Friday, August 23, 2013

A Clearer Picture Begins to Emerge

In a revealing interview with Information Week, Sebastian Thrun states the following:

What Udacity is creating, Thrun said, is "an online version of education that really works, that has great retention, great outcomes of education and really reaches people -- not just the world's most motivated 1% -- but can be made to work for many more people."

And what is the secret to creating "an online version of education that really works"? (Emphases mine.)


Thrun's magic formula is not a fully automated online class featuring prerecorded videos and Web-based assessments. In other words, it's not a MOOC at all. To get better results, he said, "We changed the equation and put people on the ground." By adding mentors and a help line, and making phone calls to remind students to do their work, Udacity found it could get more students to do the work, finish the course and pass. Longer term, he has some ideas about using adaptive learning software to eliminate some of this labor, but for now it takes manpower.

"When we look at the data, which we are still analyzing, we do find a whole bunch of people for whom online education doesn't work," Thrun said. "But we're now massively driving students through education with good outcomes -- where these are not the classic, highly self-motivated people."
For this observer, the following questions come to mind:

Sunday, August 18, 2013

As MOOCs is Gaining Popularity, What Should ACS Institutions Do to React?


In his article “The end of universities as we know it,” Nathan Harden (2013) has made a bold prediction that in fifty years, or even sooner, half of the roughly 4,500 colleges and universities now operating in the United States will have ceased to exist. He further depicts the picture of the future of higher education as follows:

    Access to college-level education will be free for everyone; the residential college campus will become largely obsolete; tens of thousands of professors will lose their jobs; the bachelor’s degree will become increasingly irrelevant; and ten years from now Harvard will enroll ten million students.

 

It is easy to guess that the driving force for this revolutionary change depicted by Harden is attributed to the “massive open online courses” (MOOCs). Harden concludes that MOOCs are “poised to forever change the way students learn and universities teach.”

Nathan Harden speculates that MOOCs may transform the future primary platform for higher education a third-party website, not the university itself. A global marketplace may be emerging where courses from numerous universities on a single website. From that platform, students can pick the best offerings and customize his/her education. Consequently, this marketplace will dramatically increase competitions among universities.  Harden articulates the impacts of MOOCs may impose on different-tier colleges and universities as follows:

Prestigious institutions, especially those few extremely well-endowed ones with money to buffer and finance change, will be in a position to dominate this virtual, global educational marketplace. The bottom feeders—the for-profit colleges and low-level public and non-profit colleges—will disappear or turn into the equivalent of vocational training institutions. Universities of all ranks below the very top will engage each other in an all-out war of survival.

 

The impact of MOOCs on professors, as Harden sees it, will also be drastic. While the most popular professors will enjoy massive influence, professors who are less popular, will be “squeezed out.”

As we are wrapping up our MOOCs experience project, I wonder what kind of impressions came to you when you read the predictions about future higher-ed made by Harden. And what suggestions we may make for ACS institutions to react to the challenges and opportunities posed by the ever-increasing MOOCs, if required? And personally, as “someone who has a horse in this race,” what should we prepare for the change? Fortunately, as demonstrated by this project itself, the MOOCs phenomenon has caused attention of ACS. I wonder what next step ACS is going to take to meet the challenge or take advantage of this opportunity.

Friday, August 16, 2013

Buffet-style schooling

I have tasted the Smörgåsbord of online learning, and it's time to reflect.
When eating out, buffets can be both exciting and perilous. Buffets allow you to taste a little of this, and a little of that -- sample anything that looks interesting, and avoid the things that look unappetizing. On the other hand, it's easy to get carried away, and load up your cafeteria tray a little too full (hence why many colleges have moved to tray-less cafeterias, since juggling plates is apparently an effective antidote to this problem!).
So now I am staring at a number of partially eaten MOOCs on my plate, and although I may not have given the whole experience adequate time to digest, I'm going to offer some observations on the various MOOC courses and platforms I've crossed paths with.

