MOOCs and the Humanities

Watchmen ClockSo, there’s a lot of fuss about online and “flexible” learning, MOOCs, and the like these days. My posts on Eric Mazur and Coursera have drawn a fair amount of traffic to this otherwise rather neglected and sporadically updated blog. Welcome, new readers.

Another post on my blog

Let me make a couple of points clear:

1) I am not against technology, least of all online technology, in education. If anything I’m an early adopter. I’ve been using blogs in my courses for as long as I can remember. I was one of the first to use Wikipedia, in a rather successful project on the Latin American Dictator Novel. Indeed, a commenter over at “More or Less Bunk” very kindly said “The touchstone here is Jon Beasley-Murray’s Murder, Madness, and Mayhem class. In terms of exploiting the pedagogical potential of the web, nothing else even comes close.” He or she continues:

But MM&M did not turn Beasley-Murray into a global celebrity, nor has it inflamed the hearts of neoliberal university trustees–for the simple reason that, unlike the MOOC, it doesn’t feed into the techno-utopian fantasy of automating higher education and driving its price to zero.

Indeed. It is not technology that is at issue or at fault here. It is the shallow, decontextualized, and unthinking way in which it is presented and equally thoughtlessly lapped up by an institution that has apparently lost its way.

2) I’m not even particularly against MOOCs. In fact, I’m so not against MOOCs that I have spent much of this past year helping to start something that may turn out to be something of a DIY, home-grown MOOC. We’re calling it Arts One Digital.

But the challenge in all my experiments with technology in the classroom, and perhaps above all with Arts One Digital, is how to use it effectively in the Arts and Humanities.

Here at my institution, at least, the discussion (such as it is) about flexible learning and MOOCs has been dominated by the sciences. For instance, at the Coursera event, not one of the contributors to the debate came from the Arts or Humanities: not Koller herself, not the panel (which was chaired by the Dean of Sciences), not the introduction (by the Provost, a Chemist). All the questions from the floor were also by scientists, bar one from a member of the Faculty of Education (who asked about Coursera’s business model; subsequent discussion was quickly shut down). Concluding remarks came from a Vice President who is in the Arts, but an Economist (that “dismal science”). Even so, quite bizarrely, at one point the moderator felt the need to “put in a word for the sciences”! Yet most people I know in the Humanities weren’t even aware of the event, or the subsequent talk by Eric Mazur (a Physicist), introduced by the Academic Director of the Centre for Teaching and Learning Technology (also a Physicist).

Perhaps the oddest thing is that the Faculty of Education itself is barely present and certainly not officially represented on my university’s Flexible Learning Leadership Team or its Implementation Team (which comprises an Economist, a Physicist, a Zoologist, a Management Consultant, a Geologist, and yet another Management Consultant). If I were a member of that Faculty, I would be livid at the lack of faith the university places in the people it pays to be its experts on education. It’s astonishing. This strange marginalization of the real experts explains in part the shallowness of the thinking and knowledge on pedagogy that is repeatedly on display. At the end of the video of his talk, as he is taking off his microphone, you can hear Eric Mazur turning to the session chair and asking him if he had ever heard of Paulo Freire’s classic text, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Sadly, we don’t hear the chair’s response.

What are the consequences of this sidelining of the Arts and Humanities? This has been discussed at length elsewhere, but I want to note a couple of points…

1) The model for online student learning and assessment is almost completely derived from the Sciences, particularly its dependence on multiple-choice tests. This has been perhaps the focus of critique of MOOCs from the Humanities, but it’s obvious enough that the kinds of thinking and response expected in the Humanities is very poorly assessed by multiple choice. There are alternatives, particularly peer grading, but these bring with them their own problems as anyone who has ever incorporated peer feedback into a Humanities course knows.

2) The model for conventional teaching practice is likewise completely derived from the Sciences, particularly its dependence on lectures. I was surprised by Mazur’s contention that we are subject to the “tyranny of the lecture” as though that were the only medium of instruction in the contemporary university. In my nine years at my current job, I have only ever given four formal lectures–all of which, incidentally, I gave in the past year. At least in my corner of the Humanities, we teach almost exclusively in a seminar format (and I never use a textbook). This doesn’t mean that my classes are tiny–this is a large state institution, and numbers range from about 15 to 50. My general rule of thumb for a seminar is that if the professor talks for more than ten minutes consecutively at any one time, then something is going wrong. I do break this rule, sometimes deliberately and sometimes because something is indeed going wrong. But I bear it in mind constantly. If that’s a “flipped classroom,” we have it already.

