Why MOOCs threaten academic freedom - too much value for the students

A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about the use of MOOCs contains the following fascinating interview:

Chandrakant Panse, a professor of microbiology at MassBay (Community College) and president of the union chapter there, does not think MOOCs will make local faculty members obsolete. But Mr. Panse does think an edX certificate, acknowledging the completion of an MIT course, is worth more to students than three credits at a community college. And that could pose a threat to academic freedom in the future.

"The MIT certificate has a lot more value in the marketplace than three course credits at MassBay—absolutely," Mr. Panse says. In the context of a student's job search, says the professor, an edX certificate "is going to matter tremendously more than saying I have three credits at MassBay for doing a programming course."

Considering the possibility that edX courses will become part of the curriculum at MassBay, Mr. Panse believes that students will want the opportunity to earn edX certificates in addition to credit toward their MassBay degrees. That demand could prompt administrators to require that MassBay professors hew closely to the curriculum prescribed by the MIT professors.

These comments describe with remarkably clarity one of the key issues facing many institutions with lesser brand value as they struggle with the question of how to use MOOCs.  There is significant potential of conflict between the freedom of the faculty at the institution to define course material, and the value to the student of a certificate of completion of a MOOC course from a high brand university or faculty member. This conflict is likely to raise fundamental questions about the role and purpose of the instititution itself, and about the concept of academic freedom as it is often defined and applied to teaching.

One can only hope that these weighty questions will be addressed with the primary goal of ensuring that students end up with the best possible education, and are well positioned to find employment in this changing world. Unfortunately, most of the push-back about using MOOCs so far has been about preserving academic freedom in teaching, and not about benefits to students. Perhaps that will change with time. 

Comments

[Keith Hampson]

Thanks for this, Lloyd.
You write: "Unfortunately, most of the push-back about using MOOCs so far has been about preserving academic freedom in teaching, and not about benefits to students. Perhaps that will change with time."
I will avoid trying to predict how this will all unfold. But it’s interesting to note how the quality of the concerns from faculty about loss of autonomy in response to MOOCs resemble those made during the early years of online higher ed. Criticism in the mid and late 1990s defined the issue in essentially the same terms - as a threat to embedded occupational models. This was a key facet of David Noble's argument: online education, to him, was about the inevitable narrowing and deskilling of faculty labour.
This view of online education seemed to fade during the last 10 or 12 years, as faculty watched universities continue to hire faculty to teach in each online course, mirroring the classroom model. (The maintenance of the classroom model had less to do with the sector’s pursuit of the best instructional strategies for online courses and more to do with limited imagination and the challenges of restructuring labour in a conservative, decentralized institution.)
An interesting recent example of this perspective is found in The Predatory Pedagogy of On-Line Education, which lays out ten reasons for opposing the growing emphasis on online edu. However, the essay renders faculty as weak victims, under the thumb of administrators and commercial interests; conveniently forgetting the fact that faculty are largely privileged group with an extraordinary amount of professional (not merely academic autonomy). It begins by citing a speech by Josh Coates, CEO of Instructure, which you can find here: http://help.instructure.com/entries/21648583-instructurecon12-keynote-josh-coates-ceo-instructure
Keith

Lloyd responds: thanks for the very good comment. I apologize for taking so long to publish it.

[Muvaffak GOZAYDIN]

Prof Panse is right.
This way or that way colleges will lose students.
If colleges adopt courses like MassBay they will stay alive for 13 years.
If colleges do not adopt courses from Good moocs such as edx , they will live for only 3 more years .
MassBay will change all its curriculum to 100 % GOOD MOOCs within 5 years . Adjunt professors will be course mentors. Tenure professors must find new jobs at research companies .

Look up the prices Coursera has given to 8 universities
Kentucy, Tennessee new mexico nebraska Houston West Virginia University of Ny, Colorado

12-15 weeks long Coursera courses fee is if enrollment is > 1,000
only $ 36 . Yes BA degree requires 40 courses then the cost of a BA degree is 40 x $ 36 = $ 1,440
That was my dream . I hope other universities will follow .

Then states will sell their schools' land and buildings , citizens will be taxed much less . Federal Government will do the same .
Money will flow to USA from global students ( 200,000,000 HE students )

Lloyd comments: thanks for the good comment. This is a typical situation for an industry being disrupted. The established companies often make the decisions that make the most sense in the short run, but ultimately lead to their demise. If disruption is coming, they are in a lose-lose situation.