Monthly Archives: July 2013

Habitación 212

Axé.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Banes, News

El trabajo

In addition to teaching, service, and grant deadlines I now have one research deadline August 9 and another September 15. I therefore cannot work on any of my MOOC essays until that time. I do have three MOOC essays now: (1) the first, 3-part one I wrote for CN, (2) the second part of it that I could develop as an independent piece, and (3) the second, 2-part one that I redeveloped again for CN based upon his comments.

The NYT rejected the first one and I have not resubmitted it anywhere. If CN does not take the second 2-part one, I have not figured out where to submit. So these are two finished, yet still homeless op-ed style essays and I am open to suggestions on where to send.

Meanwhile, if I redevelop part 2 of the first, 3-part essay as an independent piece, I want to take into account information on the original nature of the MOOC idea, without monetization and exploitation to the anti-higher-ed cause, and the point that MOOCs as now conceived would kill the research university, which pace what people who want “good teaching” say, is not a good thing.

Others say:

What was a promise for free-range, connected, open-ended learning online, MOOCs are becoming something else altogether. Locked-down. DRM’d. Publisher and profit friendly. Offered via a closed portal, not via the open Web.  READ THIS AND ITS LINKS.

I would argue that we need to restore sociability and to push-back against a view of education that is about economic value or entrepreneurial activity. READ THE WHOLE THING: THAT IS ONLY ONE SMALL POINT IN A MUCH BROADER ANALYSIS.

Axé.

Leave a comment

Filed under Resources, What Is A Scholar?

The disappearing public university

This is a revision, based on comments made by the editors, of the essay I ran here earlier, “On democracy, economy, and the rise and fall of the MOOC.”

The disappearing public university

I

I teach Latin American literature and culture in a public research university that, having lost half its state funding over the past five years, has moved at near warp speed to an entrepreneurial model. So as to become more current on pedogogical and policy issues affecting us and other institutions in similar situations, this summer I joined a Coursera MOOC and a Facebook group where faculty from around the country discuss online teaching.

In 2008, the year the markets crashed, the Gates Foundation announced a new focus, on recasting postsecondary education as a credentialing process. Gates and other private foundations dedicated to the educational “reform” movement donated generously to news organizations covering higher education. The opinion pages of newspapers like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal advanced the foundation agenda, touting the advantages of massive open online courses, or MOOCs.

Backed by venture capital, these low-cost courses would allegedly solve the budget crisis in higher education by supplanting traditional universities. Taught by the best faculty, in the most modern way, MOOCs would be a pedagogical improvement as well as a device to cut costs or perhaps, raise revenue.

The MOOC I took, however, was pedagogically weak. The topic was Latin American culture. The professor had no academic preparation in field. The course bore the brand of an institution which does not recognize it for credit, even from the division for continuing education.

In six weeks we were assigned one academic article. Other readings, and lectures appeared to be derived from popular encyclopedias. They offered shapeless, often outdated lists of names and facts. Key readings were policy proposals from private foundations and international organizations based in G-8 countries, informed by assumptions about the region that were never debated. A typical discussion question was, “Has urbanization encouraged development in Latin America?” We had quiz questions on whether global warming had an effect on Latin America, whether eco-tourism available, and whether Latin Americans had contributed to world literature.

By the third week there were active forum threads on design weaknesses of every type, from the poor quality of questions to the chaotic architecture of the website. Other common complaints were the inaccessibility of the professor, and the lack of monitoring on the forums, and a grading system that ignored content in favor of form.

Automated messages from Coursera, meanwhile, told us we were wonderful students, dedicated to learning. Would we like to join the Signature Track, offering a paper diploma and a signature in ink? The Signature Track normally cost $59, but it was available for a special price of $29.

Soon the approach to the material came under serious challenge. The course assumed a Latin American cultural unity, based on a common past and presaging future glory. It drew on mid-twentieth century developmentalism, and emphasized the importance of free trade. Many students knew how dated and how partial these perspectives were, and the discussions questioning them were spirited.

