Abstract:
Closed campuses, working remotely, and physical distancing have changed the way we work, teach, learn, shop, attend conferences, and interact with family and friends. But the Covid-19 pandemic has not changed what we know about creating high-end online education. Two decades of research has shown that online education often fails to fulfill its promise, and the emergency shift to remote instruction has, for many, justified their distrust and dislike of online learning. Low interactivity remains a widely recognized short-coming of current online offerings. Low interactivity results, in part, from many faculty not feeling comfortable being themselves online. The long-advocated for era of authentic assessments is needed now more than ever. Finally, greater support is needed for both underrepresented students and for faculty to move beyond basic online instruction to create a strong continuum of care between the teaching and learning environment and the student support infrastructure. For those who have been long-term champions of online education, it has never been more important to confront the three biggest challenges that continue to haunt online education – interactivity, authenticity, and support. Only by confronting these challenges squarely can instructors, educational developers, and their institutions take huge steps towards better online instruction in the midst of a pandemic and make widespread, high-quality online education permanently part of the “new normal.”
Great article by one of the founders of the MOOC movement!
Cormier analyzes the way four different interest groups value the quality of MOOCs. Explicitly leaving out the learners he analyses quality from the perspective of:
1. Researchers
2. HE institutions
3. Governments
4. Venture Capitalists
Along the way he provides an important insight in the differences in the motives of several of the early pioneers of the MOOC movement:
"According to Downes in a recent Inside Higher Ed ‘MOOCs were “not designed to serve the missions of the elite colleges and universities….” but rather “designed to undermine them, and make those missions obsolete.”’ I facilitated a Friday discussion for CCK08 and had no specific intention towards undermining anything. I was rather more fascinated exploring the possibilities of having 2300 people working on the same topic at the same time. One of the central premises of MOOC doctrine is that students need to apply their own measurements of quality and success. The same could be said for the convenors."