Hi Jim,

Very, very interesting! It does make sense and I believe that through this course we can all confirm that: usually the relation teacher-student-teacher in AU course resemble the ones of MOOC, as the communication is very general and shaped as 1-to-many. We felt that this course is different mainly because the professor was so much involved, giving comments as guiding each one of us. Choosing your own direction without a 1-to-1 guidance is simply not enough, especially in higher education. I had a situation with one course, where I could choose the direction, work solely within that context and collaborate with students, however, the tutor correctional activities came somewhat late, when I already formed my views and approaches, and that turned into collision instead of a nudge. I will soon start my first MOOC and than I will be more competent to discuss any procedures involved, as well as the learning outcomes.

The issue that upsets me is the financial side of tutoring. Why is it that tutors always struggle with that aspect, especially considering the amount of effort (and financial resources) involved in achieving the status of a tutor? I think that the problem is in the system of false values, where unfortunately a celebrity makes far greater financial wealth than the people who invest their lives in constructively improving this world, and what better way than the education? This world does not need Justin Bieber, AC/DC, or yet another movie with big explosions, but we all need a tutor at some point in our lives, no matter how low our educational level is. The governments all over the world fail to address this issue adequately, forcing the tutors to work for several institutions or courses, thus often reducing the quality of teaching and involvement.

It is just my opinion on the subject.

Sasa   

Hi Sasa

I agree with the points you make but I want to add that the individual brings a lot to the table. As you pointed out, here at AU there can be wide discrepancies between two different tutors. Although the structure of the above should encourage more engagement there will be profs that are more engaged and profs that are less engaged. If the transparency part works out then this might help to weed out certain issues, as long as the students take the time to provide valid feedback.

Putting the financial side into the prof's hands is interesting. I wonder if they will compete with each other on price? or whether they will end up with some sort of de facto standard (like with gas stations). Presumably (as the article states) some professors will be able to command higher tuitions - but I think the market will bring some pressure to bear as well.

Jim

PS the teacher in the article you bookmarked sounds like one of those engaged types - teaching in a MOOC. She must have been busy.

The critique of most educational models is a good one. I particularly like the report on the long-term effectiveness - or lack of it - of the traditional model. 

At my former institution we operated a similar model to that of QuestU for some MSc degrees, though departments (albeit always at least two and often more, deliberately mixed and mismatched for diversity) were still an issue. Other MSc degrees followed a vaguely similar but almost as effective cohort model, so things like hand-in dates were synchronized to avoid conflict and the cohort model meant both students and profs got together and talked regularly to ensure synergies between courses. Such things are possible when numbers are relatively small and teaching relatively intensive.

Sadly, much of the undergraduate teaching at the same institution was dominated by the perceived economies of scale of the instructivist ethos. Until we lose that perfect storm of courses, grades, tribal departments and credentialling, coupled with an obsessive desire to control every variable, it is hard to see scope for much more than incremental and patchy improvements in such systems.

Interesting, in fact many European countries have cheap or free universities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12610268

A quote from the article:

"One of the strongest motivators is finance. To go to university in Canada means taking on debt. It's essentially free to do it in Germany. It's incredibly appealing not to have to mortgage your future."

Sasa

With my tongue firmly planted in my cheek I have to say that it sounds rather socialist and from my perspective not very American.

But I like the idea. I think the relationship between an educated population and a productive nation is fairly well established so it anything that increases the availability of education is going to be positive for the country.