3) The model for the course curriculum is also, in turn, completely derived from the Sciences, particularly its basic continuity from year to year. My eyebrows were raised at Koller’s contention that lecturing was “easy” because all you do is dust down last year’s notes. Of the four lectures I have given at UBC, none had been given before; and I don’t expect ever to give them again. This is in large part precisely why I wanted them to be recorded and put on line. (See me lecture on Robinson Crusoe here and here. You won’t have another chance!) More generally (and I recognize that I may be slightly unusual here), I very seldom teach the same course twice, and when I do I try to avoid if at all possible setting the same texts again. The range of what I am paid to teach–generally, Latin American literature and culture–is so wide that I feel I should try to do as much justice as I can to that breadth and diversity. Equally importantly, I do not want to be stuck teaching (say) Gabriel García Márquez and Isabel Allende for the rest of my days. Even when I return to García Márquez, for instance, we’ll read a different one of his novels every year.

All of this is in addition to the fact that, when the Arts and Humanities are left out as they have been, almost all sense of history, politics, and culture is also elided. This is not to say that Science is apolitical (far from it) or that scientists are not political animals. It is merely to point out that some of us in the Arts and Humanities are paid (by the university) to teach and think about issues such as the history of education and educational reform, the politics of the institution and previous missions civilisatrices, and/or the cultural differences that a company such as Coursera wants so blandly to homogenize. So, for instance, I am paid to know a little about Latin America, which is why Koller’s unthinking condescension about Peru and Peruvians jumped out at me. But there are many other voices missing from the debate–so much so that it is barely even a debate, as any dissent is stifled in the name of efficiency and in the face of bewildered enthusiasm for what is (supposedly) new and shiny.

The Arts and Humanities should have a vital role, critical and self-reflexive, that would complicate current discussion of technology in the classroom, and more broadly enhance our understanding of the university’s many challenges and possibilities in a global, wired world. But what we get instead is kneejerk enthusiasm and self-defeating short-termism. This is not the fault of the Sciences themselves–they should clearly and obviously be part of the conversation, too. It is, rather, the fault of an administration and senior management that has for some reason lost faith in its own mission and its own values, and in the people that it itself employs to think about and even question that mission and those values.

25 thoughts on “MOOCs and the Humanities

  1. There are many things one can do to make a humanities MOOC discussion- rather than lecture-centered, responsive and interactive. Let’s push the MOOC platforms so that they – designed for STEM fields – begin to enable humanistic pedagogies. It can be done.

  2. Well, I am in a MOOC on Lat Am culture right now and here are the problems:

    1. Professor not in field. He is Mexican but his degrees are in other things and PhD is in ed tech. (Is dean of humanities at Tec Monterrey satellite campus Méx DF.)

    2. Materials are stuff professor finds but an expert in field would find better materials and have a more coherent focus.

    3. 18,000 students / 1 professor.

    4. No academic library, reserve room, etc. so additional materials students find are essentially what they can Google. Prof apparently not aware of aids like UT Lanic and so on.

    5. Poorly constructed assignments.

    Format is lecture, quiz, paper at end of term.

    I had really good large lecture courses in things like History as an undergraduate, with good visual aids and smart readings, and discussion groups run by good TAs. That format, very traditional, could be put online but all staff and materials would have to be good, and enrollment would have to be limited to make it work.

      • My point, though, is: no quality control in this thing, and they want it bought posthaste to replace FTEs, and they call this democratic. And the format is a really clunky use of technology — normal courses do more imaginative things with plain old Moodle daily ! ! !

    • Yes, the haste with which these changes are being propelled forwards (and shared governance “shredded” as Jonathan Rees points out somewhere) is quite alarming.

      • I would be a lot less negative about experimentation if my state taxes were not going to charter schools where they have DVDs instead of teachers, and creation science (one of them has a curriculum according to which the Loch Ness monster is real and a dinosaur, so the earth really is only 6,000 years old.

        This is great for the friends of the governor who own the charter school companies. If they can get the universities next, it will be fantastic for them.

        On Facebook, you should join David Palumbo-Liu’s group re online ed, there is some pretty useful discussion going on and avant-garde. (He’s at Stanford so has to deal with Daphne Koller.)

  3. Pingback: MOOCs and the Humanities | e-learning-ukr | Sco...

  4. Pingback: MOOCs and the Humanities | Distant Education To...

  5. Pingback: MOOCs and the Humanities via @Audreywatters | E...

  6. Interesting! How should onle apply the newfound knowledge? Multiple choice quizzes will definitely not do the trick in subject matters other than the sciences. I am curious about peer-review though. How do peer-review and feed-back from the teacher compare? Are there any studies out there that examine this topic?

  7. Mostly for my own reference, some further reading: Jim Groom, We’ve Been MOOCed; Audrey Watters, The Year of the MOOC; Andrew Leonard, Conservatives Declare War on College; Jonathan Rees, This is how MOOCs end; Jen Ebbeler, MOOCs and the Liberal Arts; Aaron Bady, The MOOC Moment and the End of Reform; Eric Hayot, The Future of the University: A Vision; Cathy Davidson et al, MOOCs and the Future of the Humanities: A Roundtable (Part 1). There’s much more, of course.

