4 ms·

"The only thing missing is probably the importance of human interaction." That's it, right there. Because, for the majority of students, human interaction isn

by ajarmst 12y ago

"The only thing missing is probably the importance of human interaction." That's it, right there. Because, for the majority of students, human interaction isn't merely important, it's critical. The problem with MOOCs is that, because of this, they can never (baring some serious breakthroughs in strong AI) provide that key component, but we pretend that they're an adequate---some go so far as to claim superior---replacement for traditional education. In the end, MOOCs end up being a smokescreen that helps universities and governments avoid making substantive changes to address the affordability of education. The fact that it also helps them collect tuition from more students without spending any money on infrastructure or professor salaries on top of that is why so many University administrators become visibly aroused at the mention of MOOCs.

clavalle 12y ago
Isn't there a limit to how far 'teaching dependent learners' can go? Why spend so much time and effort accommodating people who are, by definition, self limiting?
- ajarmst 12y ago
  False dichotomy. It's not a case of some minority who can't learn without teachers, but that pretty much all human beings benefit strongly from human interaction while learning (and, in particular, from an asymmetrical pair of roles, with an experienced/knowledgeable member and a novice). Admittedly, some more than others, and there are a rare few who can do nearly as well without it. You could as easily rephrase the argument as "why have MOOCs, when only a small fraction of people wouldn't do much better in traditional education"? My point is that pretending that MOOCs are just as good, or even nearly as good, as more traditional forms prevent us from real effort to actually improve upon those traditional forms, and from applying these very valuable communication tools in ways that are actually effective.

by ajarmst 12y ago

clavalle 12y ago

Isn't there a limit to how far 'teaching dependent learners' can go? Why spend so much time and effort accommodating people who are, by definition, self limiting?

ajarmst 12y ago
False dichotomy. It's not a case of some minority who can't learn without teachers, but that pretty much all human beings benefit strongly from human interaction while learning (and, in particular, from an asymmetrical pair of roles, with an experienced/knowledgeable member and a novice). Admittedly, some more than others, and there are a rare few who can do nearly as well without it. You could as easily rephrase the argument as "why have MOOCs, when only a small fraction of people wouldn't do much better in traditional education"? My point is that pretending that MOOCs are just as good, or even nearly as good, as more traditional forms prevent us from real effort to actually improve upon those traditional forms, and from applying these very valuable communication tools in ways that are actually effective.