- In the early-mid 20th century, college was not the seemingly necessary ticket to the middle-class life that it has now become.
- The expense of college had not spiraled upwards as it now has.
- The Internet was not available to facilitate two-way communication as it now can.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Radio Free MOOC?
This article about the radio-based "MOOCs" of the 1920s and 1930s is a great read. There are some big differences between the current phenomenon and what is described therein that I want to mention:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One problem is that people think education has primarily to do with dissemination of information. There are many ways to do that, and an online platform is well-suited for it. However, the information that we engage with students in the classroom is the base upon which we learn and teach. My experience has been that interactive engagement, which I take to be the essential *sine qua non* of education, is sorely lacking even with the advent of the "social web."
ReplyDeleteI think the first two differences you cite Gabe are what really make MOOCs different and they are why I think they will have the ability to shake things up. Now people really need some form of post-secondary education to make a living, but colleges are putting prices so high that they are putting themselves at risk.
ReplyDeleteThe President of Trinity said in his presentation to the faculty at the end of this last year that he doesn't want to drop the cost of Trinity because he feels that what we are selling is worth the current price. Given that he is an economist, I really wanted to remind him that the cost is determined by what the market will bear, not just by the returns. Yes, I believe that the education students get at Trinity is worth the current tuition. I think there is a positive ROI. However, if a competing product comes in that costs much less, even if it is inferior, it will alter what consumers are willing to spend and hence adjust what can actually be charged.