1) Coursera. My first experience with MOOCs was through Coursera, and as I mentioned in my previous post I completed two Coursera courses in 2012: one in computer science, the other in business. Last year I also started (but dropped) a third course on Cryptography. More recently, I got enticed into Coursera's course on Data Science, and completed a little over half of the course before other pressing events in my (real-world) life caused me to fall behind. Coursera courses start and end on a specific date, and have regular due dates for each assignment/quiz, and once I fell behind, I lacked the time and motivation to catch back up. After the course had ended, I was surprised to discover that I had earned a 70% in the course (good enough for a certificate), despite not completing the peer-reviewed exercise or the second graded quiz.

This course was innovative in that it provided an (optional) “real-world assignment” which matched up students with non-profit organizations to analyze real datasets and hopefully provide benefit to the organizations who provided the data. At Centre College, we regularly do something similar in our Software Engineering and Database courses, getting students to work on projects for real clients who can actually benefit from software solutions. While I didn't end up participating in this Coursera assignment myself, the idea of pulling off this kind of student-client match-up on a grand scale is intriguing. It's these kind of creative assignments that help MOOCs move past the working-in-isolation lecture-watching quiz-taking format. Of course, fair assessment and grading of such assignments is going to be a problem for MOOCs, but sometimes I think that grades are overrated, and the experience of building/analyzing something real is worth more to the student's education than a letter grade. Furthermore, a well-done project could be added to a student's portfolio and shown to potential employers.

I also enrolled in a Coursera course called “Startup Engineering”, which I have dabbled with a bit – mainly just to see what content/skills are covered in this course.

Finally, I'm pre-enrolled in a Coursera course called “Video Games and Learning”, coming from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. It's quite dubious that I'll have time to really take this course, but to return to the central metaphor for this blog post: I keep seeing more dishes that look interesting, so I scoop them up and put them on my plate. (Even if my plate is already full.)

2) Udacity. I have continued working my way through the “Artificial Intelligence for Robotics” course here, in fits and starts, and the little blue progress part shown on the “My courses” page at Udacity suggests that I am about 2/3 of the way through. My “self-pacing” in this course has been decidedly unspectacular, with sporadic MOOC binging, followed by long gaps. Perhaps because some of the material is familiar, I don't find it riveting enough to stay “hooked”. Perhaps it's just my natural proclivity toward perpetual procrastination, and getting caught up in my own summer research projects. In any case, it raises continued concerns that the self-pacing model will not work well for some (many?) students.

Several months ago, I also signed up for another self-paced Udacity course called “Differential Equations in Action”, but have yet to complete the first lesson. It's kind of like purchasing a (free) book that I think I'd like to read some day, but for now it's just sitting on my bookshelf.

3) Open2Study. This is an Australian MOOC platform, which is currently offering around 30 free courses (but is also affiliated with Open Universities Australia (OUA), which offers accredited online degree programs). I enrolled in a business course called “Big Data for Better Performance”, but then forgot about it. Unlike Coursera, which spews weekly emails into my inbox to remind me about upcoming deadlines, course announcements, and syllabus changes, Open2Study didn't nag me with reminders. In fact, I signed up for it before it started, and then I forgot about it until after the course was already finished, and I had (essentially) “flunked” it. Though I daresay the term “flunked” doesn't really apply to MOOCs... I didn't get a failing grade, because I got no grade at all. The site simply informs me that “no certificate was earned” for that course. Even though the course has officially ended, it seems that I can still go back and watch the lectures and take the quizzes – it just doesn't “count” for anything. Then again, did it really “count” for anything to begin with?

Just today I signed up for another course on Video Game Development at Open2Study. The smörgåsbord strikes again.

I must say that some aspects of this system feel a bit childish... see screenshot below. A bit surprising given Open2Study's affiliation with Open Universities Australia. This message feels more “elementary-school” than “collegiate” – but gamification runs rampant these days... and it might really work.



4) Udemy. Udemy has a distinctly different feel from the other MOOC providers. If Coursera, Udacity, and EdX are all sit-down restaurants with chefs trained at established culinary schools, then Udemy is a open-market bazaar (without health inspectors or restaurant critics, but with plenty of customer reviews to help you find the more reputable vendors and tastier food trucks). That is, the courses at Udemy can be taught by anyone – not just professors at elite institutions. In fact, if you wanted to create your own course (about just about anything – say “Viennese Waltz”, or “How to clean berry stains off of anything”), you could make that course and offer it on Udemy. (Think Youtube, but for education?) Another key difference is that Udemy *does* charge for many of it's courses, although many are also free. Or rather, the individuals who create the courses may charge for the courses, and Udemy takes a cut of the profits.