Students also set up web pages to help each other search for more comprehensive and more objective sources, and more nuanced discussions of Latin American cultural processes. The pages attempted to counterbalance the lack of authentic materials from Latin America in the course, and the preponderance of material from organizations defining Latin America as a “problem” to be solved by Europe and the United States. This was “peer-to-peer” learning, but we could have engaged in it at a higher level had we not been obliged to excavate basic materials and cast off outdated arguments first.

We were at a disadvantage in comparison with students in regular online courses, since they can count on library databases, journals, e-books, and bibliographic guides, as well as online chat and telephone consultation with reference librarians. The lack of access to such resources rarely comes up in discussions of MOOCs. But library resources are essential to any “top-tier” education.

This apparent oversight may indicate a deeper problem in the MOOC ideology. The claim that learning is best done without teaching, imagine that these do not go together, and that research is unrelated to either. It would be disingenous to say my MOOC classmates improved upon traditional university education by sidelining the professor and engaging in collaborative learning.

The students did pool resources to discuss the course topic, despite the lack of materials and of a professor working in field. Given an informed and engaged professor, richer course materials, and access to a research library, things normally provided in university courses, the quality of discussion and of collaborative projects could have risen higher.

Is the MOOC I took an anomaly? Or is it what MOOCs may become once the current fervor wanes? Are star-led MOOCs the wave of the future? Or will these be a small vanguard of loss leaders, designed to legitimate the new convention, but soon to be diluted in cost-cutting mediocrity?

In my Facebook discussions on MOOCs and online teaching with faculty nationwide, it became evident that a well thought out MOOC is expensive to create and to run. Those preparing MOOCs reported large investments of equipment, time, and technical assistance. Much of this preparation would have to be repeated for each iteration of the course, if it were to remain fresh. Only MOOCs preserved like yellowed lecture notes, would be inexpensive.

To think clearly about well-tempered MOOCs, we might separate the projects of making education more affordable, and offering courses from US universities to global audiences. Their conflation, through the intimation that the work of corporations like Coursera is a philanthropic project to “democratize” access to higher education, muddies the issues substantially. Privatization often sells itself by offering both democracy and economy, as it stakes out new resources to monetize. We should not let this rhetoric direct our thinking on educational practice.

Finally, although the desire to improve educational quality worldwide may be laudable, it overlooks state institutions like mine, hard-hit by the funding crisis. Can MOOCs save our students? Stay tuned.

II

Massive open online courses, or MOOCs, have been aggressively promoted as strategies for teaching large numbers of students, in ways both more “efficient” and more pedagogically sound than the courses we give now. The companies offering these courses, as well as some faculty developing them, have also presented MOOCs as altruistic ways of extending the resources of our most privileged institutions to students worldwide.

This discussion condescends to foreign universities, an issue on which Jon Beasley-Murray has written eloquently. Like the representation of MOOCs as a way to provide top-flight education to students who have not gained admission to college, it overlooks the hundreds of thousands of students who have enrolled only to find that their institutions are being defunded and dismantled at a furious pace.

Universities nationwide are being forced to curtail programs. Students graduate with a debt burden that severely limits their horizons. Many faculty are part-timers without access to a living wage, let alone resources for teaching or professional development. Libraries have had acquisitions budgets eliminated, and journal subscriptions cut. Faculty and students are no longer considered primary stakeholders in the university, and administrators are tasked with repurposing our institutions to more commercial ends.

Serious as this situation is, it is premature to take it as a fait accompli whose remedy will be MOOCs and other corporate solutions. Focus groups and “town hall” meetings at our universities may urge us to leave the past behind, invent strategies for accommodation or survival, and accept corporatization as the only viable solution to the funding crisis. But the interest venture capital takes in us should indicate that we still have assets worth saving. To put the case more strongly, we are assets worth saving. We should push back against the defunding and dismantling of our institutions.

My second MOOC starts tomorrow, and I can already see it has been far better conceived than the first. Indirectly or directly, MOOCs might generate cash for both corporate backers and institutions. Already privileged global students, the ones with good English skills and fast Internet connections, may benefit from them just as I am about to benefit from mine. But MOOCs are mere toys in comparison with what actual universities have to offer.

