The article describes it as an anti-MOOC because it will have small class sizes and cost money - but it's not your traditional model either. They don't have any accreditation yet but hope to receive it in Vermont. It will be online but different from others in that it will be very transparent. Students can vet the professor before signing up for a course, and the faculty member teaching the course can set the tuition for her/his course.
"I love the creator's description: "“a self-organizing, nonlinear, complex adaptive system"
Bookmarks are a great way to share web pages you have found with others (including those on this site) and to comment on them and discuss them.
We welcome comments on public posts from members of the public. Please note, however, that all comments made on public posts must be moderated by their owners before they become visible on the site. The owner of the post (and no one else) has to do that.
If you want the full range of features and you have a login ID, log in using the links at the top of the page or at https://landing.athabascau.ca/login (logins are secure and encrypted)
Posts made here are the responsibility of their owners and may not reflect the views of Athabasca University.
Comments
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.