Education Questions Worth Asking

We need to change everything on campus: Anant Agarwal of edX on MOOCs, MIT and new models of higher education

Posted by: Helen Walters
Anant-Agarwal-at-TG

Anant Agarwal of edX reveals his vision for the future of education at TEDGlobal 2013. Photo: James Duncan Davidson

Whenever something is declared the subject of “the year of,” you know said subject is ripe for a big fat backlash. So, when The New York Times declared 2012 “the year of the MOOC,” it thus came to pass that massive open online courses should next become the subject of massive, open, often online criticism, as critics gathered to air both their disappointment that said courses had not in fact proven the savior of a broken education system — and almost transparent delight and glee at same.

That’s not to say that the MOOC bubble couldn’t stand to lose some of its air. Maybe it’s no bad thing that some of that shiny techno-utopian language got buffed from the courses’ gilded surfaces. The reality is that those responsible for MOOCs are still figuring out how to make them work, and they’re experimenting and adjusting as they go.

Anant Agarwal: Why massive open online courses (still) matterAnant Agarwal: Why massive open online courses (still) matterCase in point: Anant Agarwal, who spoke at TED Global in Edinburgh in June 2013. Agarwal is president of edX, the non-profit “online learning destination” founded by Harvard and MIT. We caught up with him on the phone to find out what he makes of the anti-MOOC rhetoric — and why he thinks a “blended learning” model of education that includes online and offline resources might just prove the real key to a vibrant education system of the future. An edited version of our conversation follows.

So let’s start with the question on everyone’s lips: what do you make of the backlash against MOOCs?

Initially there was a lot of talk about MOOCs being the solution to all of the world’s problems. And clearly they’re important; they can increase access to students who don’t have access to good quality education. But even when we started edX, we talked about MOOCs and the blended model on campus and of campus education as being a key part of the whole equation. So for us it comes as no surprise that a pure MOOC model, a completely online model, will not work so well on campus. There, a blended model can be even better than a purely online model. The backlash you’re seeing was more a backlash to the statement that MOOCs can cure the world of all educational ills. The answer is no. MOOCs have a very important place in increasing access to a large community of students. At the same time, if you take MOOC technology and blend it with in-person class help, we can achieve the blended model, which is even better and can improve campus education.

In your talk, you describe the idea that the education system has to be rethought from the ground up. But what I’m hearing is that actually this isn’t revolution; it’s evolution. This is bringing technology in where appropriate, not imagining that technology can cure everything. Is that accurate?

I guess what I’m saying is we really have to reimagine education as we know it. We won’t solve it just by tweaking one aspect of it. We don’t have a clear answer yet but as an example, we need to change everything on campus. We need to move from students coming to lectures and sitting around for an hour to their watching video and doing interactive exercises at their own pace. We need to change our spaces from large lecture halls to small learning spaces. We need to think about unbundling content, where previously the professor would produce everything, but instead now the content may come from online sources and the professor. Instead of imagining a full year of university, what about a different program where students take half the courses as MOOCs, and half on campus as blended courses? I do hold to the view we have to rethink all aspects of education from the ground up and that a little tweak here or there is not going to be the answer.

Do you see this happening? Are you heartened by the discussion or are you finding there’s a kneejerk defensive stance from university leaders to this kind of thinking?

I think the kneejerk reaction and negativity you see is in the press, but I’m actually very heartened. A number of universities are moving in the direction and experimenting with the blended model. I see that as the next step, the evolutionary way for heading towards the right answer in 20 or 30 years down the road. We don’t know what the right answer is but the blended model is an evolutionary step in path, and we’re seeing more and more of that.

At MIT, for example, over 2,000 of the 4,500 undergraduates are accessing the edX platform and online content in some form or the other already. It’s just 1.5 years since we began and now we have nearly 100 blended courses happening around the world.

Unlike some of the other MOOC providers, edX is a non-profit. Obviously the initiative also needs to sustain itself – where are you with the business model currently?

Certainly we have a lot more understanding of that now than when I gave the talk. We are getting revenues as we speak. One model is that we open-sourced the platform. That means it can be used by anyone to host and offer courses. We’ve seen huge interest in this: the Chinese education ministry and Tsinghua university created a consortium of universities in China to offer a platform they call XeutangX. France launched France Universite Numerique; in the Middle East, the Queen Rania Foundation launched Edraak, an Arabic language platform. All of these national platforms use the open edX code and that creates a revenue model, in that they look for support from edX, and they’re interested in licensing courses from edX partner universities for a fee, translating them and offering these courses to their own populations.