I signed up for a free course on HTML5 at Udemy. It started off too elementary for me, since I am already familiar with HTML, and just wanted to brush up on the latest developments in web design, layout, and scripting. I may skip to the later chapters, or I may ditch it entirely – we'll see. One thing that I did think was particularly well-done in Udemy was the integrated “note-taking” app that sat beside the video, allowing you to jot down notes while watching the video, AND those notes are hotlinked back to the time in the video that you took them, effectively allowing you to bookmark key concepts and jump to them. I haven't seen anything like it on Coursera or Udacity, but I think it's a great step forward, and once again it moves beyond the mere “recorded lecture plus quiz” format, to take advantage of the interactive nature of the media. I'm including a screenshot below.



In general, I think this open exchange marketplace for educational courses is a neat idea. But like many of the MOOC options today, it lacks coherence of curriculum, and I have trouble envisioning how it might replace a traditional college experience. On the other hand, it seems like a cornucopia for continuing education, especially for picking up new technical skills. I expect Udemy (or sites like it) will be a commonly-used platform for businesses looking to train workers in new technologies, or workers looking to update their marketable skillsets.

5) EdX.  I haven't taken any courses from EdX yet, but I know someone who took one of MITx's introductory physics courses, and who reported it to be quite academically rigorous, but deficient because of lacking the hands-on “lab” component, which is a key element for learning science.

 6) Of course, there are a plethora of other MOOC providers (here's a fairly comprehensive list), but I won't discuss them since I don't have any personal experience with them to relate.

To recap: at this point, I've signed up for 11 MOOCs in total, on four different platforms. Of these, I have earned a certificate in 3, failed to complete 3, will probably ditch 1 more, am still actively working on one, and 3 others are yet to start. If I don't complete any more, my completion rate will be around 27%, which probably still puts me well above average (given the ~10% completion rates reported for many MOOCs).

Buffet-style schooling has some important advantages over a traditional education (namely flexibility), but also poses some challenges. It's up to you to make sure you choose a healthy assortment of food, and you don't bite off more than you can chew...

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

MOOCs vs. "real" courses

Having completed my first MOOC, I would like to reflect upon the differences between my MOOC experience and the Computer Science courses I teach at Hendrix College.

The greatest strength of the MOOC is asynchrony.  You can watch the lecture where you want, when you want, and even get instant feedback on your work.  There is no limit on class size or enrollment.  There is no need for a time turner to enroll in multiple courses that are scheduled on top of each other.

So what do my synchronous, class-time-intensive courses have to offer in comparison?  The most important thing is pedagogy for topics that cannot be interactively taught by a computer program.  Whether it is a class discussion on the finer points of a proof in an Algorithms course or an analysis of a requirements document in a Software Engineering course, the fact is that much of the material in the computing discipline is not amenable to the MOOC treatment.

Furthermore, much of the feedback a student requires for individual work is also not readily communicable in the MOOC manner, which relies upon being able to program a computer to give the proper feedback.  In other words, as long as artifacts of Artificial Intelligence cannot pass the Turing Test, there are core elements of computing that will require a human teacher.  Here are a few examples:

  • Writing proofs of correctness and asymptotic complexity
  • Writing requirements documents and specifications
  • Writing properly structured, well-engineered code
  • Developing solutions to free-form projects
In all of these cases, we have vaguely defined problems that admit a multitude of solutions.  As the problems are vague, so too is the problem of assessing the solutions.  In fact, this assessment is best seen as an interactive process, not a one-time decision.  A good instructor can examine a code submission, give the student feedback, and later review the resubmitted version.  The cycle can continue until the code is satisfactory.

It is indeed noteworthy that most of the items in the above list begin with the word "writing".  It is the development of the ability to communicate a technical solution to another human being with a need that can be met computationally that distinguishes the successful computer scientist.  To develop this ability requires a human coach.  That is how I see myself as a college instructor.  I structure every single one of my courses around the goal of helping my students develop this capacity.  This affects everything from my use of class time to the types of assignments I create and the type of feedback I give when grading.  

