Your new post is loading...
The academic conversation on MOOCs is starting to polarise in exactly the talking-past-one-another way that so many complex conversations evolve: with very smart points on either side, but not a lot of recognition that the validity of certain key points on one side does not undermine the validity of certain key points on the other.
Via Peter B. Sloep
A plea for a balanced view should always be taken seriously. After all, what is the point of a debate if you're unwilling to change your opinion, Habermas already noted many years ago. This does not mean that one can only articulate opinions that take a kind of middle ground, that are an amalgamate of extant opinions. Indeed, it means that one should articulate one's opinion as precisely and clearly as possible in order that others can critique it. Only that way, we can learn what different conceptions of MOOCs there are and how we think about each one of them. That is what I try to achieve through these pages, and that is exactly what Cathy Davidson does in this article of hers.
She notes that perhaps MOOCs are a way neoliberals hope to make money, but that that observation does not exempt us from addressing the issue of their popularity. She acknowledges that rising tuition costs are a driver for MOOCs but puts this in perspective by establishing that i) there is no evidence that MOOCs do anything about those costs, ii) costs may have risen faster than inflation, but not faster than, say, the cost of luxury travel.
In conclusion, Cathy urges that "we should all be emphasising, in every conversation: in the complex, changing world in which we live, advanced learning is necessary. Not a luxury. It deserves the public support of other necessities. Advanced education is far too important to price out of the market for all but the global 1%." (@pbsloep)