Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have been a topic
of debate for a number of years. Pundits have proclaimed they would be the end
of higher education as we know it, while critics point to poor completion rates
as proof that they simply don’t work.
What MOOCs have done is create a conversation about how
we learn and teach, according to Joshua Kim, director of digital learning
initiatives at the Dartmouth Center for the Advancement of Learning and a
contributor to Inside Higher Education.
“Every college and university is working to make sure
that the classes offered on campus offer greater value than what can be had
online and for free,” Kim wrote in a recent blog post.
“Methods and practices around residential education are being re-examined and
rethought. Learning is understood as a competitive institutional
differentiator.”
At the same time, Kim has issues with the assumptions
both experts and detractors make about open online education. The first is the idea
that MOOCs are a substitute for traditional courses.
“Higher-order learning is an activity that cannot be
scaled,” he wrote. “Foundational knowledge may be appropriate for a MOOC (or a
textbook, or even a really well-designed educational video game), but advanced
learning works best with an educator.”
Other things about MOOCs that Kim said are often misleading
include the idea that MOOCs are the same as online education; that open online
courses will lower the cost of education; that the work of traditional colleges
and universities is being threatened; that the cost of producing MOOCs is prohibitive;
that MOOCs remain a fad; and that they will not change higher ed.
“The bigger higher-ed story that nobody seems to be
telling is just how much better colleges and universities are getting,” Kim
wrote. “Where everyone is focused on climbing walls and lazy rivers, the real
story is improved learning.”