So having made these observations, what might the role of MOOCs be in a liberal arts college?  Computing programs at small colleges are often limited in the electives they are able to offer.  It is easy to imagine running an independent-study course in which the student works through a MOOC under the supervision of the instructor.  By augmenting the MOOC with some open-ended project assignments, something closer to a real course experience can be developed.  

But there are some important caveats to note.  First, a MOOC does not necessarily cover content equivalent to a full course. In some situations, creating a proper experience might require more than one MOOC, or perhaps a MOOC in combination with a substantial amount of extra material.  Second, this is not a basis for planning a curriculum, any more than independent study courses would already be employed in such a manner.  To their credit, Udacity has made their courses available under a Creative Commons license. In principle, a useful MOOC could be archived by an institution, in case for whatever reason Udacity in the future does not maintain its availability.  Nevertheless, there is much reason to be wary of MOOCs as being an ephemeral resource.

Much early commentary on MOOCs focused on the possibility of the elimination of the university as we know it.  Thrun himself suggested that in 50 years, there might be as few as 10 institutions delivering higher education.  This particular bit of hysteria is calming down, as reality sets in.  Creating a MOOC has cost the University of Pennsylvania about $50,000 per course.  From my own experience, it is clear that this is not a static investment.  Even a top-flight MOOC is subject to plenty of bugs and problems, and I suspect revisions and updates will be a significant long-term cost.

In any event, it is noteworthy that Thrun himself has walked away from his earlier rhetoric, emphasizing that "...human contact and mentoring make a substantial difference in learning outcomes."  Contact with the right humans is what makes higher education expensive.  It is reasonable to expect cost savings to be modest at best.

I believe this first generation of the MOOC phenomenon has been very valuable.  Many of the MOOCs (especially from Udacity) are terrific resources for learning.  But much of the value comes from forcing those of us in brick-and-mortar institutions to clarify, both for ourselves and for our students, what precise value we add with our (expensive) human presence.  I hope this little essay has made at least a modest contribution in this direction.

Review: Udacity CS 373, Artificial Intelligence for Robotics

Introduction
Having worked in the area of robotics while in graduate school, I was once fairly up-to-date on the latest ideas in the field.  However, I never studied the probabilistic robotics ideas of Sebastian Thrun (which were first published during my graduate school years), although I was vaguely familiar with what he was doing.  The MOOC CS 373, Artificial Intelligence for Robotics, provided me with an opportunity to rectify this gap in my knowledge.  I completed the course over a period of several months.

Format
As with most of Udacity's offerings, straight lecture segments run for a maximum of three to four minutes.  In a conventional classroom, a student is part of a captive audience.  With a MOOC, I found that even 30 seconds of boredom resulted in my opening of new tabs on my browser to seek something more interesting.  So this particular maximum duration strikes me as a savvy move.  Some segments are as short as a minute.  Each segment culminates in some kind of interactive activity.  In some cases, this involves thinking for a moment and answering a multiple-choice question.  In other cases, the student must write or modify a computer program (in Python).

The course is divided into six units:

  • Localization and review of probability theory
  • Kalman Filters for tracking
  • Particle Filters for localization
  • Path Planning with A* and Dynamic Programming
  • PID Control
  • GRAPHSLAM
Each unit consists of a series of interleaved lectures and exercises, ending with a "problem set".  After the last unit is a "final exam".  

As I watched the lectures, I actively took notes.  It was often really helpful to re-wind the lectures multiple times to clarify an obscure or confusing point.  Although it is possible in Udacity's environment to do all of the programming within the web browser, I always made a local copy of the code on my own machine.  This was especially helpful for keeping the code around for future reference.


Strengths
In general, the presentations were lucid and clear.  I have already begun implementing particle filters on my Lego Mindstorms NXT robots.  I am also looking forward to finding opportunities to implement a PID controller and to use GraphSlam.  I found this course to be much easier to follow than Thrun's book Probabilistic Robotics.  This course and that book work well together, actually, because the course provides great context for understanding what he is trying to do in the book.

I found the particle filter, PID controller, and GraphSlam lessons to be particularly effective in slowly building up the material in a comprehensible way.  Especially in GraphSlam, the transition from 1D to 2D and from offline to online was quite effective.

