-formal, continuing and open education. They have proved valuable in making online learning more acceptable within traditional institutions that have resisted online learning previously. But no-one should fear them as a threat to credit-based education, either campus-based or online.

Research from the Michigan Virtual University on a connectivist MOOC

Listen with webReader

 MVU MOOC report

Ferdig, R. et al. (2014) Findings and reflections from the ‘K-12 Teaching in the 21st Century’ MOOC Lansing MI: Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute

We are now beginning to get some in-depth research or evaluations of MOOCs. This one is from a team at Kent State University that developed a five week ‘connectivist’ MOOC aimed principally at three distinct audiences: high school students interested in becoming teachers, preservice teachers, and inservice teachers in the K-12 system.

I provide here a very brief summary of the report (as always, you should read the report for yourself if my summary gets you interested). Italics are direct quotes from the report.

Goal of the MOOC

How can we get teachers to think more deeply about reinventing education?

MOOC design

facilitators take on the role of connecting people around an idea for the purpose of bettering our understanding of the
idea. A connectivist-based MOOC draws on the extensive number of participants as well as the existing open repository of content to develop an experience. Participants are both teachers and learners in a process – not a product.

The course was designed around four principles often associated with teaching in the 21st century: connected learning, personalization, collaboration, and reflection.

Core technology

Coursesites by Blackboard provided the basic platform for content and discussion, supplemented by the use of participants’ social media networks and technologies. In addition participants were asked to create an ‘artifact’ to represent their learning.

Use of partners/co-facilitators

Kent State provided core facilitators for the MOOC, but they also invited other co-facilitators from schools, colleges and universities both in Michigan and from several other states.

Qualifications

Badges and continuing education units were given for successful participation.

Main results

Participants (data at time of enrollment, i.e. all participants)

Start of course: 673; end of course: 848; mainly from Michigan and surrounding states, although 12 were international

School teachers: 42%; k-12 students: 23%; post-secondary students: 16%; 19% other (inc. school administrators, university faculty); 80% female.

Participants’ response to the MOOC (168 participants who completed a post-course survey)

Most participants who responded enjoyed the MOOC, with in-service teachers enjoying it the most. Th main criticism (especially from the k-12 students) was the amount of work involved in following the MOOC.

Very active participation in the online discussion forums (within the Coursesites LMS)

There were over 6,000 actual posts (comments) and over 65,000 ‘hits’/looks over a five week period, from just over 300 of the participants – but almost to-thirds did not participate at all.

Types of participation

Lurkers (i.e. did not participate in LMS discussion forums – they may have participated through social media): 63%. There were accounts created in Facebook, Twitter, Delicious and blogs related to the course which indicated active social media connections both for registered participants and with those who had not registered for the course but were interested. However, these numbers were relatively small, and hard to measure.

Passive participation was defined as doing the minimum amount of work required to complete the course. Some of the passive participants were K-12 students forced to complete the MOOC for a class requirement.

There were also preservice teachers and inservice teachers who could be described as passive participants. These participants often completed the course; however, much like the high school students, their posts were limited to one or two sentences per posts. Their comments were also superficial, for example, “Nice job” or “I like what you did.”

Active participants participated in four ways:

  • informing personal practice
  • sharing the MOOC with their communities
  • leadership within the MOOC community
  • critical colleagues

The authors’ main conclusions

The seeking and sharing of digital media highlights that people want to form and engage in communities, and the growing interest in MOOCs shows this is true of educational communities as well….

Learning takes place in communities; depending on the implementation, technology has the capability to create and sustain the communities’ learning and practice….. Evidence in this report suggests that such activities can lead to positive outcomes, particularly as they relate to getting teachers to think more deeply about teaching and learning in the 21st century.

My comments

Even though (or perhaps because) this is a self-evaluation, this is a very useful report. I was fascinated for instance that this course ended with more participants than when it started, due to the ‘publicity’ of social media connections during the course itself.  It was interesting too that some of the participants in this MOOC were not necessarily willing participants – being forced to participate as part of a formal credit program. This seems to me to go against the whole purpose of a connectivist MOOC.

