White 2014 is “Mooc Mania” Over

8/10/2019 White 2014 is Mooc Mania Over

1/5

S.K.S. Cheung et al. (Eds.): ICHL 2014, LNCS 8595, pp. 1115, 2014.

Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Is MOOC-Mania over?

Bebo White

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University

2575 Sand Hill Road, MailStop 88, Menlo Park CA 94117 USA

[email protected]

Abstract. The New York Times famously branded 2012 The Year of the

MOOC given the upsurge of interest in so-called Massive Online Open

Courses. MOOCs were seen as the future of distance education and the

realization of a dream to democratize education. Anyone with online accesscould become a student and participate freely in courses offered by the

worlds most knowledgeable professors at the most elite universities. Class

sizes were unprecedented it was not unusual to have tens of thousands or

hundreds of thousands of participants in some very popular courses. The Times

declaration followed the launch of edX, by Harvard University and MIT, and

the rapid growth of MOOC platforms and providers such as Coursera and

Udacity. The Sand Hill Road venture capitalists invested substantial funds in

these providers even though a monetization model was not obvious. It is now

almost two years since The Year of the MOOC and we must ask ourselves

whether the enthusiasm over the MOOC model was/is still warranted. HaveMOOCs been successful in changing the direction of online education? What

problems, issues, and challenges have MOOC adopters encountered?

Keywords: MOOCs, Massive Open Online Courses, Coursera, Udacity, edX,

flipped classrooms.

1

Introduction

The Gartner Hype Cycle is a popular and often-used tool developed by the Gartner

IT research and advisory firm. [1] It seeks to track the maturity, adoption, and

application of new technologies (often seen as disruptive) with respect to time. It

reflects the hype often seen with new technologies (or applications) and what

happens with that hype over the passage of time. In the end it hopefully indicates

the important phases of a technologys life cycle. Gartner identifies five key phases

in the evolution of a technologys life cycle or period of relevance (from

Wikipedia) [2]:

Technology Trigger

A potential technology breakthrough kicks things off. Early proof-of-concept stories

and media interest trigger significant publicity. Often no usable products exist and

commercial viability is unproven.


2/5

12 B. White

Peak of Inflated Expectations

Early publicity produces a number of success storiesoften accompanied by scores

of failures. Some companies take action; many do not.

Trough of Disillusionment

Interest wanes as experiments and implementations fail to deliver. Producers of the

technology shake out or fail. Investments continue only if the surviving providers

improve their products to the satisfaction of early adopters.

Slope of Enlightenment

More instances of how the technology can benefit the enterprise start to crystallize

and become more widely understood. Second- and third-generation products appearfrom technology providers. More enterprises fund pilots; conservative companies

remain cautious.

Plateau of Productivity

Mainstream adoption starts to take off. Criteria for assessing provider viability are

more clearly defined. The technologys broad market applicability and relevance are

clearly paying off.

When graphically expressed as visibility (i.e., hype) with respect to time, the

cycle is represented as in Figure 1.

Fig. 1.The Gartner Hype Cycle

Assuming that it would be appropriate to apply the MOOC phenomenon to theGartner Hype Cycle, the relevant questions would be:


3/5

Is MOOC-Mania over? 13

What is the applicable time scale?

Which phase in the cycle best describes the present influence and adoption of

MOOC technology?

2

Discussion

The Technology Trigger in the evolution of MOOCs as a technological entity mostlikely came from the realization that connectivist teaching and learning could fit well onthe currently defined technical and social infrastructure of the Internet/Web. It is typicallyacknowledged that the first MOOC was, in fact, a course and a network about theemergent practices and the theory of Connectivism taught by Stephen Downes andGeorge Siemens through the University of Manitoba, Canada in 2008. [3] The coursewas not only about Connectivism but provided a demonstration of its practice through

Web 2.0 concepts such as blogs and chat facilities, multimedia, and social networking.The evolution and the growth of the MOOC concept from the Downes/Siemens

course to the Year of the MOOC are well documented. In recent years it has beendifficult to find an educational journal or conference that does not include some referenceto MOOCs and the issues surrounding their adoption. Statistics abound regarding thenumber of MOOCs currently available, the size of enrollments, and completion rates.

There are strong indications that MOOCs may now be on the leading edge of theTrough of Disillusionment. This proposition comes from the four groups that wouldbe the primary stakeholders in MOOC success or failure: the institutions, the faculty,

the students, and the investors.Institutions are clearly questioning the wisdom of putting their curriculum (theintellectual capital that lies in their faculty) online for free. Some institutions havemade a substantial investment into the development and support of MOOCs. Forexample, at Stanford University the faculty demand to create MOOCs has resulted ina backlog of three to four months in the audio-visual department. While massiveparticipation in a Stanford MOOC could be perceived as a matter of prestige for theuniversity (amongst the elite institutions), it is not unreasonable to ask what is theirReturn on Investment (ROI)? It would be hard to prove that MOOCs provide Stanfordwith a viable mechanism for recruiting top students. Similarly, it is unlikely that at

any time in the future Stanford will allow MOOC completion to be applied towards aStanford degree. Interestingly, Stanford is using edX as its principal MOOC platformrather than Coursera or Udacity (both of whom were developed by Stanford faculty).[4] It is possible that Stanford is finding secondary value in the collaboration with theother institutions that are members of the edX Consortium.