Weaknesses
One of the goals of the course is to employ Bayes Rule as a unifying concept among the various probabilistic techniques.  The effectiveness of this strategy diminished as the course continued.  By the time we got to GraphSlam, the relationship back to the Bayesian foundation was not at all clear.

Related to this is the explicit aversion to explaining derivations in the lectures.  On one level, this is entirely comprehensible; for many students, such things are merely a distraction.  On the other hand, much of the content felt superficial and arbitrary.  A great option would be to have bonus lectures outside of the main sequence containing a deeper overview of the derivations.

The code itself was often put together rather casually.  For example, the 2D GraphSlam exercise requires us to take noise into account.  I neglected to do this in my solution, and it worked perfectly!  The reason it worked is that the motion noise and measurement noise were equivalent.  If they had been set to different values, students would not be able to get away with ignoring the noise as I had.

Another problem with the code is the degree to which good software engineering practices are not modeled well for the students.  Global variables abound, and are often freely intermixed with parameters inside of function definitions.

The use of Python is not always idiomatic; many of my implementations were much shorter than those presented.  List comprehensions, for example, can eliminate many multi-line loops.

The Twiddle exercises were particularly weak.  The second one, in which the instructor confesses not actually having solved it, was especially annoying.

My biggest disappointment with the course, however, was the lack of coverage of essential material. In particular, how does one identify a landmark for use in GraphSlam from sensor data?  The glib answers in the Q&A betrayed this gap.  "Use RANSAC."  "Create local 5x5 meter maps."  "Invert omega to get the covariance matrix." These questions suggest that the course ended too quickly and abruptly.  It is interesting how, on the one hand, a 14-week course is derided as an arbitrary length, but on the other hand, this course is cut off at six weeks while neglecting a critical part of the material necessary for programming a robot.

Another nice extension would be to incorporate FastSlam into the course.  This would build nicely off the excellent coverage of particle filters in Unit 3.  I would love to see some lectures inviting a comparison and contrast between the two SLAM methods.

Conclusion
I enjoyed this course, and given my goals it was a good use of my time, in spite of the flaws I described above.

It is really hard for me to call this a "course".  It does not map well to what I do in a semester of teaching.  I definitely cover a lot more material (both in lecture and in assignments).  But it is a great collection of lectures.

In a follow-up post, I give my thoughts on how MOOCs relate more specifically to the experience at a liberal arts college.

Friday, June 7, 2013

Using MOOC-like technologies in the new media classroom


MOOCs are a victim of the rhetoric peddled by their boosters. The far-fetched claim that MOOCs will eliminate higher education has prompted an enormous amount of backlash. This is unfortunate because the tension between MOOCs and contemporary college classrooms is a false dichotomy. 

This posting describes my experience with a web design course that used MOOC-like technologies and "badges" to nurture students in a process of self-directed learning.

Course Overview

At least once a year, I teach a course titled "Interactive Multimedia: Web Design." As with most courses offered in the Department of Communication, this class combines hands-on practice with a healthy dose of communication theory. Students are asked to read essays on a wide range of topics, including: the importance of programming literacy (Douglas Rushkoff), the importance of usability (Donald Norman and Steven Anderson), programming as cultural practice (Ellen Ullman), threats posed by the rapid acceleration of technology (Bill Joy, Ted "Unabomber" Kaczynski), the rise of symbolic labor (Robert Reich), and maker culture (Cory Doctorow). 
Students can choose between badges in the
following categories: empowered users, graphic design,
entrepreneurship, industry analysis, programming, and
user experience. They can also propose their own badges.

Students are sometimes disappointed when they are asked to read essays about technology criticism, cultural studies, and metacognition in a web design class. "Can't we just learn CSS and HTML?" they ask. My stock answer is that the process of learning will not end after they graduate from Trinity. If we were to devote all of our time in the classroom to mastering the tools of web production, without any discussion of the broader context in which these technologies are situated, it would be an enormous disservice to the students. In the short run, they might be happy, but in the long run -- when CSS and HTML have evolved into something entirely unrecognizable -- they would realize that they squandered their tuition dollars on a short-lived set of concepts. 