We also have a “business to consumer” model where students pay a fee for identity verified certificates. That’s going quite well. We currently have 12 courses offering certificates.

So you’re at MIT, you’re working with Harvard and Berkeley and so on. These are well-funded well-established institutions; they attract students without difficulty and those students pay a lot of money to go there. How does this framework exist on top of that university-funded model without being, well, parasitic on that existing infrastructure? How do MOOCs benefit the professors and colleges themselves?

I see MOOCs as being completely synergistic with the traditional university model. As professors and universities produce MOOCs and run MOOCs on the edX platform, we also make the platform available to universities to use on campus for blended education. For example, Professor Armando Fox teaches a MOOC on edX on software as a service, and he uses the same content in his own class at UC Berkeley, where he teaches a blended class.

Then there’s what I call the unbundling of time. Today, universities have a four-year program. I see a time in the future where rather than students coming in for four years to do a bachelor’s degree, they’ll come in having taken their first year of courses as MOOCs. Then they’ll spend two years on campus, spend the final year getting a job and continuing to take MOOCs and becoming lifelong continuous learners. That might be another way in which the MOOC education might become a continuous blend into campus education over time.

I confess, I am not an engineer. I studied English and Latin at university and I’m curious about how you’re managing humanities within the edX platform. You tell a great story in your talk about a guy who really missed the green check mark that shows he answered a question correctly. How does that check mark apply when it comes to something like English literature?

We do have a large number of humanities courses on our platform. “Was Alexander Great?” is from Wellesley College. There’s a course on Chinese history from Harvard, one on globalization from Georgetown. You could hardly call these technical courses, and we have various technologies to work with humanities courses.

First of all, many humanities courses use discussion forums liberally. Students have discussions on forums about concepts in the class. The second approach is we are able to create cohorts, which are smaller group discussions within a larger discussion forum. Third is that we have a number of technologies to grade humanities courses. One is self-assessment, where the students grade themselves. Next is peer assessment, where students grade each other’s work. And third is AI assessment, where we have a machine learning computer program grade student essays. There are multiple ways to grade essays. But we know in reality these are still in experimental form and our hope is over time we will keep improving these technologies to best serve the humanities.

I do wonder how kindly my peers would have graded my papers. I’m not sure they’d have been all that generous.

Absolutely. Grading humanities is always challenging. Particularly because, unlike in some of the sciences, in humanities, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. From my own experience, rarely have I submitted an essay where I have been happy with the grade or thought it was consistent with what I thought the grade should have been. With science there tends to be more consistency, humanities less so. The qualitative aspect certainly makes things more challenging.

There’s a lot going on at edX. You just launched Forum Academy, a new platform offering professional leadership courses presented in collaboration with the World Economic Forum. Meanwhile, 150,000 students signed up almost instantly for a Harvard computer programming course taught by David Malan. That’s pretty crazy growth… so what keeps you up at night?

Oh, that’s an endless list. We are doing something here, trying to improve something that is so fundamental and so important to everybody. The stakes are really high. We have to do it right. We have to improve quality of education and we also have to increase access to education. We really need to do a good job, and the task is really daunting, but our team is up to it.

Check back all this week to read more pieces tackling this week’s Question worth Asking: “What’s next for MOOCs?”

Comments (13)

  • Pingback: 【認識MOOCs #13】課程平台介紹—edX | 臺灣大學MOOC

  • Pingback: Technology…I can’t hide from it any longer | Cait Brison

  • James McNeill commented on Feb 5 2014

    You can’t judge the success of MOOCs by the completion rate. That’s not the whole story. Lifelong learners like myself love this medium.

    I graduated from a UC school in the 90′s. Now I run my own business and don’t live near any university. But I still miss the intellectual stimulation and am curious about new information.

    In that past year, I’ve taken classes from Wesleyan, Columbia, UC San Francisco, UC San Diego and others ranging from History of the World, Nutrition, Gamification, Sustainable Development, Gastronomy, and more.

    I watched the lectures at 1.5 to 2 times the recorded speed while driving, riding my bike, hiking, or anywhere around the house. New ideas stuck in my head and I was able to substitute some junk TV time with learning time from the best professors in the world.

