tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7718462793516968883.post5031451431867570170..comments2024-02-19T23:16:40.042-05:00Comments on MadMath: The MOOC as a First AlbumDeltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7718462793516968883.post-87969249410675706022016-04-07T11:46:30.033-04:002016-04-07T11:46:30.033-04:00I totally agree, 100%, of course!
This post mysel...I totally agree, 100%, of course!<br /><br />This post myself was just trying to express a distinction that I observed between "at least minimally coherent" and "total burning garbage heap" presentations. The same as a textbook, say, written over a year or so vs. one written from scratch in 6 weeks (an offer which I actually received at one point, and in a fit of unusual wisdom, declined). Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7718462793516968883.post-89391403834375037932016-04-03T10:47:02.565-04:002016-04-03T10:47:02.565-04:00This is a really good analogy, but I think even th...This is a really good analogy, but I think even the best MOOCs are pretty weak sauce, and the reason is in the name: "massive." If you'll allow me, I'm gonna preach to the choir for a moment for the benefit of those reading your comments section. ;)<br /><br />Here's the thing - once you get past the hoopla and the propaganda and people being overly excited about new technology, telling us that MOOCs can get rid of regular classes is like telling us that books can get rid of regular classes. MOOCs and books both communicate information unidirectionally, so unless you think that media with moving pictures are just THAT MUCH MORE AMAZING AND MIRACULOUS than media without, the suggestion that MOOCs can replace regular classes is just as implausible as the idea that books can.<br /><br />Once we frame the issue that way, the absurdity of the argument becomes easy to see. Books can't replace regular classroom instruction because students have questions, students need more explanation of some material, students' understanding needs to be assessed and corrected, etc. In other words, books can't replace standard classroom instruction because all the really useful stuff involves interaction between teacher and student. And that's exactly what MOOCs cannot provide in any substantial fashion, by design, because they are - let us remember - "massive."<br /><br />The express purpose of a MOOC is to allow huge numbers of students to sign up for the class at once, a model that can only be realized by removing from the equation substantial interaction with the instructor. Sure, the best MOOCs try to build in as much interactivity as possible by attempting to anticipate problem areas and provide supplemental material for students who hit snags. But again, this is not dissimilar from just assembling a lot of material to work with - it does not evade the fundamental problem of unguided learning. The whole reason that traditional classroom education is generally superior to letting students learn on their own is, as stated, that the subject-matter expert can expand on material where needed, address confusions, assess progress, and so on. In other words, the whole advantage lay in the teacher's ability to provide individualized attention to students, which is why class sizes are such a concern for both teachers and students.<br /><br />Blind faith in MOOCs as a "game changer" is baffling to me. It's just more unidirectional media; maybe there's a little more interactivity built in, sure, but, bottom line, the whole difference between MOOCs and just having a textbook and its associated workbook is that one of them looks more modern and technologically sophisticated. People who think there's a significant difference are being seduced by the glitter of new tech. LWSCHURTZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06635573516962732975noreply@blogger.com