It's cliched to point this out, but the rate of technological change is accelerating. It's not just that things are changing quickly; the rate of change is speeding up. How do we prepare our students to function in such a landscape? Two years ago, in an attempt to adapt to the changing landscape, I completely overhauled the web design course and folded in MOOC-like resources along with a badge component. 

Course Structure

During the first half of the semester, we cover basic HTML, cascading stylesheets, and basic JavaScript. All of the students are asked to create three miniature web sites -- each site slightly more complicated than the one that came before it. Along the way, we focus on theoretical concepts (e.g. interface design, typography, tools for usability engineering) that cut across specific programming skills. 

For example, the empowered user category
included badges about Flash Animation,
Garageband, Adobe Illustrator, the pesky
Pen Tool, Photoshop masks, UNIX, and
web server configuration. 
During the second half of the semester, student work outside the classroom is focused primarily on the completion of specialization badges. Students are encouraged to forge their own path through the course material by completing badges from the following categories: coding, industry analysis, graphic design, user experience, power user skills, and entrepreneurship. In order to earn an A grade on the badge component, students must master at least eight specialization badges. To ensure breadth, all students must complete at least one badge in each category in order to pass the course. (Note: Students were also allowed to pitch their own badges if they could make the case for the badge's connection to course themes.)

Each badge requires students to explore a topic on their own, using technical manuals and relevant on-line trainings from Lynda.Com. After working through the tutorials, students demonstrate their mastery of the concepts by applying the skills in their own work. Last, but not least, students earn the badge by documenting the experience in a blog posting that reflects on their own learning style, analyses the utility of the skill/tool mastered, and explains how these things came together in their creative work. It is not enough to simply work through the tutorial and create something with the tool. The students' critical self reflection is the most important part of the process. 

Outcomes

The semester culminates in student presentations during the final examination period. As with our Capstone course, the presentation component is important. Students are asked to dress up (business casual) and to deliver rehearsed presentations about the work they accomplished during the semester. During the final presentations, I quietly listen for the presence of two factors that help me assess whether or not the course was a success: 1) the confidence that students display in their own technical abilities and 2) an ability to reflect on how their own learning style intersected with their work on the badges. 
Badge deliverables invariably included a MOOC-like
tutorial (video or print-based) and a series of creative
deliverables. Students completed the circle by posting
a reflective blog essay that connected work to their
own learning style and overarching course themes. 

I'm not a neutral observer; we see what we want to see. However, by the end of the semester, most of the students seem genuinely excited about what they've accomplished, they seem confident about their ability to master unfamiliar material, and they are eager to tackle new technology-related topics on their own long after their time at Trinity has come to an end. 

Links to MOOCs

As they work on the badges, students dip into an educational ecosystem that includes many MOOC-like ingredients. The tutorial videos on Lynda.Com are, in essence, miniature courses that teach students how to master creative tools and programming languages. Though these resources don't mimic the flow of an academic semester, and though they don't have quizzes or tests, they have much in common with MOOCs. These are massive, online, self-paced courses. Since Trinity underwrites the subscription to Lynda.Com, these tutorials are also "open." 

As an instructor, this approach makes it possible for me to cover a wide range of topics while still using the traditional framework (discussions and class meetings) in a meaningful way that intersects with the badge work. Each student chooses a unique, personally meaningful path through the world of web design, but there are also shared, collective elements there are common to all students in the class. 

These badges are non transferable

So far, the badge approach seems to have worked, and I plan to continue this experiment in future versions of the course. Now that I have written the descriptions for 33 badges (no small task), it will be relatively easy to add and subtract badges as the landscape changes. 

However, based on this experience, I am deeply skeptical of those who argue that higher education should replace (or at least supplement) grades with a badge-like system that certifies the acquisition of certain skills. I have been particularly troubled by those who envision our education world as a universal MOOC with badges used to certify our accomplishments. 

It was hard enough for me, as a single instructor, to flesh out a workable badge framework within the context of this web course. Luckily, I was protected by academic freedom and the widely shared belief that instructors have the right to decide what happens in their own courses. 

