Aftermath of the MOOC wars: Can commercial vendors support creative higher education?
The large-scale massive open online course (xMOOC) rose to prominence in 2012–13 on the promise that its outcomes would be better and cheaper than those of face-to-face university instruction. By late 2013, xMOOC educational claims had been largely discredited, though policy interest in ed-tech carr...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Learning and teaching 2016-06, Vol.9 (2), p.12-41 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 41 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 12 |
| container_title | Learning and teaching |
| container_volume | 9 |
| creator | Newfield, Christopher |
| description | The large-scale massive open online course (xMOOC) rose to prominence in 2012–13 on the promise that its outcomes would be better and cheaper than those of face-to-face university instruction. By late 2013, xMOOC educational claims had been largely discredited, though policy interest in ed-tech carried on. What can we learn about the future of ed-tech by analysing this eighteen-month period in higher education history? This article gathers different types of evidence to suggest several conclusions: MOOC momentum was propelled by an administrative failure to apply due diligence to xMOOC educational claims. The MOOC path was also smoothed by a confusion among key commentators between xMOOCs and small-scale ‘connectivity’ MOOCs that did show meaningful learning outcomes. At the same time, online courses do not overcome race-based disparities of outcome and in some cases make them worse. In addition, student use of online courses appears to be instrumental, even cynical, further limiting their educational value. MOOCs will be back in modified form to endanger educational equity and quality unless faculty members articulate explicit goals and standards for public higher education to which ed-tech can be held accountable. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.3167/latiss.2016.090202 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_eric_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_eric_primary_EJ1112590</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A536533619</galeid><ericid>EJ1112590</ericid><jstor_id>44645783</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A536533619</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b352t-154d888c7f7e2ce18ac993b2e85dca73e12337981c48700bd32359afba4937c23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkdGK1DAUhosouKz7AoIQ8Hpmk5ymSb2RYVhXZWVu3OuQpifTLG1Tk3RX394ulVkFBclFwsn3nf_iL4rXjG6BVfKyN9mntOWUVVtaU075s-KMSSE2nCv2_PSW8LK4SMk3FKqSMwXirLjduYxxMLkjwZHcIflyOOzJg4npHdmbkdgwDBitNz25x7ENMZE0T1OImdiIS_I9ks4fO4wE29kugzC-f1W8cKZPePHrPi9uP1x93X_c3ByuP-13N5sGBM8bJspWKWWlk8gtMmVsXUPDUYnWGgnIOICsFbOlkpQ2LXAQtXGNKWuQlsN58XbdO8XwbcaU9V2Y47hEaqZYVXGhqt-oo-lR-9GFHI0dfLJ6J6ASABWrF2r7F2o5LQ7ehhGdX-Z_CHwVbAwpRXR6in4w8YdmVD8Wo9di9GMxei1mkd6sEkZvT8LVZ8YYFzV9-r9LOcQTUJZVKaSCp9AG47Ez3fh_oewf0gqvmJ5ap93c9xm_Z_gJdsy1dA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1816625862</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Aftermath of the MOOC wars: Can commercial vendors support creative higher education?</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Berghahn Journals</source><creator>Newfield, Christopher</creator><creatorcontrib>Newfield, Christopher</creatorcontrib><description>The large-scale massive open online course (xMOOC) rose to prominence in 2012–13 on the promise that its outcomes would be better and cheaper than those of face-to-face university instruction. By late 2013, xMOOC educational claims had been largely discredited, though policy interest in ed-tech carried on. What can we learn about the future of ed-tech by analysing this eighteen-month period in higher education history? This article gathers different types of evidence to suggest several conclusions: MOOC momentum was propelled by an administrative failure to apply due diligence to xMOOC educational claims. The MOOC path was also smoothed by a confusion among key commentators between xMOOCs and small-scale ‘connectivity’ MOOCs that did show meaningful learning outcomes. At the same time, online courses do not overcome race-based disparities of outcome and in some cases make them worse. In addition, student use of online courses appears to be instrumental, even cynical, further limiting their educational value. MOOCs will be back in modified form to endanger educational equity and quality unless faculty members articulate explicit goals and standards for public higher education to which ed-tech can be held accountable.