These are not better courses

The flap over Minnesota not accepting Coursera caught my attention. I suppose this was because I work at a University just across the river from Minnesota and I was curious as to what our academic neighbors to the east had in mind. It turns out it was a trivial issue that once understood was dismissed and Coursera is available.

I still do not understand what are perceived to be the novel benefits of the Coursera model and I think there are many flawed assumptions at work. There also seems to be a concern among some that they may be left out and upper-level administrators seem worried their institutions will be not be included among the elite offering courses. Big name institutions do not need to increase enrollment and they desire the public attention they might receive for offering something for free. Not really a big sacrifice.

Allow a brief personal anecdote and then a related argument. One of the courses I teach is “Introduction to Psychology”. This is the type of large enrollment course that might seem ideal for the efficient, “capture the presentation of the master teacher” model that seems to be at the core of the argument for offering  free shared courses from “prestige” institutions. A few years ago, before this efficiency perspective emerged, I made use of iTunes U to accomplish a personal goal. I was interested in identifying content and methods of explanation I might mimic in some of the topical areas of my course for which I felt I had no personal expertise. Academics tend to be specialists at the University of North Dakota or more elite institutions. For example, I am an educational psychologist and as such I cannot see clients as a clinician. This is a good thing. However, when I must introduce first year college students to psychopathology and psychotherapy, I cannot draw on my experiences in practice or research. What I found “sitting through” lectures from several Intro courses from a couple of the institutions on the Coursera list was that the content was little different from my own and in at least one case the method of presentation more primitive. I decided I would be better of consulting with my colleagues with specific areas of specialization I lack who also teach the Intro course.

I would propose the biggest source of variability among courses is the quality of students rather than the quality of the instructors. Students both help educate and push each other. What you should be looking to do if you are searching for a productive learning experience is to interact with bright and motivated students.

Better presentations are possible. What comes to mind relevant to the specific example I am using would be the Zimbardo Discovering Psychology series (this is to an older version of the videos, but you will get the idea). This series has been around for a long time and have been updated as the delivery system advanced and new content was appropriate. The series had high production value and probably a substantial budget. There was a very polished presenter but also lots of field or lab based video to illustrate, explain, and exemplify. I think when teaching Intro Psych that a talking head with PowerPoints is likely very similar across many institutions. The skills in presenting basic content is not necessarily a function of other important academic skills such as research productivity and quality presenters may be found in a variety of institutions.

To be realized. the potential in this idea of sharing free courses at the level of the presentation would require a substantial investment of the type made in the Discovering Psychology series. Substantial investments might also be made in other areas such as improved assessment and study experiences. So I certainly believe there may be ways to take advantage of the economics of scale, but putting up an existing course falls far short of meaningful change. Any institution could accomplish a similar thing with courses taught locally perhaps saving on duplication across multiple sections. We pretty much decided against doing this a decade ago. So, if those institutions wanting to offer their courses would invest heavily in leveraging the potential of technology to improve the presentation component of instruction, I would be more impressed. This situation may be different with other courses I am not qualified to evaluate.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.