If these badges were suddenly treated as transferable commodities -- if they started to show up on student transcripts as a way of certifying mastery of certain technical concepts -- it would be necessary for some sort of standards setting body to flesh out what constitutes sufficient accomplishment. Suddenly, an approach that I incorporated in the hopes of fueling student creativity and my own pedagogical experimentation would turn into something much less exciting. Before too long, the badge approach would become just another strategy for "teaching to the test." I have no interest in being part of such a world. 

As for those educators who argue that students need badges to certify their accomplishments, I would tell them the same thing that I tell my students: The proof is in the pudding. And the pudding is the student's portfolio.

Certifications, grades, and badges are extremely rough indicators of an individual's capabilities and accomplishments. More than once, I have been involved in hiring processes in which we offered programming jobs to candidates based on the alphabet soup of certifications at the bottom of their resume. More than once, those have turned out to be "Very Bad Hires." They looked good on paper, but were a disaster in the workplace. 

More than once, I have hired individuals based entirely on what I have seen in their creative and technical portfolios. Did they comment their code? Did they know how to write meaningful and humane error messages? Could they explain the rationale behind their creative work? These individuals lacked certifications, and I never saw their transcripts, but they were great employees and excellent colleagues. The proof was in their portfolios.

College is about much more than the classroom and the syllabus


"MOOCs might be a threat to certain universities, but they are not a threat to small liberal arts colleges such as Trinity University." 

During the past semester, the previous sentence (or a close approximation) has escaped my lips at least half a dozen times. This typically happens when confronted with dire predictions such as the following: 
  • "The storm is coming and half of the higher education institutions in the United States will be dead in the next 15 years." (Borsch, 2013) 
  • "In 50 years, he [Sebastian Thrun] says, there will be only 10 institutions in the world delivering higher education, and Udacity has a shot at being one of them." (Leckart, 2012)
  • "Most of college -- the expansive campuses and large lecture halls -- will crumble into ghost towns as budget-strapped schools herd students online." (Ferenstein, 2013) 
I'll be the first to admit that my reply is a defensive -- even reactionary -- response to predictions about the death of higher education. It emerges from my lizard brain, the fear-drenched part of my mind concerned solely with self-preservation, as an answer to predictions that I find deeply troubling.

I love being a teacher. Education is an avocation -- a calling -- that caught me entirely by surprise in my early 20s. After all, I was hardly the world's best student. I flunked multiple courses as a sophomore, and was forced to go on academic leave for a year. I never anticipated ending up at a place like Trinity. I never dreamed that so much of my identity would be wrapped up in my role as an educator. 

But it has. And this is why my immediate, reactionary response to the threat of MOOCs is very much concerned with my self-interest and with the continued sustainability of institutions such as Trinity. 

The fact that this is a reactionary response does not make my argument any less compelling. Even if MOOCs are wildly successful, I am confident that there is a place for institutions like Trinity in the educational landscape of the 21st Century. 

But once that's out of the way -- once my fearful lizard brain has been placated -- I can step back and look at the bigger picture. I can revisit my claim that "certain universities" might be threatened by MOOCs.
This is *not* the Trinity experience.
First, let's cut through the euphemisms. Spoken in hushed whispers, the phrase "certain universities" is an obvious reference to R1 institutions with tens of thousands of students. This contrast between places like Trinity and places like the University of Texas is a standard trope ripped directly from conversations with parents and prospective students during Trinity In Focus. They (the R1 schools) are big. We are small. They focus on research grants. We focus on low class sizes and intensive contact between teachers and students. They teach most of their classes with graduate assistants. We don't have graduate teaching assistants. They create specialists; we create generalists. You know the drill. 

This is our pitch, right? This is what we tell ourselves, and it's what we tell prospective students. And, it's true. There is a world of difference between a place like Trinity and a place like the University of Texas. I believe every word of the pitch. This doesn't mean that one approach is necessarily better than the other. But there is definitely a difference. 

But, does this difference mean that R1 universities are more vulnerable to the threat of MOOCs than places like Trinity? As far as rhetoric and salesmanship are concerned, the answer is "yes." The rise of MOOCs has come at an excellent time for expensive, small universities that privilege face-to-face interaction between teachers and students. MOOCs make it even easier for us to highlight our key differentiators. In rhetorical terms, MOOCs are a boon for us and they force admissions counselors at R1 schools to work a bit harder. 

