Can MOOCs Save Academic Freedom?

Can MOOCs Save Academic Freedom?

Edward Renner¹ University of South Florida

Abstract

The commercialization of higher education over the past 50 years has embraced MOOCs as the next big growth opportunity for venture capital. However, the realization that M00Cs are our last stand to protect the fundamental purpose of academic freedom has been lost in the current distraction of debating the relative value of online as opposed to traditional classroom teaching. Our academic challenge is to use MOOCs to elevate general public knowledge to be an effective civic moderator of wealth, power and belief. If we do not, commercial control of information will become the currency defining the human condition.

Historically, the three forces that have defined the human condition and human progress have been economic wealth, political power and social beliefs and values. Like the keeper of the fire, academia in the role of keeper of knowledge, has sought to preserve and protect the light of reason and wisdom against the excess of wealth, power and fanaticism. This is the ultimate modern purpose of academic freedom.

Although globalization is commonly treated primarily as an economic concept, its impact on political power and social beliefs and values has changed the frame of reference for how we must now think about academic freedom.

The digital communication revolution that has flattened the earth into a global playing field is disrupting higher education in the form of massive open online courses (MOOCs). However, the value of MOOCs as a powerful force to protect the fundamental purpose of academic freedom has been lost in the current distraction of debating the relative value of online as opposed to traditional classroom teaching.

Of far greater importance for human progress and the nature of the human condition is the essential prerequisite of independent critical thinking that can neither be bought nor suppressed.

This noble justification of academia is now more than theoretical, it is actually possible – but not without a struggle. The commercialization of learning that has overtaken higher education over the past 50 years has embraced MOOCs as the next big growth opportunity for venture capital. In this sense, MOOCs have become the last stand for the defense of academic freedom because ownership of knowledge and information is the key to controlling the political power and social beliefs and values determining the distribution of wealth in the 21^st Century.

Unfortunately, academics are typically weak warriors, and our colleges and universities are deeply compromised fortresses for combating power and belief in the service of greed.  For example, at the University of Wyoming, the mining industry was successful in the early removal of a “Carbon Sink” sculpture which called attention to the dangers of climate change.² At the University of Iowa, the appointment of a director for the Center for Sustainable Agriculture was blocked by agribusiness because the nominee’s research supported the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency.³ The student loan crisis provided a financial accounting of shifting the cost of a college degree from a public to a personal responsibility, to mention only a few illustrations of the commodification of education.⁴

On the one hand, MOOCs offer the opportunity to fully democratize knowledge and learning, by facilitating the flow of all information into the public domain. Finally, with open online courses there is an opportunity to make teaching and learning available to everyone. Now, the ultimate civic accomplishment of balancing the dynamic resultant of the three forces of wealth, power and belief in the service of human progress and the enhancement of human condition is possible.

But, our institutions, as owners of copyrights and patents, contribute to making knowledge and information a commodity by removing it from the public domain. Apple is attempting to control the K-12 academic market in which an iPad can replace many of the functions of a physical classroom. State legislators see the cost of education going down and control of content going up through online learning. AAUP is confronted with a dilemma that the instrumentality of job protection as the strategy of choice for defending academic freedom will be compromised by MOOCs. Colleges and universities are searching for a business model to survive in a competitive market in which a few winners supported by venture capital provide courses administered by others with a minimum of financial support from state governments.

The potential endpoint is an economic market which owns the political power and social beliefs which determines the preconditions for the distribution of wealth, globally and nationally.

MOOCs may well be the last stand in defense of academic freedom if knowledge is to increasingly belong in the public domain, and not increasingly become a commodity. This is our academic challenge. We must own and use MOOCs to elevate general public knowledge to be an effective civic moderator of wealth, power and belief. If we do not, control of information will replace resources, just as resources replaced land, as the currency defining the human condition.