  8. Pingback: The South Sea MOOC | julian

  9. I’m looking forward to exploring Arts One Digital, from what you write here, and thanks for having also put your lecture about Robinson Crusoe on YouTube (could you perhaps suggest to UBC to discard their Microsoft-Siverlight-DRMed player in favor of something sensible?).

    Re Coursera and humanities: I had signed up for a course on Greek heroes where participants had been divided into cohorts. I was assigned to the Briseis cohort, and discussions there were lively and well documented. Then one day a Coursera geek found out that there were too many folks in the Briseis cohort, and he reshuffled people elsewhere, totally disregarding what connections and collaborations might have begun. The professor apologized though it was not his fault, but it did harm the course climate a lot.

    Then Coursera folks not only don’t really care or know humanities, they don’t about language either. They made a big hullabaloo at first about internationalizing lecture videos on Universal Subtitles (now Amara). But their subtitling team there was possibly the worst managed one I’ve seen, imposing automatic original subs barely better than YouTube’s, at times destroying human subs already done by volunteers, no response to queries etc.

    So at the end of December 2012, they retired their Stanford-Bot ID that had been spewing the automatic subs, replacing it by a theoretically human ID that went on doing the same until mid February, then stopped. On March 1 they announced they were abandoning Amara for an internal too, and asked volunteer subtitlers to copypaste their subtitle files in the Coursera wiki – which was zany. Ca April 10, they deleted their Amara team, though all their video subtitling pages are still on Amara, fortunately (even if it’s a pain in the neck to retrieve them): for many Coursera courses the Amara subtitling pages for the lectures are the only material that remained accessible after the course is over.

    And on May 14, they boasted of their new “Partnering with Top Global Organizations Supporting Translation Around the World” . What it boils down to is:
    – Translation languages are severely curtailed to “Russian, Portuguese, Turkish, Japanese, Ukrainian, Kazakh, and Arabic” compared to the Amara solution, when students were free to make subs in any languages; in particular, no Spanish, no French, no Chinese, no Korean, which volunteers had been particularly active translating into. But no “minor” languages like Italian either, which some participants occasionally decided they wanted to translate the subs into, and did it with great dedication.
    – Subtitles will have to be translated on Transifex: technically feasible as Transifex supports .srt files, but a bad idea as there is no video player to check how the translated subs fork. And a particularly bad idea if Coursera goes on providing automatic subs for the source language: on Amara, volunteers were at least able to view the video in order to edit them into something that made sense before translating them.

    So why doesn’t Coursera frankly acknowledge they know and actually care zilt about internationalization, and let course participants organize translated subs themselves? I have the nagging suspicion that the real goal of this change is to prevent the above-described access to courses’ videos once the courses are over…

    • Thanks for this. Very interesting indeed.

      (And if you have a suggestion for “something sensible” in place of UBC’s Microsoft-Siverlight-DRMed player, I’d love to hear it. For next year we’re being encouraged, for various reasons, to use NCast.)

      • Hi Jon,

        I’m language-and-literature-trained, so my tech understanding is limited to a few “syntax” aspects. So about NCast, it looks like a promising way to capture the various components of a lecture, but I can’t go beyond that.

        Same limitation as to suggesting a player: all I can say is that it should
        – require no plugin apart from those usually enabled in all browsers on all operating systems to view videos,
        – enable adding “closed captions” subtitles (CC subs) (1),
        – be controllable via keyboard shortcuts, e.g. by blind users.

        A bonus would be the production of a togglable interactive transcript generated by the CC subs below the player itself, as with the YouTube and players. The player also has a nifty feature that allows you to download the video with the CC subs burned in: useful if you then have to work off-line on a video.

        The people of the UBC accessibility team will be able to make concrete suggestions: what works to include people with disabilities also helps everybody, usually.



        (1) Possibly also, in a near future, players should enable playing other synced text tracks that browsers will do other things things with. I’m thinking of the WebVTT format, in which YouTube now allows uploaders to download subtitles. There is an ongoing research about using this WebVTT format to write synced descriptions of significant visual elements, which e.g. blind people will be able to activate and have them read aloud by normal browsers, if need be pausing the video. More info in the HTML5 video accessibility and the WebVTT file format – Audio Described video, which also renders how this will sound like (but the audio description parts are actually done the traditional way).

  10. Pingback: MOOCs and the Humanities | Easy MOOC |

  11. Pingback: MOOCs and the Humanities | ANALYZING EDUCATIONA...

  12. Pingback: MOOCs and the Humanities « Analyzing Educational Technology

  13. Pingback: MOOCs and the Humanities | All about (M)OOC &am...

  14. Pingback: La Mo(oc)mificación de la educación |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s