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1755-2273</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1755-2281</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3167/latiss.2016.090202</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Berghahn Journals</publisher><subject>Active learning ; Cognitive Development ; College students ; Colleges & universities ; Community colleges ; Creativity ; Education policy ; Educational outcomes ; Educational Quality ; Educational Technology ; Equal Education ; Ethnicity ; Forecasts and trends ; Higher Education ; Influence of Technology ; Learning ; Learning outcomes ; Learning Processes ; Learning Strategies ; Massive open online courses ; Online Courses ; Online instruction ; Online learning ; Outcomes of Education ; Social aspects ; Teachers ; Teaching Methods ; Technology application ; Technology Uses in Education ; Thinking Skills ; Vendors ; Virtual universities</subject><ispartof>Learning and teaching, 2016-06, Vol.9 (2), p.12-41</ispartof><rights>Berghahn Books</rights><rights>2016 Berghahn Books</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Berghahn Books, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Berghahn Books and Journals Jun 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b352t-154d888c7f7e2ce18ac993b2e85dca73e12337981c48700bd32359afba4937c23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44645783$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44645783$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,28198,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1112590$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Newfield, Christopher</creatorcontrib><title>Aftermath of the MOOC wars: Can commercial vendors support creative higher education?</title><title>Learning and teaching</title><description>The large-scale massive open online course (xMOOC) rose to prominence in 2012–13 on the promise that its outcomes would be better and cheaper than those of face-to-face university instruction. By late 2013, xMOOC educational claims had been largely discredited, though policy interest in ed-tech carried on. What can we learn about the future of ed-tech by analysing this eighteen-month period in higher education history? This article gathers different types of evidence to suggest several conclusions: MOOC momentum was propelled by an administrative failure to apply due diligence to xMOOC educational claims. The MOOC path was also smoothed by a confusion among key commentators between xMOOCs and small-scale ‘connectivity’ MOOCs that did show meaningful learning outcomes. At the same time, online courses do not overcome race-based disparities of outcome and in some cases make them worse. In addition, student use of online courses appears to be instrumental, even cynical, further limiting their educational value. MOOCs will be back in modified form to endanger educational equity and quality unless faculty members articulate explicit goals and standards for public higher education to which ed-tech can be held accountable.</description><subject>Active learning</subject><subject>Cognitive Development</subject><subject>College students</subject><subject>Colleges & universities</subject><subject>Community colleges</subject><subject>Creativity</subject><subject>Education policy</subject><subject>Educational outcomes</subject><subject>Educational Quality</subject><subject>Educational Technology</subject><subject>Equal Education</subject><subject>Ethnicity</subject><subject>Forecasts and trends</subject><subject>Higher Education</subject><subject>Influence of Technology</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Learning outcomes</subject><subject>Learning Processes</subject><subject>Learning Strategies</subject><subject>Massive open online courses</subject><subject>Online Courses</subject><subject>Online instruction</subject><subject>Online learning</subject><subject>Outcomes of Education</subject><subject>Social aspects</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Technology application</subject><subject>Technology Uses in Education</subject><subject>Thinking Skills</subject><subject>Vendors</subject><subject>Virtual universities</subject><issn>1755-2273</issn><issn>1755-2281</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkdGK1DAUhosouKz7AoIQ8Hpmk5ymSb2RYVhXZWVu3OuQpifTLG1Tk3RX394ulVkFBclFwsn3nf_iL4rXjG6BVfKyN9mntOWUVVtaU075s-KMSSE2nCv2_PSW8LK4SMk3FKqSMwXirLjduYxxMLkjwZHcIflyOOzJg4npHdmbkdgwDBitNz25x7ENMZE0T1OImdiIS_I9ks4fO4wE29kugzC-f1W8cKZPePHrPi9uP1x93X_c3ByuP-13N5sGBM8bJspWKWWlk8gtMmVsXUPDUYnWGgnIOICsFbOlkpQ2LXAQtXGNKWuQlsN58XbdO8XwbcaU9V2Y47hEaqZYVXGhqt-oo-lR-9GFHI0dfLJ6J6ASABWrF2r7F2o5LQ7ehhGdX-Z_CHwVbAwpRXR6in4w8YdmVD8Wo9di9GMxei1mkd6sEkZvT8LVZ8YYFzV9-r9LOcQTUJZVKaSCp9AG47Ez3fh_oewf0gqvmJ5ap93c9xm_Z_gJdsy1dA</recordid><startdate>20160601</startdate><enddate>20160601</enddate><creator>Newfield, Christopher</creator><general>Berghahn Journals</general><general>Berghahn Books, Inc</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160601</creationdate><title>Aftermath of the MOOC wars: Can commercial vendors support creative higher education?