Faculty acceptance of MOOCs has been mixed. Motivated faculty members havefound the new methods of teaching required by the development of a MOOC to bechallenging. Lessons learned from teaching MOOCs and the diversity of students andstudent involvement can potentially result in new methods applicable to traditional,classroom, face-to-face teaching. Other faculty may be motivated by the large enrollment

numbers and the opportunity to be recognized internationally as an outstanding subjectmatter expert. Some faculty have also felt threatened by the concept of flippedclassrooms and how adoption of such a course style might diminish their faculty role inthe higher education of the future. Faculty should be worried about the lack of robuststudent assessment mechanisms currently found in MOOCs.


4/5

14 B. White

As perhaps should be said for any teaching and learning environment, studentsstand to be the big winners with MOOCs. For motivated students, participation inMOOCs addresses the rising costs of higher education or even the need for auniversity degree. MOOCs can potentially satisfy one of the longtime goals of

distance education and the digital divide by providing access to high-qualityeducational content to anyone anywhere in the world for little or no cost. Enrollmentstatistics in existing MOOCs have expanded the definition of students. MOOClearning communities often contain university students, lifelong learners (e.g.,retirees), learning on demand participants, and others. Socialization between such adiversity of active students has proven to appreciably enhance the learning andteaching experience. Student disillusionment in MOOCs may be reflected in the lowcompletion rates and the realization that many students require a more structurededucational environment. To many students MOOC content has simply becomeanother online commodity to be compared and evaluated with other options.

It is safe to say that the hype and inflated expectation surrounding MOOCscreated a new cottage industry that some investors were eager to be a part of. Thetwo best-known MOOC platforms, Coursera and Udacity, were both developed byfaculty members who had developed successful (judging from enrollment numbers)courses. Well-known venture capitalist firms were eager to financially support theirefforts in the hope that a monetization model for MOOCs could be identified. [5]Development of such a model has been slow in coming. It is generally agreed thatcourse content should remain free to students, but additional services andfunctionality may be provided at a charge. Coursera offers students completioncertificates that are potentially recognized by major employers. [6] Also offered are

recruitment contacts and job placement services allowing employers access to thenames of high-performing MOOC students. Costs of such services may be sharedbetween students and employers/recruiters. On Udacity non-paying students [7] haveaccess to course videos and exercises and can view and manage their progress, but apaid subscription gives them access to in-class projects, feedback from instructors anda verified certificate. As such, MOOC platform providers are leveraging the expertcontent from universities and following in the footsteps of the longtime commercialonline educational providers (e.g., The University of Phoenix).

In addition to providing expert content, colleges and universities are themselvesexploring ways to monetize the MOOC model. For example, in March 2014,Harvard Business School announced its HBX program. [8] HBX requires thatstudents apply for admission and must already be pursuing at least a four-year degreeat another institution. HBX is not free with tuition for its first term priced at $1,500.Instruction and assessment will be done as with other MOOCs and studentssuccessfully graduating will receive a Credential of Readiness verified by HarvardBusiness School. This modified MOOC model assumes that registration costs willoffset the usual MOOC dropout rate and that students will be highly motivated by theprospect of receiving Harvard certification.

3

Conclusion

Yes MOOC-Mania has likely come to an end (i.e., it has reached the Peak ofInflated Expectations). But rather than disillusionment (as suggested by the next phase


5/5

Is MOOC-Mania over? 15

of the Gartner Hype Cycle), stake-holders in the MOOC model (institutions, faculty,students, and investors) should take the opportunity to reflect on the pedagogies that canpossibly be implemented via MOOCs and how they might influence future highereducation both online and in the classroom. Despite the fact that to some educators

MOOCs appear to be a fad or a threat, the questions that have arisen surrounding themshould not be ignored. Educational researchers should continue to explore new MOOCmodels and paradigms (e.g., xMOOCs, cMOOCs, etc.).

A Slope of Enlightenment may come when it is realized that MOOCs are globalevents, not regional ones in the way that traditional university courses tend to be. Thatis, MOOCs provide the capability to transcend the specific concerns of thestakeholders. MOOCs may be one of the only ways to satisfy George Siemens visionlearning is a social trust-based process, and limitations of language and sharedcontext may circumscribe peoples capacity to engage with others to the full potentialof the [Connectivist] model.[9] Technology ownership and bandwidth certainly

present barriers at this time, but they are simply technical problems that are likely tobe solved in the future if there is sufficient motivation. If it is accurate to assume thatthe time scale on the Gartner Hype Cycle is approximately linear, then thisenlightenment period should be realized within the next four to five years.

References

1. Wikipedia: Hype Cycle,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner%27s_Hype_Cycle

2.

Wikipedia: Gartner, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner 3. Connectivism and Connective Knowledge: The Daily (September 15, 2008),

http://connect.downes.ca/archive/08/09_15_thedaily.htm

4. Stanford University: Homepage of Stanford Online,

http://online.stanford.edu/openedx

5. Hepler, L.: Coursera lands $20 million in new funding despite online education turmoil.

Silicon Valley Business Journal (November 22, 2013),

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/11/22/

coursera-lands-20-million-in-new.html?page=all

6. Coursera Student Support: What is a Verified Certificate? How can I use It?,

http://help.coursera.org/customer/portal/articles/1167998-what-is-a-verified-certificate-how-can-i-use-it

7. Kolowich, S.: Udacity Will No Longer Offer Free Certificates. The Chronicle of Higher

Education (May 14, 2014),

http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/

udacity-will-no-longer-offer-free-certificates/51757

8. Borchers, C.: Harvard Business enters online education fray. Boston Globe (March 21, 2014),

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/03/20/

harvard-business-school-launches-online-education-

program/L2x3xMuBgjR12TLlh01XYO/story.html

9.

McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., Cormier, D.: The MOOC model for digital practice,https://www.academia.edu/2857149/

The_MOOC_model_for_digital_practice

Documents

White 2014 is “Mooc Mania” Over