5 ms·

The failure of MOOCs #10 is a failure of metric measurement. In the old days if you wanted to learn something, often you'd pay $20 to $50 for a book. For exam

by VLM 9y ago

The failure of MOOCs #10 is a failure of metric measurement. In the old days if you wanted to learn something, often you'd pay $20 to $50 for a book. For example, Amazon order search claims that somewhere I have a copy of "Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming" by Norvig, which is supposed to be a decent book in the field, cool. Ironically maybe that IS the textbook for the famous AI MOOC class, I don't know, maybe it should be if it isn't. However I never finished the class, only glossed thru the book, and barely remember either. I was curious about the topic, not trying to meet someone elses arbitrary goalpost, and the "graduates" metric isn't a useful number. Kinda the difference between running because its a beautiful day out and I need exercise, and running a competitive marathon against live athletes in person solely for the goal of getting a number when I run thru a gate. I would guess in the general public the former outnumbers the latter 50 to 1, so the MOOC stats aren't unusual at all. Another interesting analogy is "The Mona Lisa" painting is a failure if you measure its worth solely based on number of PHD students graduating who give it credit for them selecting "Art History" as a major. That doesn't mean it needs to be burned as a failure.

austenallred 9y ago
OP here (shocked to see this on HN): The context is missing but is important. When I say MOOCs have failed I mean something very specific: asynchronous online learning has proven to be so dramatically less effective than synchronous, guided learning. Better than nothing existing, but we’re learning that only a small subset of people are able to effectively learn from them. In other words, take a random sample of 100 people with the same level of motivation. 90% will complete a live, guided course. 5% will complete a MOOC of the same quality. Which is unfortunate because the live/synchronous part is what is expensive. There was a time when we thought all education was is just a bunch of video lectures, and that if we got a bunch of professors to record their lectures college would be free. We now know that doesn’t work, at least for the vast, vast majority of people, both because we’re unable to discipline ourselves and because most true learning happens in a multi-way environment with accountability measures.
- kbutler 9y ago
  How are you measuring the same level of motivation? From my anecdotal experience, the people taking the "live, guided course" have committed to: - synchronous attendance at a particular time, probably at a particular place - probably a dollar investment - face-to-face contact with instructor - near-traditional learning environment People taking a MOOC have committed to: - browsing on an electronic device There's generally a really high barrier to entry to the synchronous, guided learning, so it seems like comparing students who have paid tuition and enrolled in a class vs prospective students expressing interest on a university recruitment page.
  - edraferi 9y ago
    I think the time commitment is the biggest issue. Let's assume the costs are the same to me (perhaps due to employer subsidy): When I take a MOOC, I'm pledging at least 5 hours a week. That covers 2 hours of videos, 2 hours of homework and 1 hour of additional research / review. If I pledge 5 hours /week to a traditional class, I don't get nearly as much learning. I have to commute to the class, which is at least 30 minutes each way. Now my 5 hours buys me 2 hours of class, 2 hours of commuting and 1 hour of homework. I've lost an hour of homework and an hour of research. I know which one is better for me.
  - austenallred 9y ago
    There have been quite a few studies that have done this in a scientific manner. Internally we have taken sets of students that apply to our free “mini code bootcamp” and sent half to an archived version published each night and send the other half a live link that becomes an archive each night. So we didn’t control scientifically, jsut an AB test, but the shift has been breathtaking. We can also take students that are struggling learning from our MOOCs and they finish the live course almost every time. I know the latter is unscientific, but it becomes obvious over time.
    - kbutler 9y ago
      This Harvard study & Atlantic article by the study authors give the same 5% completion rate you cited, but give a completely opposite interpretation: basically, that the MOOC broadened access, allowing more people to get what they wanted out of the course. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/the-tricky-task-of-figuring-out-what-makes-a-mooc-successful/283274/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/the-tr... https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263 "In these course[sic], “dropping out” is not a breach of expectations but the natural result of an open, free, and asynchronous registration process, where students get just as much as they wish out of a course and registering for a course does not imply a commitment to completing it." ... Also the discussion of the "Colbert Bump", where increased publicity to less-motivated (just curious) students doubled completion but tripled registration (thus reducing completion rate). Also the point about whether to allow or disallow registration after the course begins (late registrants are ineligible for certification, so they are automatically "failed"). "HarvardX could boost its certification rate by closing those courses to new registrants or restrict courses to those most likely to complete them. Instead, it keeps courses open to maximize the number of students who are learning something new." I absolutely agree that (at least some) users can be helped by live instruction or supplemented online instruction, but I disagree that commonly cited, low completion rates measure students with the "same level of motivation".

