This article brings up several harsh realities about online ed--especially when distributed en masse and with a mind for profits running the show.

http://campustechnology.com/articles/2013/10/23/faculty-coalition-online-courses-leading-to-sub-prime-education.aspx?=CTCC

I love your analogy, Richard. Funny! I can't help thinking that it's a cultural thing. In the past few decades in the US as populations have soared and people have sought to expand services--such as building houses-at a larger and larger scale, we've gained efficiency, concentrated wealth, created opportunities for immigrants, and tossed out creativity, imagination, artistry, and personalization. The same could be said in education, perhaps particularly with the arm I'm in--online education. There are a lot of diploma mills out there seeking to invest in cheap, simple modules and market them widely for massive profits. It may also be happening in some of the charter school models. Even where I am, which is part of a respected university, we fight battles of creativity vs. bottom line; pedagogy vs. profitability; design to prevent boredom vs. efficiency of execution. I wouldn't blame greed here, though, just desperation to survive! These rules are so great. Truly. But not always so easy to follow.

Oh man! That's scary! I am one of the few people I know who has never had a full cup of coffee. I just can't stand the taste of it, so have never progressed beyond a single sip. I've often regretted this because I see how it can lift people up in the morning and get them juiced and ready to go while I am still slogging through. I do imbibe caffeine, though. I will often start my day with a soda or a cup of hot tea. Coffee has so many chemicals in it I've never thought it could be good for us, but I've argued that point with nutritionists and the vast majority of people I've known seem to think all the good studies for it make up for the few bad (and abhor my soda addiction). But my theory is that the people conducting and reading the studies are all addicted to caffeine, so their findings cannot be trusted. This one is interesting, but who knows how relevant given the very different spider to human correlation.

Ok, Katy! I'll give those a try! Thank you!

Thank you, Richard! I've been waiting for this article!!

Maria, I couldn't agree with you more. The other article Richard posted talks about that intangible benefit of Google's involvement in MOOC production. By participating, they help people get the skills they will need to do the work. More and more, corporations expect their employees to walk in the door with the skills they need to get started. MOOCs can help do that, so they are a very promising resource, particularly for high-tech industries such as computer technology, nanotechnology, and other cutting edge industries. They may also be a great vehicle for languages since their reach is so wide.

One of the greatest benefits I've heard from people is they can pop in and out of courses to see which ones they like. Because there is no pressure to complete or monetary loss if you don't, it's a great way to find out by trial and error what topics appeal to you. No guilt necessary!

Hi All,
I'm one of this week's hosts and thought I'd see what you think about MOOCs. According to this article from the New York Times, 90% of people who start MOOCs don't finish. Still, I think it's a great way to try out a topic about something. Or to try out college without signing up. My son, for example, is not ready for college but is eager to see what Coursera's course on Beethoven's sonatas is all about. I love, love, love the possibility that MOOCs can provide high-quality education to people no matter where they are, how much money they have, and what they are interested in. It breaks down all the walls, and that makes sense to me for the 21st century!
Your thoughts?
Jen
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/technology/personaltech/a-surge-in-growth-for-a-new-kind-of-online-course.html?smid=pl-share

Thanks so much for your first-hand accounts, Katy! I'm sorry it didn't go fully as you'd hoped, but I'm betting you learned a lot, and there's definitely some value in that--especially when the courses were free! I am looking forward to trying one when I've finished the Ed Tech program. I'm with Maria--unless they add more hours in the day, I'm afraid I can't swing it until then. So thanks so much for the vicarious experience! (I'm sure you fared much better in the Finance class than I would have, so I'll definitely run with that!)

http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2013/10/09/Faculty-Coalition-Its-Time-to-Examine-MOOC-and-Online-Ed-Profit-Motives.aspx?Page=1

This article just came out today. It's NOT good news, but does echo some of the things I've been suspecting. More and more universities are replacing academic leaders with corporate leaders--not just to run MOOCs, but to run everything. It's very distressing to me. I agree with the final recommendations:
"One, institutions need to put in place "clear business plans for the growing number of online partnership deals between private companies and non-profit colleges." Two, they need to stop "fast-tracking, bypassing, or eliminating quality control decision-making processes in colleges and universities in accreditation or government oversight. These processes are focused on finance, governance, and educational quality and consumer rights." Gary Rhoades, faculty member at University of Arizona.

Wow, Richard. That is terrific. I'm going to take that course when I get a free minute. Looks awesome!

Hi Richard,
Great article! Thurn said, "What we've learned is the computer program alone, a MOOC alone is not likely to be a good educational medium for large numbers of people, except for the truly highly self-motivated. To be successful, we need people on the ground to do things, to provide educational services." This is something I've been picking up on in interviewing administrators from online high schools, too. Truly independently paced courses can allow students to get course recovery or accomplish some short-term goal if they are truly motivated. But it's not the way to truly get students learning. This quote, too, (from the author) struck me: "The idea that educational software can track student performance and adapt instruction to an individual's strengths and weaknesses is not new, but large-scale online education opens up new possibilities to analyze vast quantities of clickstream and assessment data when making those judgments." We need to be thinking about--and be honest about--the greatest strengths and weaknesses of online education. Otherwise, why bother? Poorly done, they serve as nothing better than a diploma mill. But by integrating thoughtful faculty in a scale that allows them to provide individual attention to their students, and then giving them analytical programs to help them track what their students are doing, some meaningful, personalized learning can happen online.

This website comes from the Department of Neuroscience at the University of Washington in Seattle. Our Brain Rules author, John Medina, comes from the Medical School there I believe, so perhaps they are in cahoots in some way. It's a great website for games you can play with kids to help them test/increase their memories. What do you think?
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/chmemory.html

Another of my favorite Ted Talks is from Sir Ken Robinson. In this video, he brilliantly discusses many of the principles discussed in our book about why our educational system is not serving our students well.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

I love this video for what Temple Grandin teaches us about the tremendous value of having people in the world whose brains work differently. Please watch!

http://www.ted.com/talks/temple_grandin_the_world_needs_all_kinds_of_minds.html