Seeing knowledge as public domain, not as the newest commodity market, can secure our legitimate place in human progress as the keeper of the fire. We must now occupy learning. In the long term, MOCCs can provide a strategic and powerful defense of the ultimate purpose of academic freedom, not job security in the short term.
_____________________________________________________________________________
1 Professor Renner teaches an MOOC in the Honors College at the University of South Florida.

2 University of Wyoming officials sped up, touted removal of anti-coal sculpture. http://trib.com/business/energy/emails-university-of-wyoming-officials-sped-up-touted-removal-of/article_4f9332ee-d83c-5d58-a38b-19e913ba739d.html

3 Thomas Bartlett. Field of Discourse, Chronicle of Higher Education, June 27, 2010.

4 The Making of Corporate U, Topical issue of The Chronicle Review, Oct 17, 2010.

 

The Difference Between a Reference Point and a Criterion

The Difference Between a Reference Point and a Criterion

Edward Renner

Donald Eastman III, the President of Eckert College, wrote an op-ed piece in the Tampa Bay Times about the limits of online learning: “…what works for most students…is a small classroom…where a respected authority…is a spellbinding revealer of mysteries – not simply because he or she knows things we don’t, but because a gifted teacher reads the audience the way an actor reads the room…”

On July 17, the University of Toronto announced that it had joined Coursera.  In response, Clifford Orwin, a professor of political science at the U of T, wrote in The Globe and Mail that “the classroom experience is at the heart of education…The electricity that crackles through a successful classroom can’t be transmitted electronically.”

Pamela Hieronymi in her essay in the Chronicle declared that the capacities of online technology “should not be confused with the training provided by one mind interacting with another.”

In short, the chorus of critics is that online and virtual is a shoddy imitation of the real thing. Such declarations miss the point. They are assertions that the ideal traditional classroom is the real criterion against which online should be compared, rather than serving as a reference point for comparison with other alternatives.

The issue of whether the new technologies are consistent with a hypothetical ideal appropriate for the specific circumstance of lecturing to a captive audience at a fixed time and place is a meaningless theoretical exercise. The essential exercise is comparing this particular circumstance with other circumstances using an objective external standard.

The standard at one extreme is a situation in which hardly anyone learns anything. At the other extreme is one in which almost everyone learns everything. These two limiting distributions can be plotted on a graph in which the X-Axis is the proportion of the material learned and Y-Axis is the proportion of the class.

In practice, of course, both limits can only be approached. Every class results in an actual distribution defined by the standard deviation around the average amount learned. The distribution for any class can be plotted on the same graph as the two limiting cases. This simple graphic provides an objective external standard for comparisons between different circumstances and different teaching methods. The only question is, on the average, how close does any particular effort approach a limit, and what is the spread between the students who are most and least successful?

The classic example this kind of research has been carried out over the past several decades on the teaching of large enrollment introductory physics classes. Typically, students in these classes could calculate answers to problems using formulas, but they were unable to apply the concepts to answer simple basic questions.

Harvard Professor Eric Mazur found that after a semester of lecturing, on the average, students understood at best about 30% of the material. However, 60% understood the material when it was presented online, and the classroom was “flipped” to practice applying the concepts in small discussion groups.

Professor Carl Wieman of the Science Education Initiative at the University of British Columbia has carried out controlled experimental studies on this method. In a recent study published in Science he found that the online presentation of the material followed by peer group discussions in the classroom more than doubles the average amount of material mastered. In addition, 90% of the students reported enjoying the interactive teaching techniques more than traditional lectures; while only 1% disagreed (8% were indifferent). In addition, levels of student engagement and attendance were significantly higher with the flipped classroom.

This is the type of information that needs to be informing policy discussions over the relative effectiveness of different circumstances and methods of teaching, not declarative statements comparing the new digital communication techniques with a theoretical classroom.

What is of theoretical importance is identifying the variety of dimension that account for the means and standard deviations of the distributions of actual students, under different specific circumstances. Like all such comparisons, there are large individual differences. The result for different groups provides comparative empirical reference points; none of which are an ultimate criterion.