by VLM 9y ago

austenallred 9y ago

OP here (shocked to see this on HN): The context is missing but is important. When I say MOOCs have failed I mean something very specific: asynchronous online learning has proven to be so dramatically less effective than synchronous, guided learning. Better than nothing existing, but we’re learning that only a small subset of people are able to effectively learn from them. In other words, take a random sample of 100 people with the same level of motivation. 90% will complete a live, guided course. 5% will complete a MOOC of the same quality. Which is unfortunate because the live/synchronous part is what is expensive. There was a time when we thought all education was is just a bunch of video lectures, and that if we got a bunch of professors to record their lectures college would be free. We now know that doesn’t work, at least for the vast, vast majority of people, both because we’re unable to discipline ourselves and because most true learning happens in a multi-way environment with accountability measures.

kbutler 9y ago
How are you measuring the same level of motivation? From my anecdotal experience, the people taking the "live, guided course" have committed to: - synchronous attendance at a particular time, probably at a particular place - probably a dollar investment - face-to-face contact with instructor - near-traditional learning environment People taking a MOOC have committed to: - browsing on an electronic device There's generally a really high barrier to entry to the synchronous, guided learning, so it seems like comparing students who have paid tuition and enrolled in a class vs prospective students expressing interest on a university recruitment page.
- edraferi 9y ago
  I think the time commitment is the biggest issue. Let's assume the costs are the same to me (perhaps due to employer subsidy): When I take a MOOC, I'm pledging at least 5 hours a week. That covers 2 hours of videos, 2 hours of homework and 1 hour of additional research / review. If I pledge 5 hours /week to a traditional class, I don't get nearly as much learning. I have to commute to the class, which is at least 30 minutes each way. Now my 5 hours buys me 2 hours of class, 2 hours of commuting and 1 hour of homework. I've lost an hour of homework and an hour of research. I know which one is better for me.
- austenallred 9y ago
  There have been quite a few studies that have done this in a scientific manner. Internally we have taken sets of students that apply to our free “mini code bootcamp” and sent half to an archived version published each night and send the other half a live link that becomes an archive each night. So we didn’t control scientifically, jsut an AB test, but the shift has been breathtaking. We can also take students that are struggling learning from our MOOCs and they finish the live course almost every time. I know the latter is unscientific, but it becomes obvious over time.
  - kbutler 9y ago
    This Harvard study & Atlantic article by the study authors give the same 5% completion rate you cited, but give a completely opposite interpretation: basically, that the MOOC broadened access, allowing more people to get what they wanted out of the course. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/the-tricky-task-of-figuring-out-what-makes-a-mooc-successful/283274/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/the-tr... https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263 "In these course[sic], “dropping out” is not a breach of expectations but the natural result of an open, free, and asynchronous registration process, where students get just as much as they wish out of a course and registering for a course does not imply a commitment to completing it." ... Also the discussion of the "Colbert Bump", where increased publicity to less-motivated (just curious) students doubled completion but tripled registration (thus reducing completion rate). Also the point about whether to allow or disallow registration after the course begins (late registrants are ineligible for certification, so they are automatically "failed"). "HarvardX could boost its certification rate by closing those courses to new registrants or restrict courses to those most likely to complete them. Instead, it keeps courses open to maximize the number of students who are learning something new." I absolutely agree that (at least some) users can be helped by live instruction or supplemented online instruction, but I disagree that commonly cited, low completion rates measure students with the "same level of motivation".