My university has robust distance learning programs for those who cannot travel to campus, and we are expanding our online offerings. We do not lecture from stale textbooks. Our course websites are well administered, and most courses are richly enhanced with a variety of media. Colleagues from around the country give guest lectures, in person and by Skype. In-state tuition and living expenses together are $15,000 a year. We are not “broken,” but we have surely taken a beating. We have good rates of placement in jobs as well as in graduate and professional schools, but we would like to offer more.

Rather than accept further gutting and the corporate solutions which, as in other instances of structural adjustment, are waiting in the wings, we should work to meet our actual needs. Much more than support from Udacity or Coursera we need, not in any particular order:

a. For the library: acquisitions, as there are fields in which we own no materials from the present century, and continued maintenance of all current subscriptions.

b. For study abroad: expanded programs, office support for these, and also locally based financial aid supplements since we are utterly dependent upon Federal scholarships, which are inadequate.

c. Smart classrooms: so we can access the Internet and use other a/v materials in all courses, without having to apply ahead of time for use of a special room on a special day.

d. FTEs, so students are not taught by a patchwork of adjuncts, and tenure-track lines, so that students can be taught by experts currently engaged in research.

e. Salaries and benefits adequate to recruit and retain quality faculty. At present we only contribute 1.5% of salary to retirement funds of new hires. With the lack of raises since 2008, instructors are now teaching up to seven courses per term so as to make ends meet. This cannot fail to have an impact on the quality of instruction.

f. Restoration of regular sabbaticals, summer salary support, research and travel funding, including funding for travel to discipline-specific conferences on pedagogy; and funds for the acquisition of books and other research and teaching materials.

All of these these things, it should be noted, are not luxuries, but essentials if we are to maintain and enhance quality teaching and learning, or research. They are what we have renounced as budgets shrank. These, and not corporate pedagogies, continue to be our needs.

The MOOC fervor has been instructive because it so well illustrates the mechanisms, both practical and rhetorical, by which institutions are gutted and public monies are moved to private coffers. Arguments for expanding access to higher education ring hollow in the absence of credible public investment in it. When defunding requires us to cut services and raise tuition, it is easy to say that quality and value are declining. The problem must be pedagogy, and the answer must be a new, commercial product.

This strategy has been exposed, but the discussion may have advanced the redefinition of university education as credentialing, and teaching as training. These propositions will surely arise again, in service of the agenda on, or against higher education that has been in place since the Reagan administration. We should not allow those who view us as resources to exploit define our problems, or prescribe their solutions.

#OccupyHE.

Axé.

9 Comments

Filed under Da Whiteman, Movement, News, What Is A Scholar?

On attitudes toward race and poverty in “America”…

Professor Zero: Reading comments on news items I have come up with this insight: the reason people keep complaining about “welfare queens” and also “Obama voters” as non-workers it is costing us all our vacation time to support, and so, on, is SLAVERY.

1. In fact the riches of the US were built on slavery, and people do not want to admit it.
2. They resent abolition … to them, if you are Black you should be back home in those cottonfields.

I am convinced this is what must be behind it, and I would bet that if one did a rhetorical analysis by computer with a large data set, this is what all those remarks about the “welfare class” would decode to.

Comment inspiring comment: Germany doesn’t have the lifetime welfare class that America does, so universal health care and free college are more palatable.  More people pull their weight over there, unlike America where the productive 53% have to work longer to support a good number of Obama voters.

My insight may not be entirely original and I have had a version of it before but the thing is, I saw it so clearly. They want to classify as non-workers the people who work the most, and the people who historically did not get paid for work. It is a 180 degree reversal and projection, especially if one is in the class who benefits from surplus value produced by others.

I have also decided that the justification for fear of Black neighborhoods liberals give, “They might have drugs, and I might be caught in crossfire,” is just fear of Black people.

#Occupy HE.

Axé.

Leave a comment

Filed under Banes, Da Whiteman, Movement, News

Vous, qui passez sans me voir

I believe this is the first song I remember hearing recorded. That explains why my weblog is so sophisticated.