We might suspect, much like a flipped classroom of today, that back when experienced professors interacted with students personally known to them in small classes, that the average amount learned was relatively larger compared to classes today. Currently, many large lecture classes are often taught by overworked adjunct professors who often do not even have on-campus offices. Given budget constraints that trend is likely to continue.

Also, we might reasonably assume that a technologically challenged professor would do much worse trying to teach on line, than doing so face-to-face, no matter how large the live class. Just as the newly appointed Millennial professor might do much better using the new technologies rather than trying to teach using face-to-face lectures. A class of adult learners may very well respond differently to the two modes of teaching relative to a homogenous age cohort of Millennials.

Such individual differences as these are of great theoretical importance. They can be empirically identified and dealt with strategically by doing the best job possible with the resources we have. These differences will not be addressed, however, by refusing to accept responsibility for change ourselves in light of the many new circumstances and teaching methods now available.

In the fall of 2007, after a 15 years absence from undergraduate teaching, I became an Adjunct Professor in the Honors College. I figuring a small class for me to enchant would enhance my retirement. The course met three times a week and had three required full length textbooks. Now, in 2012, there are no textbooks. The Monday and Friday classes are virtual, there are no (zero) classroom lectures. All substantive material is delivered online. Students write, comment and challenge each other throughout the semester, meeting on Wednesday for a moderated exchange of ideas.

My biggest surprise was how much easier it is now, with 21^st Century digital technologies, than it was before to have even higher levels of student engagement with each other, the material and the professor. The technologies are more respectful; they allow students to do their work in the time and space that best fits their life and their circumstances – which for many includes a job. Socially, they are more collaborative and participatory. Technically, they allow efficient access to material that is more comprehensive, engaging and up to date.

Each year as the class became more online with less lecturing, the student evaluations and level of performance went up. The quantitative evaluations are now exclusively positive and “strongly agree” the most frequent response to all items. Having gone from three to one formal class each week has raised the sobering possibility that zero might be even better. I expect for some, perhaps even the majority, that that might be the case.

However, I quite enjoy the weekly meeting, and rather than face that possibility my current scholarly effort is focused on creating a metric for social science and humanities courses that, like the concept test in physics, can be used to measure changes in the level of cognitive complexity and critical thinking that takes place over the term. My subjective evaluation alone is not sufficient.

We need to recognize that the art and science of teaching and learning in the 21^st Century is now different. Our challenge is how to systematically go about using the new technologies to enhance teaching and learning without making declarative statements bases on our beliefs, as if they were something more than just that. We have the capacity to reflectively apply the science and critical thinking we teach our students to what we ourselves are actually doing. Our own teaching is the ideal place to demonstrate the power of scientific inquiry and critical thinking that we claim to be our non-replaceable purpose as teachers.

Edward Renner teaches in the Honors College at the University of South Florida

Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century

I Use to Perform, Now I Compose and Conduct

 At 76 I just published an iBook inviting public participation in a massive open online course (MOOC).

 This was not an endeavor I intended to undertake.

After a 15 years absence, I returned to the undergraduate classroom. I had in mind a book I wanted to write: “Forms for a Future” – the civic discussions we need to have to have a future worthy of living.

 In the fall of 2007 I negotiated an adjunct position in the Honors College, figuring a small class to enchant would focus my attention. The course met three times a week and had three required full length textbooks.

 I was not prepared for what I found. My students were all Millennials. One had an ear bud in his left ear. I asked him what he was hearing in his left ear? “Music.” His is right ear? “The Class.” Why? “I learn better that way.” Would that work for anyone else? “Yes.” Then he turned the table, in a very sincere tone: Do you find that disrespectful sir? “No, not now; but, I had to ask you.”

