I was reading the Fast Company interview with Sebestian Thrun and Udacity’s latest pivot. A lot of ink has been spilled analyzing the article and it content (e.g. here, here, here and here). Pundits aside, one of the most interesting assertions in the article is “Very few people seem to finish courses when they’re not sitting in a lecture hall. ” I am not sure it is the lecture hall that does the magic – but it is clear that there is a benefit in students being part of a community and there are benefits to actual physical proximity of the students.
Point 1: There is a benefit to actually being physically close to the peers in your course, and being part of a campus community
Another point that he didn’t touch upon (at least not directly) is the actual cost involved in creating a really good, engaging on-line course. Because of scale, the per student cost of a MOOC is much lower than the traditional per-student cost – but that doesn’t mean creating an engaging MOOC is cheap. The cost of creating a really good MOOC is on par with the cost of creating a documentary TV show, and requires a lot of the same skills. Because of that many so called MOOCs are just recordings of talking heads – which of course can’t keep students engaged for an entire course.
Point 2: Creating a good MOOC is really expensive, and many institutions and courses just can’t justify the cost. A low quality MOOC won’t replace lecturers – but can be a valuable study aid for students. I think this fits well with Ian Bogost assertions that MOOCs are marketing for elite schools.
So my summary of the Udacity pivot is that e-learning technologies need to focus on augmenting University and College education, not replacing it. There are two ways to look at the cost of education – one is the cost per student (which is the way the commercial MOOCs look at education). The other is cost relative to the educational success of students – and that is where Udacity failed (see the SJSU report on the trial here). Said differently – if a cheap alternative generates less educated students, where is the gain?
Clay Shirky made an interesting point a year ago in his blog on Napster, Udacity and the Academy:
“Outside the elite institutions, though, the other 75% of students—over 13 million of them—are enrolled in the four thousand institutions you haven’t heard of: Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College. Bridgerland Applied Technology College. The Laboratory Institute of Merchandising. When we talk about college education in the US, these institutions are usually left out of the conversation, but Clayton State educates as many undergraduates as Harvard. Saint Leo educates twice as many. City College of San Francisco enrolls as many as the entire Ivy League combined. These are where most students are, and their experience is what college education is mostly like.”
Those are the students we aim to help with LectureMonkey.