White, Edward M. “MOOC As Threat and Promise.” Invasion of the MOOCs.

The article offers White’s thoughts on “develop[ing] a feedback and assessment design” for an online writing course at Duke University, their “MOOC Composition I” (150), for which there would be approximately 64K enrolled. As part of this overview, White points to criticisms of the MOOC among composition scholars and education voices in general. He observes quite pointedly that many compositions see “all MOOCs as an unmitigated evil” (150).

White reviews some of the objections / concerns regarding MOOCs:

1. high enrollment

2. the claim that this course would be the same as a CLEP or AP exam at placing a student

3. He points out that the # of students who might attempt this route are probably less than those who want to CLEP credit. Says it’s not a big deal, as long as the university is prepared to handle evaluating the e-portfolio created (what Duke does)

4. as a “threat to higher education” as a paradigm – the impression that it’s education on the “cheap” (151)

He responds to these by saying  that we (i.e., those of us in composition and, I presume, others invested in the field of higher education) must resist the model of education based on economics (“off-shore business production”) and lean instead on “models of education” (152). His proposal: don’t look at MOOCs as a replacement. Instead, see it as “an expansion of what used to be known as community education / adult education – learning for its own sake” … that’s “the promise” of MOOCs (152).

However, White doesn’t fall headlong into the MOOC fan camp. He mentions the “currency” of college credit (152), and how MOOC classes being offered without credit might diminish the educational value of higher ed coursework. Part of his critique of MOOCs in this light concerns assessment possibilities. On page 152, he points out that we trust the faculty of f2f courses to “monitor the quality of student performance” – something he says cannot be done in a large MOOC -- it’s only possible to monitor if the material is submitted. From this assessment standpoint, White asserts that we (I’m assuming he means those of us who have the power to influence such policy) can’t afford to grant credit for MOOC courses (153).

Interestingly, as part of his article, he asserts that the “European model” of education values “performance assessment” more than the American model, which he says values “seat time” more (152) – I’m not sure that’s true given our American model is a by-product of the scientific research models of Germany.

Even though White says we shouldn’t allow MOOCs to receive credit, he does concede that these courses ARE still useful because assessment of MOOC work can be more about feedback (like what New Learning calls for), and “be a powerful learning tool” – that’s what the DUKE assessment is designed to be. In sum, he says:

1. If what we want is to measure learning, MOOCs can be productive.

2. His project sets up student review as a productive assessment tool.

3. This type of assignment “puts the emphasis strongly on feedback” with the grade only being assigned at the end of the process.

4. The Duke assessment process includes a reflective letter at the end of the project that is designed to show “understanding of the course goals,” etc. (154) -- a technique that mirrors some of our recent readings on assessment, as well as Chapter 10 of New Learning on Measuring Learning.

Interestingly, he also asserts that “feedback is more important to most writers than assessment” (154). I take issue with this conclusion, and I suspect it should be limited to a certain demographic of students. That conclusion would not be echoed, I’m pretty sure, by my students, the average freshman. However, such a claim may be true of Adult Learners, who are in the MOOC for very different reasons. Malcolm Knowles theorizes Adult Learners as “andragogy” (see this link for more information).