Now, in 2012, there are no textbooks. The Monday and Friday classes are virtual, there are no lectures, and all substantive material is delivered online. Students write, comment and challenge each other throughout the semester, meeting on Wednesday for a moderated exchange of ideas.

This transition started me reflecting on my evolution from lectures and printed books to an interactive iBook and a MOOC. It was not as sudden as it may seem. I actually had an experience 25 years ago that should have been a premonition.

At that time my university had three sections of Introductory Psychology of 350 students each. The classes met at 9, 11, and 1. The course was team taught. Each instructor taught their specialty to all three sections, gave a multiple choice machine scored exam, and was gone.

The students did not like the course. Their instructors were highly critical of the attitudes and motivations of the students. The atmosphere was one of competing agendas, not mutual engagement.

For example, positive ID was required to obtain a numbered copy of the examination, which served as an exit ticket when completed. The game was to thwart fraternities and sororities from building extensive files of the examination questions.

A  Sci-Fi story would have predicted the future of learning as evolving into an epic struggle between digital security technologies and mobile communication devices, and computer programs detecting plagiarism. Surely, that could not be the intended purpose of 21^st Century teaching technologies.

One year I substituted in the rotation when the regular was on sabbatical. The fall semester was awful; there was so little engagement of any kind.

At first I blamed the students. Then, I entertained the idea that if we were going to herd students into educational feeding lots, it might also be our responsibility to change the way we teach.

The next semester I spent the first class standing in the middle of the peanut gallery second row from the back. I told the story of the 1964 Genovese murder case in New York in which 38 bystanders did nothing. I teased them about being nameless. Their syllabus included material for making a large name tag. For the next five classes I encouraged the students to hang them around their necks. By the sixth class nearly all of the class was wearing name tags; and, they discovered in their textbooks the five principles of social influence I had used on them.

Every class involved experiencing concepts from the textbook. By the end of my section, there were more people in the room than students enrolled in the course. Students were bringing their friends to class.

The experiment caused a bit of excitement. The Chair asked me to give a colloquium on my teaching methods. By the end of the year, however, the consensus was that I had pandered the students, and that this was something only “I” could do. But, by then, the regular was back and everything reverted to normal.

When I finally returned to the classroom in 2007, my first surprise was that listening to my “enchanting” lectures, and reading Jared Diamond’s book on Collapse, was not going to engage young people in serious civic discourse about their future. Once again, I had to entertain the idea that it might be my responsibility to change the way I teach.

In retrospect, I now realized that my colleagues of 25 years ago did not understand that it was not the performance that was responsible for the outcome, it was the composition. I had a new score; one that focused more on the students as learners, not on me as a teacher.

My biggest surprise was how much easier it is with 21^st Century digital technologies to have even higher levels of student engagement with each other, the material and the professor. Now, I have choices. Occasionally I perform with enhanced dramatic effect – he speaks. But mostly, I watch the students perform my composition. And, sometimes I conduct by drawing out one of the thoughtful quiet ones we never notice when we are the ones performing. Now, my teaching is much more personal. Best of all, it is simply more fun.

The technologies are more respectful; they allow students to do their work in the time and space that best fits their life and their circumstances – which for many includes a job. Socially, they are more collaborative and participatory. Technically, they allow efficient access to material that is more comprehensive, engaging and up to date.

 My book is now finished, but not in print. It is multi-media and has become Forums for a Future on USF iTunes University. And, it is free, as well as available for credit.

I was very lucky. I almost missed the digital disruptions transforming the art and science of teaching and learning into something far different than what it has been for the past 600 years.

 

Finally!

 

Edward Renner is an Adjunct Professor in the Honor College at the University of South Florida. His iBook may be downloaded for free from the iTunes Bookstore at http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/invitation-to-forums-for-future/id533089665?mt=11. It is also available in a static PDF format through the University of South Florida at: http://tiny.cc/7ij7fw. Anyone may pre-register for the free public course at: http://ureddit.com/class/32219 by creating a user name and password.