Thomas L. Friedman ("Revolution Hits the Universities," column, Jan. 27) writes about a revolution in higher education through massive open online courses, or MOOCs. This is far from the case.
Disappointment is twofold. Most of the participants, as Mr. Friedman states, are middle to upper class — the same students currently taking advantage of higher education. And in the words of L. Rafael Reif, the president of M.I.T., whom Mr. Friedman cites, an M.I.T. degree will remain as it is today — "connected with bricks and mortar." MOOCs are on the margin.
MOOCs are separate from that highly desirable and precious residential degree. Online courses represent auxiliary income to support bricks and mortar and to increase brand recognition globally. New wine for an old bottle.
The high cost of a degree at M.I.T. — or most universities — is not lowered. That would be a revolution. In fact, their bricks and mortar will become only more desirable and probably more costly because of the peripheral global-brand diffusion and applicant-pool penetration. Their selectivity might even increase further.
This is no revolution. It is the rich getting richer because they have the wealth and the brand to do so.
WILLIAM G. DURDEN
President, Dickinson College
Carlisle, Pa., Jan. 27, 2013
To the Editor:
Thomas L. Friedman's optimism for a future made better by MOOCs is well founded. MOOCs are not a substitute for traditional higher education, and they do not endanger it. They expand higher education by widening access, which will improve the world in many ways.
As president of the first liberal arts college to join edX, the consortium of universities offering free online courses, and the first women's college to offer MOOCs (beginning this fall), I am hopeful for positive changes to result from educating many more people around the globe.
MOOC technology could enable even more than unparalleled access to top faculty and courses. I envision women in Riyadh and Islamabad taking literature and economics courses alongside students in Kansas City and Anchorage, engaged in discussions that are informed, impassioned and ultimately transformative — the kind of exchange that is the hallmark of a liberal arts education.
Higher education for women was, and still is for some in the world, a radical idea. By offering unrationed opportunities for women, Wellesley is ensuring that this revolution will be one that does not leave anyone behind.
H. KIM BOTTOMLY
President, Wellesley College
Wellesley, Mass., Jan. 28, 2013
To the Editor:
Thomas L. Friedman celebrates the possibilities offered by MOOCs, but gives short shrift to some key limitations. Completion rates are terrible, at roughly 10 percent to 15 percent. There is limited formative feedback to help students develop critical thinking and writing skills; assessment is typically either computer-graded or "crowd sourced." While thousands of students may post in online discussions, most students do not get known as individuals, so there is little sense of social presence.
Together these factors cause the biggest problem with MOOCs: generally only the driven, self-motivated and organized students who already have strong basic skills succeed. This has the likely effect of increasing, rather than decreasing, the digital divide.
Much like standardized college placement tests such as the SATs, online classes — an intervention that has great possibilities, created with the hope of increasing access to higher education — may end up limiting it.
BETH RUBIN
Chicago, Jan. 28, 2013
The writer is director of SNL Online at the School for New Learning, DePaul University.
To the Editor:
MOOCs are wrongly viewed as a free form of education. But when universities offer MOOCs, these courses require extensive commitments of time and expensive resources, from I.T. professionals and faculty members alike, all coming out of the tuition of undergraduates enrolled in degree programs.
Professors will not be teaching these as "extras"; each MOOC means one fewer course taught to and for the students who actually pay their salaries and the institution's overhead costs. Hours spent supervising online MOOC conversations reduce the hours available to paying students.
It may be ego-boosting to have an audience of thousands. But the financially struggling students who have sacrificed to be in a classroom deserve our full attention and are being cheated.
MARGARET D. STETZ
Newark, Del., Jan. 27, 2013
The writer is a professor of women's studies and humanities at the University of Delaware.
To the Editor:
Online ventures undeniably open access to university courses and facilitate communication and networking for those who are already prepared to benefit from them. As currently practiced, however, they also limit the diversity of perspectives, languages of instruction and ways of disseminating knowledge.
If we want a better-educated global citizenry, should we not foster a multitude of professors with different views who can share deep critical thinking in a community of learners such as only the embodied experience of the classroom can yield? Rather than renting space and computers in Egyptian villages, let us train teachers, lower costs of higher education and widen its reach, in American cities and Egyptian villages alike.
MARIANNE HIRSCH
New York, Jan. 28, 2013
The writer is president of the Modern Language Association of America and a professor at Columbia University.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Letters: Online Courses: Possibilities and Pitfalls
Dengan url
http://opinimasyarakota.blogspot.com/2013/01/letters-online-courses-possibilities.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Letters: Online Courses: Possibilities and Pitfalls
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Letters: Online Courses: Possibilities and Pitfalls
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar