Massive Online Obsessive Compulsion: What are They Saying Out There about the Latest Phenomenon in Higher Education?

This article is a review of ideas, comments, and inquiries about massive open online courses (MOOCs) gathered from a wide variety of online journal and magazine articles, and web blogs. As a seasoned “traditional” online educator, as well as a student participant in several MOOCs, I also take the opportunity to share my personal insight from my own learning experiences, with the goal of illustrating some of the concerns unearthed in my research. One serious issue regarding MOOCs is that some learners can feel isolated and/or neglected, particularly when they perceive that other course participants and/or the professor are ignoring their contributions. Our era has witnessed “the McDonaldization of Education” (Lane & Kinser, 2012), in which one size fits all and information is delivered to student “customers” via systematically managed “factories” whose overseers frown upon any supposed waste of valuable resources or human effort. In the mass-appeal environment of a MOOC, it is quite possible that a student will receive no customized feedback from nominal experts in the field. Lack of meaningful interaction is likely a key factor driving high attrition numbers in the online education environment – numbers that are apparently even higher in the case of MOOCs. The ideas presented herein also formed part of a webinar that I created for Pennsylvania State University in March 2013.


Article abstract
This article is a review of ideas, comments, and inquiries about massive open online courses (MOOCs) gathered from a wide variety of online journal and magazine articles, and web blogs. As a seasoned "traditional" online educator, as well as a student participant in several MOOCs, I also take the opportunity to share my personal insight from my own learning experiences, with the goal of illustrating some of the concerns unearthed in my research. One serious issue regarding MOOCs is that some learners can feel isolated and/or neglected, particularly when they perceive that other course participants and/or the professor are ignoring their contributions. Our era has witnessed "the McDonaldization of Education" (Lane & Kinser, 2012), in which one size fits all and information is delivered to student "customers" via systematically managed "factories" whose overseers frown upon any supposed waste of valuable resources or human effort. In the mass-appeal environment of a MOOC, it is quite possible that a student will receive no customized feedback from nominal experts in the field. Lack of meaningful interaction is likely a key factor driving high attrition numbers in the online education environment -numbers that are apparently even higher in the case of MOOCs.
In the Beginning… Not long ago I had the opportunity to present a webinar for Pennsylvania State University discussing what we know so far about massive open online courses (MOOCs).
Although only a few months have passed since my presentation, it would be more accurate to say "what we knew about MOOCs", because every day we seem to get another update on how this most recent mode of delivering higher education has further evolved.
We seem to be compulsively obsessed with MOOCs. We wake up every morning realizing that someone somewhere, myself included, is writing an article, an essay, a blog, you name it, in an effort to dissect what these courses represent and their impact on global higher education. We have even reached the state where MOOCs are coined with lowercase prefixes: cMOOCs, connecting people and relying on person-to-person exchanges; xMOOCs, predominantly computer graded with low human interaction; and now oMOOCs, where the "o" stands for original (Bell, 2013). It seems that, with so many current variations in how these courses are used by educational institutions, original refers back to what Canadian educators Stephen Downes and George Siemens had in mind when they launched the first MOOC in 2008 -which was also the first of a series of MOOCs I have participated in as a student. Entitled Connectivism and Collective Knowledge (CCK08), it was meant to provide access to the masses and to "people who cannot afford to pay the cost to travel to and attend […] small in-person events" (Bell, 2013, ¶ 2). Moreover, "original MOOCs (oMOOCs) were free, or at least extremely affordable, fully online, well-crafted, and contained a lot of interesting pedagogy and institutional design. The target demographic was the underserved, both nationally and internationally" ( ¶ 5). Indeed, my impression was that the CCK08 course had participants from all corners of the planet, with an enormous variety of social, cultural, and professional backgrounds.

Rapid Paradigmatic Changes
Now that a few years have passed since CCK08, we see a wide range of deviations from the initial intent, based on what the constantly growing MOOC-related literature has brought to light so far. As is the case with any innovation, making sense of MOOCs has become a never-ending quest for many of us -an attempt to nail down how they affect, both positively and negatively, the lives of all stakeholders. This is why so much has been written about the subject and why the controversy surrounding MOOCs only seems to grow.
There is no shortage of supporters for this new paradigm in higher education, despite the fact that students in MOOCs must embrace what seems to be a chaotic learning environment in which the apparent virtues of openness and connectedness also bring a high degree of complexity and the need for greater self-organization (deWaard, Abajian, all MOOCs seem to have an "o" prefix because they offer the potential to revolutionize higher education, finally allowing the global population to gain free access to top-quality education and escape poverty

Learning -A Matter of Semantics?
This notion that MOOCs can elevate humanity to a new reality in which everyone benefits -learning from the best post-secondary educators and gaining a chance at a more fulfilling life -is seductive. However, it originates in a utopian desire and is unlikely ever to happen. For starters, we must define "learning". If by learning we mean having the opportunity to view a recorded lecture by a renowned professor from a topranked university, and to be referred to additional materials related to the topic presented, then yes, one could say that everyone with an Internet connection anywhere in the world can learn. But the fact is that this is the kind of learning that can only happen in Shangri-La, to return to my Lost Horizon reference -and those who remember the film will also recall that once you left the valley, things did not go well.
The problem with the MOOC learning experience is that the mere exposure to information does not lead to the assimilation of knowledge and personal growth. In my own experience as both student and teacher -mentored as a novice, incidentally, by the aforementioned impossible for a professor to interact with thousands of students -even 1% of a MOOC student population could represent as many as 1,000 people (Mittell, 2013) -and when many learners still rely on teacher-student interaction to stay motivated and on track, it is not surprising that huge numbers of them give up, often in the first week of the course. No matter how sophisticated the technology used in a MOOC, for professors such as Timothy Burke of Swarthmore College, the essence of education still lies in the subtle interplay between students and teachers, which cannot be simulated by machines, regardless of refinements in programming (Carr, 2012). Nevertheless, Coursera co-founder Daphne Koller sees the need to clarify one point: No direct correlation can be established between lack of course completion and failure of the MOOC idea. In Koller's view, it all depends on each student's intent when enrolling in a course. Many only want to explore, perhaps exchange ideas with others and move on to something else without taking quizzes or completing assignments . But even when students intend to complete a course and participate in every activity, the use of peer grading -a practice adopted by Coursera professors who have to rely on course participants to assess each other's work -may become a source of discouragement and a strong reason to drop out. In this regard Lewin (2012) raises an important question: How can one be sure whether any MOOC participant is capable of matching the professor's grading standards?
The Credit Controversy An even more troubling matter is the question of credit. Many colleges are likely to start accepting MOOC certificates as transfer credits -particularly when they see this concession as a significant tool for marketing, and consequentially higher enrolment numbers (Carey, 2012 Education at the University of California, Irvine, warns that "everyone should be afraid of MOOCs, although there are some that should be more afraid than others" (Wallis, 2013, ¶ 10). For many detractors, MOOCs epitomize "the McDonaldization of education" -they make it easy to obtain, inexpensive and insubstantial (Schmidt, 2013).
And to extend the analogy: Fast food may taste good to many if not most of us, but no one could expect to live a long and healthy life relying solely on its poor nutritional value. Sooner or later, we'd need a radical and substantial change in our eating habits or otherwise we'd perish.
The University of California faculty union laments that professors "irrevocably grant the university the absolute right and permission to use their course content, name, image and likeness" (Rivard, 2013, ¶ 4), which has the potential to weaken faculty intellectual property rights and collective bargaining agreements. Furthermore, MOOCs, according to Gerry Canavan, assistant professor at Marquette University in Milwaukee, WI, boost the trend toward hiring adjuncts and devalue labour in the university environment.
Canavan asserts that MOOCs embody a "labour model in search of a pedagogy" (Beware Where Are Faculty in All of This? When so much seems to be at stake for faculty, their views are of fundamental importance, although some claim that their voices have not been heard when it comes to the decision to embrace MOOCs (Azevedo, 2012). For Peter Struck, professor of classical studies at the University of Pennsylvania (Chronicle of Higher Education interview, 2012), the biggest concern is whether a faculty member can cultivate the engagement and dedication that students must put into their studies in order to gain value from the educational experience. Otherwise MOOCs can simply become a means to transfer data, which is not transformative and hence not a noteworthy form Faculty members who have embraced the MOOC reality, at least at first glance, have a variety of reasons for doing so. However, they seem to have two main sources of motivation: One, altruistic in nature, is the ability to reach a student population that otherwise might never have the opportunity to learn from the very best scholars. On the other hand, a great many faculty members seem to be teaching MOOCs for egocentric reasons: They do not want to be left behind by their peers; they hope to increase their visibility and perhaps gain tenure more quickly; they hope to sell more of their textbooks; they like the idea of reaching a larger audience ; and some enjoy the celebrity status they've gained even among students abroad .
Are MOOCs Really Worth the Cost of Delivery?
Despite the diversity of opinion, MOOC providers and their university partners seem to believe that they will ultimately see a payoff for the time and financial resources invested in the preparation and delivery of these courses.  (Levy, 2012). Under Coursera's "Signature Track", for US$50 students can pay to write proctored exams and receive a verified completion certificate . This idea put US$220,000 into the company's coffers in the first quarter of 2013. Coursera also receives a percentage of Amazon.com's sales when its course participants purchase textbooks suggested by a professor. Nevertheless, meaningful revenues have yet to be realized by MOOC providers, who have been working incessantly on ideas that might finally allow them to monetize the MOOC experience.
The opinion that MOOCs help build a university's brand is not unusual among some professors and administrators (Anderson, 2012

Some Final, Fundamental Questions
The good news is that with the advent of open education, universities and colleges are revisiting their missions and focusing significantly more attention on providing better quality of teaching (Daniel, 2012). As Chamberlin and Parish (2011) (Wallis, 2013). But what is even more certain is that there is still a myriad of unanswered questions, at least for the time being.
Udacity's founder, Sebastian Thrun, wonders whether MOOC classes have the power to reach current university students and take away business from traditional institutionsor if they in fact reach new students and add to the overall education market (Wallis, 2013). Other important questions to consider include: • What is the value added by university campuses "when demand can be aggregated either by bringing students to campus or, much less expensively, by reaching and teaching students online virtually anywhere in the world" (Guile, 2013, ¶ 8).
• "Emerging technologies may allow us to educate the world more efficiently, [but…] can we educate people more effectively" (Head, 2013, ¶ 1)? • And finally, perhaps the most critical question of all: What are MOOCs for ?
I'll end this paper with my own question: Why are we so compulsively obsessed with comparing apples to oranges? If we are so concerned with which medium delivers higher quality of education -MOOCs or traditional classes -then we must first look for ways to enhance all educational environments, regardless of their nature, and let students choose the route that best satisfies their personal needs. Why should the two environments be mutually exclusive? Let both traditional and massive online courses earn that "o" prefix, indicating that the intent that shaped them reflects the original plan -encouraging people to become decent and ethical citizens of the world, striving for a better and less unhappy society.