Axé.

5 Comments

Filed under Songs

Joseph Kabasele Tshamala (Grand Kalle)

This is Indépendance Cha Cha, and it is worth studying!

And — #OccupyHE.

Axé.

2 Comments

Filed under Songs

A draft for future use

Deleted section of “On Democracy, Economy, and the Rise and Fall of the MOOC.” Needs a new title and expansion, along the lines of the interesting comments from the editors–which I would like to insert here.

II

The news just a few months ago was that MOOCs were the new paradigm for higher education. Costs would fall, quality would soar, and access would be greatly expanded. But soon, the discussion shifted. Now, MOOCS could provide education to the masses, greatly reducing the need for tenured and tenure-track lines and full-time faculty with benefits. Elite, or “deserving” students would still enjoy the benefits of traditional institutions. The next thing we knew, MOOCs were no longer to replace traditional university education, but would provide opportunities for certificates and enrichment to students lacking other forms of access to class. Finally, some MOOC providers changed course, scaling down goals to become mere contenders for a market share as providers of platforms for online courses.

The advent of the MOOC, then, has brought few changes. But the discussion of them has moved a great part of our energy from the actually serious issues which confront us to defending ourselves against our description as outdated pedagogues, unengaged in research and lecturing from yellowed notes. This characterization is not only inaccurate, but is motivated by commercial concerns. As a wake-up call, this debacle may have its uses, since the MOOC discussion has thrown the contours of the neoliberal assault on our institutions into high relief.

Is higher education “broken,” as we keep hearing? Defunding has had deleterious effects on programs. Students now graduate with a debt burden that severely limits their horizons. Many faculty are part-timers without access to a living wage, let alone resources for teaching or professional development. Administrators no longer consider the higher education community primary stakeholders in the university, and are tasked with repurposing our institutions to more commercial ends.

Yet, we are still teaching and conducting research. Indeed, one of the most distressing features of the MOOC craze is its enthusiasts’ ignorance of the relevance of research to university teaching. Popular wisdom tells us that research, or the creation of new knowledge, is irrelevant to teaching and learning, and that teaching is not “collaborative” enough. But research is the most essential form of collaborative learning. It is key in university teaching not only because course content should be current, but because research as pedagogical model and as practice means dialogue, group work, and collective discovery.

What can we do, if defunding and corporatization, and not “poor teaching,” are our real problems? What if these problems are more difficult to solve than it is to retrain and reinspire a tired teacher or reframe a weak course?

We should articulate the relationship between learning and teaching in our terms, rather than react defensively to the mischaracterizations of our endeavor that appear daily in the popular press. American academics do not have the custom of writing opinion or other journalistic pieces that is common for faculty in other countries; we would do well to adopt it. We, and not the Gates or the Lumina Foundation, should be framing the public discussion of pedagogy and research.

We should also take active roles in restoration and expansion of our eroded infrastructure. Many of those who have focused on their own careers, sometimes out of necessity, as the erosion of the past three decades has proceeded, now say “I am retiring, let the next generation discover a new educational paradigm.” We have been failing, not by lecturing from yellowed notes but by ignoring the contexts in which we work.

At the very least, we should make an inventory of our needs for teaching and research–for learning–and make these clear in every departmental, college, and university meeting. Against endless discussion of ways to “flip” classrooms, we should emphasize critical needs, for example, the continued need for current reference works.

We should point out that there is good discussion of pedagogy in many disciplinary journals, that are more up to date and more relevant than anything a commercial educational consultant can offer. We should remind administrators, legislatures, and the public that research is not just industry-funded R&D or abstruse theorizing, but rather is the learning that goes into every course. This learning is updated daily and brought to class new. Teaching is not the delivery of content but a collaborative practice.

[The focus on MOOCs as a way of extending the resources of our most privileged institutions to those living far from any institution helps to justify the work put into the creation of these courses, but also to drive out of sight the hundreds of thousands of students who have enrolled in college only to find that their institutions are being defunded and dismantled at a furious pace.]

#OccupyHE.

Axé.

Leave a comment

Filed under Movement, What Is A Scholar?