More importantly for me, the report highlights some of the ways research can be conducted on MOOCs and also some of the challenges. The study identifies the importance, from a research perspective, of having some kind of platform that can gather student data and track student behaviour, such as levels or types of participation. However, given the importance of social media for connectivist MOOCs, some way of accurately tracking related social media activity is critical. It seems to me that this is a problem that appropriate software could solve (further development of gRRShopper?), although privacy issues would need to be addressed as well. (Perhaps the spy agencies can help here – just joking!)

I agree completely with the authors when they write:

Researchers have already provided ample evidence that asking if a technology works is the wrong question. A more appropriate question is: under what conditions do certain types of MOOCs work?

Another even more pertinent question is: What prior research into credit-based online learning applies – and what does not apply – to different kinds of MOOCs? This might save a lot of time re-inventing the wheel, particularly for xMOOCs. I am getting sick of hearing from research on xMOOCs that immediate feedback helps retention – we have known that for nearly 100 years. We do need though for instance to assess the importance and most useful roles, if any, of instructors/facilitators/subject matter experts in MOOCs, and whether MOOCs can succeed with reduced ‘expert’ participation. This report suggests almost the opposite – connectivist MOOCs work best with a wide range of facilitators – but what are the hidden costs of this?

Finally, I also agree with the authors that completion rates are not the best measure of success for MOOCs. This MOOC does seem to have raised some interesting questions for participants. I’m just curious about their answers. Despite the very good work done by the instructors/researchers of this MOOC, I am still left with the question: what did the participants actually learn from this MOOC? For instance, what would an analysis of the student ‘artifacts’ have told us about their learning? Unless we try to answers questions about what actual learning took place then it will remain difficult if not impossible to measure the true value of different kinds of MOOC, and I think that would be a pity.

In the meantime, this report is definitely recommended reading for anyone interested in doing research on or evaluating MOOCs.

MOOCs, specializations, and continuing education

Listen with webReader
Vanderbilit and University of maryland will be offering a MOOC specialization in designing  Android apps

Vanderbilit and University of Maryland will be offering a MOOC specialization in designing Android apps

Academic Partnerships (2014) Academic Partnerships Launches New Online Global Specializations Credential Dallas, January 21

Gannes, L. (2104) Coursera Offers the Equivalent of a MOOC Major: Specialization Certificates Re/Code, January 21

It must be more than a co-incidence that these two completely separate organizations announced new ‘specialization’ certificates on the same day. First, a little background.

Coursera certificates

Coursera is planning to offer certificates for students who take a set combination of MOOCs and pass the assessment. The minimum number of MOOCs would be three, with other certificates requiring up to eight MOOCs. The certificates will be awarded by ‘leading universities.’ One of the first specializations open for enrollment is from Vanderbilt and the University of Maryland on making Android apps.  A Coursera specialization certificate will require students to verify their identity and pay on a per-course basis, usually $49 per course.

Academic Partnerships

Most people will know about Coursera, but Academic Partnerships may be less well known, but is still a significant player in the higher education world of the USA. Its is a private company that ‘assists universities in converting their traditional degree programs and certificates into an online format, recruits qualified students, and supports enrolled students through graduation’. It works particularly with prestigious U.S. institutions that often were slow into credit-based online learning, or those that wish to keep the online learning activity at somewhat arms-length from their campus activities, but usually to increase enrollments and/or revenues.

Academic Partnership’s new initiative is on the global marketing of specialization certificates from prestigious U.S. universities, ‘to help partner universities capitalize on the globalization of higher education….Specializations consist of three progressive certificates that are offered in multiple languages and can be earned in nine months….AP’s partner universities outside of the United States, meanwhile, will serve as host universities for the Specializations….We believe that our Specializations initiative, which we originated and are launching with partner universities, will significantly increase post-secondary enrollment around the world, resulting in untold benefits for citizens everywhere, while simultaneously addressing the financial challenges faced by U.S. universities.’

Comment

These seem like sensible moves, moving MOOCs and other ‘open’ online courses much more clearly into the continuing education niche, and internationalizing them. The idea of opening up online courses to international markets of course is not new. The University of British Columbia launched an ‘open’ (but not free) online certificate program on distributed learning as early as 1996, which developed into an international Master in Educational Technology in 2003 (which is still very successful). The first enrollments for UBC’s certificate program came from over 30 different countries. There is clearly a large international market for online courses and programs from prestigious North American institutions, and Australia universities for many years have had a highly profitable international online learning presence.