    I never take any quizzes or do any assignments or use the forums. I can’t be counted by the MOOC as having completed the courses. But the knowledge has been passed on and I love it!

    I would say MOOCs have to take the next step which is to abandon scheduling all together. Why have a start and end date for courses?

    Just make them totally DIY and leave them online forever. MOOCs would have a much greater success rate (total number of completions) if there were no deadlines. Why take lecture videos offline at a certain date when they can do so much good for humanity if left online free for all forever? If you need revenue, just put them on youtube and force viewers to watch ads or pay a small fee to remove ads. Nobody will complain, we are used to that. Or add donation buttons. Or charge $1 for the course after a student gets halfway through and knows they want to complete the course. $150,000 from 150,000 people signed up, is that enough? I would easily pay $1-$10 for the courses I’m enjoying.

    Even without a set schedule, students in 2014 could read forums from 2012 and keep adding new information.
    The forums need oversight though. So much junk. Someone needs to make an FAQ or ‘sticky’ with most sought info/comments. That would help a lot. I gave up on forums very quickly since they were such a time sucker.

    So, THANK YOU to all teachers who have put their content online. I’m much better off this year having been able to “go back to school” in the comfort of my home, with zero costs. You have made the world a better place.

    James M.

  • Linda Harasim commented on Feb 4 2014

    Just to correct my error in referring to mooc.com; this should read as the Ted.com blogs.

    thx,
    Linda

  • Linda Harasim commented on Feb 4 2014

    The hubris and arrogance of Khan and Agarwal (and the ‘writers on MOOC.com) is unbelievable. They present themselves (or are presented as) as having invented online education (which actually began in the early 1980s) and distance education (which began more than 100 years ago in Canada and England). Even the term MOOC was coined in Canada, years before the Stanford profs adopted it without acknowledging the real inventors.

    Has no one in this space looked at the decades of research and design on online education (online education is FAR more successful and effective than any of the MOOCS…so perhaps you might suggest that the MOOC providers do a bit of homework). Computer scientists did not invent the world, and they have made a mess with their attempt to ‘reinvent’ education. And Khan did not turn the education world on its head at all: videos for tutoring students have been available worldwide for decades and excellent productions are available for free in the Open Education Resources (OER) portals. Khan’s model did NOT ‘fuel the nascent dialogue about online education’; the dialogue has been loud and clear and progressive in the Community of Knowledge associated with our field.

    They only think that they did because they do not know better and did no background research. Or else they ignore anything that came before them.

  • Brijesh Mehta commented on Jan 30 2014

    Reblogged this on Revolution and commented:
    We really need to change our education system from scratch for the betterment of Generation Next!!!!!!

  • Pingback: MOOCs by the numbers: Where are we now? | jr

  • Pingback: MOOCs by the numbers: Where are we now? | Best Science News

  • Pingback: MOOCs by the numbers: Where are we now? | BizBox B2B Social Site

  • Bassem Fayek commented on Jan 29 2014

    MOOCs will give birth to the next wave of innovative ideas – There are two fundamental reasons for that:

    1. Innovations at new disciplinary intersections
    MOOCs will help in scaling interdisciplinary education. No one is confined to a university’s vertical degree. You can mix-n-match the courses that you see best fit together and they can be in completely different fields. And that will give birth to the next wave of innovations – at the intersections of disciplines. Facebook is at the intersection of psychology and computer science. Apple is at the intersection of design and technology. This is a BIG DEAL for innovation.

    2. Innovations at new circumstance intersections
    MOOCs will provide potential innovators with the knowledge they need at the right time. An artificial intelligence class used to be offered to computer science degree seekers in their 3rd or 4th year. Some of them had a bad personal experience, only to realize that they can leverage their AI knowledge to solve the problem they faced and gave birth to a new innovation. Imagine the possibilities when a 15 year old teen or anyone with special circumstances had access to the same knowledge and reflected on a set of tackled problems.

    With that passion for the potential of MOOCs, I started skillacademy[dot]com with a couple of friends. We bundle the best MOOCs into skillcamps, which you can think about as interdisciplinary cross-university programs.

  • Pingback: VICTORY FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM: NEIU ADMINISTRATION SETTLES LORETTA CAPEHEART’S DEFAMATION SUIT AFTER A SIX YEAR BATTLE

  • Pingback: More on MOOCs

  • commented on Jan 28 2014