They note:
It was clear from the first few years of MOOC research that
MOOCs disproportionately drew their learners from affluent countries and
neighborhoods, and markers of socioeconomic status were correlated with
greater persistence and certification.
In 2012 to 2013, 80% of learners came from countries rated with high or
very high United Nations Human Development Index ratings.
That proportion grew slightly through 2015 to 2016, so that the
majority of new registrations and certifications came from the world's
most affluent countries. Rather than creating
new pathways at the margins of global higher education, MOOCs are
primarily a complementary asset for learners within existing systems. Last,
MOOCs' low completion rate has barely budged, despite 6 years
of investment in course development and learning research.
A strategy that depends on bringing new learners into higher education
cannot succeed if educational institutions cannot support learners in
converting their time and financial investment into completing a course
to earn a credential with labor market value....MOOCs will not transform higher education and probably will not
disappear entirely. Rather, they will provide new supports for specific
niches within already existing education systems, primarily supporting
already educated learners. The 6-year saga of MOOCs provides a
cautionary tale for education policy-makers facing whatever will be the
next promoted innovation in education technology, be it artificial
intelligence or virtual reality or some unexpected new entrant. New
education technologies are rarely disruptive but instead are
domesticated by existing cultures and systems.
Here are my observations:
1. My first one was an MIT course which I had actually taught decades before. The problem was that the software for the exams was defective, the information for using it was not there, and the overall structure was banal at best.
2. I took an Epigenetics course. After overcoming the language issue, Australian versus US, the most disturbing part was the usage of "peer evaluation" This means one is evaluated by those who know less and are often motivated to suppress those they feel are superior. The worst of the culture exploitation. The instructor was clearly in my opinion clueless on this dynamic. Peer Evaluation is one of the worst concepts in education.
3. Some instructors in courses were totally incomprehensible. Totally. One chemistry course had a few folks rambling across a board of stuff and one wondered if they just wanted to have a MOOC presence.
On the positive side:
1. A Hong Kong medical course was spot on, as was a US chemistry course, as was a Harvard Med Immunology course.
2. In contrast the Harvard Med Genetics course was driven by cartoons, yes real cartoons. It was as costly as the immunology one bust in my opinion targeted for the millennial.
Overall I have tried well over two dozen of these. A recent couple from Mt Sinai in New York was exceptionally well done. The were short, on a specific topic, well articulated, and kept on topic.
I found Cousera much better whereas EdX was all too often an overdone attempt as a semester level course. Often missing the target.
The drop rate is significant yet there does not seem to any attempt to find out why. With such an attitude one sadly sees them going by the wayside.
The best course was the MIT one on introductory Biology with Eric Lander. It was just a well done recording of his lectures with exceptionally well thought out problems. In contrast when a colleague tried a genetics course it lacked the vibrancy of the Lander lectures.
Posts