Questions still remain though. One obvious one is about the transferability of credit from specializations: will students obtaining certificates be able to transfer these into regular credit programs, online or on campus, at North American or local universities? Will students, especially those overseas, be told this when they enroll?

The second challenge is the business model, at least for the MOOC initiative. It is not so much the MOOCs or courses themselves – they may be offered free by the institutions. But how will this impact on their Continuing Education divisions, who often exist now mainly to bring in extra revenues for the university? Many universities – at least here in Canada – have extensive online certificate programs which bring in a large profit for the university. One wonders why institutions would ‘give away’ this highly lucrative market in order to provide free, open courses. Or maybe MOOCs will destroy the current continuing education model for online courses, which will send a chill through many universities’ CE divisions.

For the Academic Partnership model, the success will depend on the added value that Academic Partnerships can bring to the university in international marketing and recruitment. It will be interesting to see how they price these certificates in the different international markets. There is also a strong Hawthorne effect here. As institutions in other countries begin to build their own MOOCs and online credit programs, the market starts to drop for programs from other countries, so timing is everything.

One thing that both initiatives though should be aware of – and this is free advice – from my experience in internationalizing online courses is that one needs to be aware of this from the beginning, ensuring the materials are appropriate for multicultural use (which goes way beyond direct translation), and above all, that there is 24×7 online learner support available in some form or other that extends beyond answering simple technical or administrative questions. In particular, international students will want to know what they can do with these specialization certificates and which employers are likely to recognize them. Since this will vary greatly from country to country, this is no simple or low-cost task. This is the major challenge in internationalizing MOOCs, and will require a very strong business model and excellent partners in the other countries for the Academic Partnership’s initiative to succeed.

Lastly, if I was a Director of Continuing Education or International Education, I would not be sitting back waiting for these initiatives to happen, but would be developing a business plan to go out and compete directly for international students and lifelong learners through online learning.

 

A review of a Harvard/MIT research paper on edX MOOCs

Listen with webReader

 edX graphic

Ho, A. et al. (2014) HarvardX and MITx: The First Year of Open Online Courses Fall 2012-Summer 2013 (HarvardX and MITx Working Paper No. 1), January 21

This 32 page report provides a range of data and statistics about the first 17 MOOCs offered through edX by MIT and Harvard.

Methodology

MOOCs raise a number of interesting challenges when doing research, such as measuring participation, and defining success. In any interpretation of the results, these methodological challenges need to be considered. The researchers identified the following challenges:

1. Post-hoc research. The research design was established after the courses were designed and delivered, so data on some key critical research variables (e.g., socio-economic status) were not available or collected.

2. Variation in the object of the research. Although limited to MOOCs offered on the edX platform, the 17 MOOCs varied considerably in educational objectives, style, length, types of learner and other factors.

3. Measuring levels of participation. Participants varied from those who logged in only once to those that completed a certificate (and then some who went on to take more MOOCs). As a result, the researchers came up with four mutually exclusive categories of participation:

  • Only Registered: Registrants who never access the courseware.
  • Only Viewed: Non-certified registrants who access the courseware, accessing less than half of the available chapters.
  • Only Explored: Non-certified Registrants who access more than half of the available chapters in the courseware.
  • Certified: Registrants who earn a certificate in the course.

4. Percentages are misleading when numbers are large. This was a new one for me. I know one should never use percentages when n <20, specially when generalizing beyond the sample, but in this instance, the researchers argue that small percentages (e.g. <5%) are also misleading when the number the percentage refers to can be very large, e.g. when 3% = 1,400 students who completed a certificate. In such cases, the absolute numbers matter more than the percentage, so the researchers claim.

5. Measures of success The researchers argue that traditional measures of academic success, such as the percentage of those who successfully complete a course, are not valid (the word used is ‘counter-productive’) for open online courses.