In the long run, however, I do not think that R1 institutions are seriously threatened by MOOCs. For one thing, they can point to other differentiators -- things like D1 athletic events, amazing libraries (though Trinity's library is also quite amazing), nuclear reactors, access to cutting-edge research equipment, off-campus housing -- when making their case. But this is just part of the picture. 

R1 institutions are not seriously threatened by MOOCs for the same reason that Trinity is not seriously threatened by MOOCs: the college experience is about much more than what appears on the course syllabus. 

As an undergraduate, I attended UC Berkeley. A large, public institution, it was an excellent example of the things we love to criticize about R1 schools. Nearly half of my courses were taken in lecture halls with anywhere between 150 and 500 students. The few times that I attempted to meet with my professors, I encountered long lines of students who were waiting for just a few minutes of interaction with their professors. 

But this was only part of my experience. My education also included heart-to-heart conversations in dorm rooms in the middle of the night, it included the discovery of interesting things that could be accomplished with a lighter, a thumbtack, and a small juice glass, and it included amazing spaghetti dinners that my TA, Omid Mantashi, hosted for his favorite political theory students.

Barrington Hall was a cross between a dorm, an
art installation, and a post-apocalyptic refugee
camp. Created in 1935, it closed its doors in 1990.
My education included conversations with street people who lived in People's Park, it included late night runs to Top Dog, it included eerie and marvelous journeys through the graffiti-drenched corridors of Barrington Hall, and it included an accidental introduction to the Internet years before the global network was made available to the general public. My education included endless games of Hearts at Cafe Botega, punctuated by wild-eyed debates about the future. Would the Cold War ever end? Was a proper Marxist revolution imminent? Would we someday measure memory in Gigabytes? Could a Black man ever be elected president? Could a woman? (Spoilers: Yes. Definitely not. Oh yes. Yes! And, not yet, but soon.) 

In sitting down and attempting to convey even a handful of fragments from those years, I'm overwhelmed by the intensity and depth of those memories. So much of my education at this large, impersonal public university happened outside the classroom when I fed ideas from my classes back into my lived experience. I loved every minute of it. 

I'll be honest. When I imagined college as a teenager in 1985, academic considerations were  low on my list. The furnace of my expectations stoked by a healthy diet of pop culture, I dreamed of parties (Animal House), self-discovery and romance (The Graduate), sex (Real Genius, Revenge of the Nerds I-III), and revolution (Woodstock, 1969, The Strawberry Statement). Yes, I knew that class sizes were huge. Yes, I knew that there were 35,000 students. But, as a hormonally-driven teenager, I actually *liked* those numbers. This meant 35,000 chances that I might finally get laid. 

Of course I didn't put that on my college application. 

My language might strike some as coarse, but I honestly don't think I was that much different at the age of 17 than today's prospective students. 

These are the sorts of things we rarely mention when discussing the future of higher education. College is about so many different things; academic accomplishment and classroom instruction are just pieces of the overall experience.

For me, the most important thing about college was the opportunity to spend four -- OK, five and a half -- years in an entirely new community composed largely of other young (or at least young-at-heart) people much like myself. My classes mattered, and I had some great professors and teaching assistants, but my education became most meaningful when the ideas and insights from the classroom were fed into the crazy, dynamic feedback loop of my lived experiences. Gradually, bit by bit, these interactions with other people helped me understand more about myself. It was exhilarating. It was heartbreaking. I failed miserably. I succeeded wildly. It was an adventure. 

Years later, from my vantage point as a middle-aged college professor, I get the sense that many of our students at Trinity are experiencing their own crazy versions of the college adventure. And I believe that the same thing is true for students at places like the University of Texas. 

MOOCs can be terrific educational tools, but they do not come close to offering the depth of intense experience and the unpredictable life lessons that emerge from the adventure we call college. 

REFERENCES

Steve Borsch, 2013. "Why Higher Education is Dead," Connecting the Dots, May 30. 

Gregory Ferenstein, 2013. "How California's Online Education Pilot Will End College As We Know It," Tech Crunch, January 15.

Steven Leckart, 2012. "The Stanford Education Experiment Could Change Higher Learning Forever," March 20.