The Resistance Stage has begun. The hype about MOOCs was bound to boil over. Let the record show that it began in earnest on April 29, 2013, with a bold statement by the Philosophy Department at San Jose State University (SJSU) in the form of an Open Letter to Harvard University Professor Michael Sandel. The first shot fired: the department’s refusal to pilot Dr. Sandel’s JusticeX course offered by MOOC provider edX.
In their Open Letter, SJSU raises a bunch of good points about format, connection, engagement, pedagogy, and diversity of audience. But at its core, this move is about fear. The faculty of SJSU fear that the status quo will be disrupted, and that California (State University system) will slide down a slippery slope and fall into the ocean.
Overstated? From the Open Letter: “Let’s not kid ourselves; administrators at the CSU are beginning a process of replacing faculty with cheap online education.” We’ve heard this argument before, haven’t we? Replace “cheap online education” with “chalk-and-talk videos,” “course management systems,” and, if you go back far enough, “textbooks.”
To me, it boils down to a simple question to college faculty: What are you here for—research or teaching?
The Open Letter gives the impression that the faculty of SJSU believe that their research is of primary importance, and that teaching students is secondary: “One of the most important aspects of being a university professor is scholarship in one’s specialization. Students benefit enormously from interaction with professors engaged in such research.” That’s undeniably true, for specialized upper-level courses. How important is this aspect as you move down the curriculum, though? Do you need a noted scholar to teach intro level courses? Probably not, and that’s usually reflected in teaching assignments.
But here’s the disconnect. At a place like SJSU, a lot of public money—and tuition dollars—go into funding research that will have little impact. As noted above by SJSU, the research process is important, and the failures are a part of that process. Great things get discovered, invented, or synthesized out of this process.
I think that the public understands this, and tuition-paying students too. But when you’re picking up the tab (or at least part of it), shouldn’t you expect more than to be an afterthought in the system?
Proximity to rarified scholars is not what SJSU is for. At least not primarily. But it could be what MOOCs are for. When I look at the latent potential of MOOCs, the goal is not to replace faculty, but to empower them.
Imagine that you ceded your position at the podium to some other noted scholar and then were freed up to use the best and irreplaceable resource that you have to offer—direct, real-time connection with your students. Your job as an instructor is not to inject knowledge into your students in person, it’s to challenge and urge and inspire. Transfer of knowledge is best done asynchronously anyway, whether it’s a textbook or a video lecture or a simulation.
In the “flipped classroom” model, MOOC-style, you can delegate the heavy lifting of lecturing to someone who’s already done the work. Why waste scarce in-class time running through a presentation for an intro-level course that’s essentially being repeated over and over again in classrooms across the country?
But if you think of your job as research-first, and then let students collect scraps of knowledge that fall from the podium as you lecture, then of course you are scared. There’s always someone who knows more than you, who’s a better lecturer and a bigger star than you.
Ceding control takes courage, self-confidence, and getting comfortable with some risk. Robert C. Pianta, dean of the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia, is not worried about being “supplanted” by MOOCs. I like his spirit of experimentation, in attempting to use Coursera (another MOOC provider) to run a practical teacher training program that might even benefit the folks at SJSU.
I don’t mean to pick on SJSU, but they fired the first shot. And the debate is better for it. I am not in favor, nor against, MOOCs in general. The ink’s not dry on the MOOC story. It’s too soon to tell whether they will have a lasting impact, or be dumped in the hype dustbin. But MOOCs were borne out of a dissatisfaction with the current system, and that’s worth examining.
Opting out is a symptom, not a cure. You can’t stop progress, you can only get left behind. And if it’s not MOOCs, it will be something else. Change is going to happen around you, whether you like it or not. I’d prefer to participate rather than be passive.
Let’s focus on teaching, not fear. I didn’t hear enough about students in the Open Letter—about the things that will really help them achieve their individual goals in their time spent at SJSU. What’s good for them—your students—is what’s good for you as well. Look to them first. Solve their issues, and you will solve your own.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Michael Boezi.
About Michael Boezi
Michael Boezi is an Independent Advisor and Content Strategist, specializing in helping authors and publishers make the Shift to Digital. He is a longtime publishing veteran who has always been at the forefront of the industry by applying the lessons of the traditional to the process of innovation, mixing the ideal with the practical. He was Vice President of Content and Community at Flat World Knowledge, where he was responsible for all aspects of content acquisition and development, and built a catalog of 100+ peer-reviewed, openly licensed college textbooks across various subjects. Prior to that, he was Executive Editor at Pearson Education, where he published history books for college courses. He writes a blog about current issues and trends in the EdTech industry at http://trackedchange.tumblr.com. For a full portfolio and more detail on consulting services for content creators, content owners, and investors, please see http://michaelboezi.com. Connect with him on LinkedIn, Twitter, and Google+.
- Web |
- Google+ |
- More Posts (4)