Main results

Participation

  • 17 MOOCs
  • 841,687 course registrations: average per MOOC: 51,263
  • 597,692 ‘persons’: average of 1.4 MOOCs per person
  • 292,852 (35%) never engaged with the content (“Only registered”)
  • 469,702 (56%) viewed (i.e. clicked on a module) less than half of the content (“Only viewed”)
  • 35,937 (4%) explored more than half the content, but did not get a certificate (average per MOOC: 2,114)
  • 43,196  (5%) earned certificates (average per MOOC: 2,540)

Participants

  • 234,463 (33%) report a high school education or lower
  • 66% of all participants, and 74% of all who obtained a certificate, have a bachelor’s degree or above
  • 213,672 (29%) of all participants, and 33% of all who obtained a certificate, are female
  • 26 was the median age, with 45,844 (6%) over 50 years of age
  • 20,745 (3%) of all participants were from the UN listed least developed countries
  • there are ‘considerable differences in …. demographics such as gender, age… across courses.”

Comments

First, congratulations to Harvard and MIT for not only doing this research on MOOCs, but also for making it openly available and releasing it early.

Second, I agree that percentages can be misleading, a focus on certification is not the best way to assess the value of a MOOC, and that absolute figures matter for assessing the value of MOOCs. However, this is NOT the way most commentators and the media have focused on MOOCs. Percentages and certification DO matter if MOOCs are being seen as a substitute or a replacement for formal education. MOOCs need to be judged for what they are, a somewhat unique – and valuable – form of non-formal education.

Third, if we do look at absolute numbers, they are in my view not that impressive – an average of 2,540 per course earning a certificate, and less than 5,000 per course following more than half the content. The Open University, with completely open access, was getting higher numbers of students completing credit-based foundation courses when it started. The History Channel (a cable TV channel in North America) does a lot better, in terms of numbers. We have already seen overall average numbers for MOOCs dropping considerably as they have become more common. So when we account for the Hawthorne effect, the results are certainly not startling.

Fourth, these results so much reminded me of the research on educational broadcasting 30 years ago (for more details, see footnote). If you substituted ‘MOOC’ for ‘educational television’, the results would be almost identical (except there was a higher proportion of women than men participating). Perhaps they should read my very old book, “Broadcasting in Education: An Evaluation.” (I still have a few copies in a cupboard somewhere).

Lastly, this brings me to my final point. Where is the reference to relevant previous research or theory (see, for instance the footnote to this post)? There are certainly unique aspects to MOOCs that deserve to be researched. However, while MOOCs may be new, non-formal learning is not, nor is credit-based online learning, nor is open education, nor is educational broadcasting, of which MOOCs are a new format. Much of what we already know about these areas also applies to some aspects of MOOCs. Once again, though, Harvard and MIT seem to live in an environment that pays no attention to what happens outside their cocoon. If it’s not theirs, it doesn’t count. This is simply not good enough. In no other field would you get away with ignoring all previous research or work in related areas such as credit-based online learning, open education or educational broadcasting.

Having got that off my chest, I did find the paper well written and interesting and certainly worth a careful read. I look forward to reading – and reviewing – future papers.

Footnote: MOOCs and the onion theory of educational broadcasting

I eventually found a copy of my book. I blew the dust off it and guess what I found.

Here’s what I wrote about ‘levels of commitment’ in non-formal educational broadcasting in 1984 (p.99):

At the centre of the onion is a small core of fully committed students who work through the whole course, and, where available, take an end-of-course assessment or examination. Around the small core will be a rather larger layer of students who do not take any examination but do enrol with a local class or correspondence school. There may be an even larger layer of students who, as well as watching and listening, also buy the accompanying textbook, but who do not enrol in any courses. Then, by far the largest group, are those that just watch or listen to the programmes. Even within this last group, there will be considerable variations, from those who watch or listen fairly regularly, to those, again a much larger number, who watch or listen to just one programme.

Now compare this to Figure 2 (p.13) of the Harvard/MIT report:

MOOC onionI also wrote (p.100):

A sceptic may say that the only ones who can be said to have learned effectively are the tiny minority that worked right through the course and successfully took the final assessment…A counter argument would be that broadcasting can be considered successful if it merely attracts viewers or listeners who might otherwise have shown no interest in the topic; it is the numbers exposed to the material that matter…the key issue then is whether broadcasting does attract to education those who would not otherwise have been interested, or merely provides yet another opportunity for those who are already well educated…There is a good deal of evidence that it is still the better educated in Britain and Europe that make the most use of non-formal educational broadcasting.

Thanks for the validation of my 1984 theory, Harvard/MIT.

Reference

Bates, A. (1984) Broadcasting in Education: An Evaluation. London: Constable