blended-learning-design

Faculty ’empowered’ in university’s MOOC rollout


GW faculty have been given control over the university’s approach–learn how

university-faculty-MOOCs

Faculty members at a host of universities have blocked massive open online course (MOOC) initiatives, criticized the corporate interests driving MOOC adoption, and raised labor union concerns about the long-term consequences on MOOC proliferation.

Meanwhile, at George Washington University, all is calm.

Decision makers at the private Washington, D.C. university of 10,400 undergraduates have worked hand in hand with faculty members from various departments in the school’s first MOOC initiative, doing their best to avoid disharmony with the people who will eventually teach the classes composed of tens of thousands of people from around the world.

GW faculty, in many ways, have been given some level of control over the university’s approach to its first set of MOOCs. That’s hardly an accident, said Paul Schiff Berman, GW’s vice provost for online education and academic innovation.

“We see MOOCs as a way of empowering faculty who are interested in reaching a very different audience than they’re used to,” said Berman, who said massive courses would be just another addition to the school’s 76 credit-bearing online education programs. “Our approach to MOOCs have not engendered any kind of faculty backlash, which I’m happy to say.”

(Next page: Why skepticism is okay)

The university hasn’t dived head first into the controversial courses hosted by platforms like edX and Cousera; rather, GW officials have met with members of the faculty senate, ensuring educators that no one would be required to participate in GW’s MOOCs.

“If there are faculty members who are interested, it seems to me that it’s incumbent upon a university to figure out pathways for faculty to do that,” Berman said.

And that might me the key difference in how GW has approached its foray into the MOOC market: Berman said he’s made sure to maintain close contact with professors interested in the experimental online platform, encouraging them to discuss MOOCs with their peers on campus.

“It’s always better when it comes from colleagues than administrators,” he said. “I have no interest in forcing faculty members who are not interested in online education to teach an online course.”

GW’s approach stands in stark contrast to some MOOC initiatives that have launched over the past year, including a plan to enroll more than 100,000 State University of New York (SUNY) students in MOOCs without increasing faculty.

A spokeswoman for the United University Professions (UUP) union representing 35,000 academics called MOOCs “experimental” and said faculty members were concerned that mass MOOC adoption would “dilute” education for SUNY students.

The faculty backlash against MOOCs doesn’t stop there.

Amherst College offered a firm denial to MOOC provider EdX in April. Duke faculty, a few weeks later, voted down plans for the university to offer MOOC-like courses.

Philosophy faculty members at San Jose State University, where MOOCs have thrived thanks to campus officials bullish about the courses, said in an open letter that adopting MOOCs was tantamount to watering down students’ college education.

An ‘organic’ move toward MOOCs

GW educators said the university has taken a deliberate approach, preferring not to partner with a major MOOC platform like Cousera or edX — two outfits recently panned by a group of professors who warned against creeping corporate influence in online education.

Berman said the university would not sign with any of the largest MOOC platforms, though he couldn’t discuss GW’s MOOC platform until memorandums of understanding were signed.

GW professors said they’ve appreciated the university’s cautious move toward MOOCs, even as many faculty members have expressed interest in heading up massive courses.

“In general, there’s an effort to move more organically and be a little skeptical of MOOCs,” said Margaret Soltan, a GW English professor who taught a poetry MOOC last year hosted by the platform Udemy. “It’s always good to be skeptical of all the rage.”

(Next page: No MOOCs for credit?)

Soltan said she doesn’t see MOOCs as a panacea for higher education, and didn’t hedge when asked about the potential threat posed by online classes that can be taken by tens of thousands of students using a series of lectures recorded one time.

“A lot of professors consider MOOCs threatening to their livelihood, and they have every reason to be nervous,” Soltan said, adding that campuses in dire fiscal straights could very well turn to MOOCs as a cost-saving measure. “I can see a university with financial troubles cynically deciding to go with MOOCs. … I think [faculty] should feel threatened in some circumstances.”

No MOOCs for credit

Opposition to MOOCs varies from campus to campus, and while four in 10 higher education survey respondents said their schools would adopt some sort of MOOC over the next few years, most said the courses didn’t pose an immediate threat to in-person classes.

Two-thirds of respondents to an Enterasys survey said MOOCs will “never replace traditional, residential classes,” with 5 percent saying MOOCs would, in fact, replace traditional higher education within five years.

GW’s approach to MOOCs, unlike many colleges and universities, have not involved a side discussion about the massive courses offered for credit at some unspecified date. Berman said it would remain that way.

“There is no plan to offer MOOCs for credit,” he said. “We don’t see it as a way of replacing our in person program or something that would be credit bearing. There’s absolutely no move toward using these courses to generate revenue, nor will there be.”

Sign up for our newsletter

Newsletter: Innovations in K12 Education
By submitting your information, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Oops! We could not locate your form.

Sign up for our newsletter

Newsletter: Innovations in K12 Education
By submitting your information, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.