</title><author>Newfield, Christopher</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b352t-154d888c7f7e2ce18ac993b2e85dca73e12337981c48700bd32359afba4937c23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Active learning</topic><topic>Cognitive Development</topic><topic>College students</topic><topic>Colleges & universities</topic><topic>Community colleges</topic><topic>Creativity</topic><topic>Education policy</topic><topic>Educational outcomes</topic><topic>Educational Quality</topic><topic>Educational Technology</topic><topic>Equal Education</topic><topic>Ethnicity</topic><topic>Forecasts and trends</topic><topic>Higher Education</topic><topic>Influence of Technology</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Learning outcomes</topic><topic>Learning Processes</topic><topic>Learning Strategies</topic><topic>Massive open online courses</topic><topic>Online Courses</topic><topic>Online instruction</topic><topic>Online learning</topic><topic>Outcomes of Education</topic><topic>Social aspects</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Technology application</topic><topic>Technology Uses in Education</topic><topic>Thinking Skills</topic><topic>Vendors</topic><topic>Virtual universities</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Newfield, Christopher</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>One Literature (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Learning and teaching</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Newfield, Christopher</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1112590</ericid><atitle>Aftermath of the MOOC wars: Can commercial vendors support creative higher education?</atitle><jtitle>Learning and teaching</jtitle><date>2016-06-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>12</spage><epage>41</epage><pages>12-41</pages><issn>1755-2273</issn><eissn>1755-2281</eissn><abstract>The large-scale massive open online course (xMOOC) rose to prominence in 2012–13 on the promise that its outcomes would be better and cheaper than those of face-to-face university instruction. By late 2013, xMOOC educational claims had been largely discredited, though policy interest in ed-tech carried on. What can we learn about the future of ed-tech by analysing this eighteen-month period in higher education history? This article gathers different types of evidence to suggest several conclusions: MOOC momentum was propelled by an administrative failure to apply due diligence to xMOOC educational claims. The MOOC path was also smoothed by a confusion among key commentators between xMOOCs and small-scale ‘connectivity’ MOOCs that did show meaningful learning outcomes. At the same time, online courses do not overcome race-based disparities of outcome and in some cases make them worse. In addition, student use of online courses appears to be instrumental, even cynical, further limiting their educational value. MOOCs will be back in modified form to endanger educational equity and quality unless faculty members articulate explicit goals and standards for public higher education to which ed-tech can be held accountable.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Berghahn Journals</pub><doi>10.3167/latiss.2016.090202</doi><tpages>30</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1755-2273 |
| ispartof | Learning and teaching, 2016-06, Vol.9 (2), p.12-41 |
| issn | 1755-2273 1755-2281 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_eric_primary_EJ1112590 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Berghahn Journals |
| subjects | Active learning Cognitive Development College students Colleges & universities Community colleges Creativity Education policy Educational outcomes Educational Quality Educational Technology Equal Education Ethnicity Forecasts and trends Higher Education Influence of Technology Learning Learning outcomes Learning Processes Learning Strategies Massive open online courses Online Courses Online instruction Online learning Outcomes of Education Social aspects Teachers Teaching Methods Technology application Technology Uses in Education Thinking Skills Vendors Virtual universities |
| title | Aftermath of the MOOC wars: Can commercial vendors support creative higher education? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T17%3A14%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_eric_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Aftermath%20of%20the%20MOOC%20wars:%20Can%20commercial%20vendors%20support%20creative%20higher%20education?&rft.jtitle=Learning%20and%20teaching&rft.au=Newfield,%20Christopher&rft.date=2016-06-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=12&rft.epage=41&rft.pages=12-41&rft.issn=1755-2273&rft.eissn=1755-2281&rft_id=info:doi/10.3167/latiss.2016.090202&rft_dat=%3Cgale_eric_%3EA536533619%3C/gale_eric_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1816625862&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A536533619&rft_ericid=EJ1112590&rft_jstor_id=44645783&rfr_iscdi=true |