What stereotypes do designers of MOOCs use when designing? What stereotypes do educators and teachers use in schools?
What is the meaning of these stereotypes?
Some xMOOCs seem to view upon their students as followers or consumers.
Stephen Downes in the old Daily made me think of this subject again, by writing about Noam Chomsky. “Our kids are being prepared for passive obedience, not creative, independent lives.”.
My question: Is education a means to prepare obedience? What should educators teach about being human? Is education equal to be prepared for a job?
We can begin simply, with an assertion made by George Siemens and Stephen Downes, that MOOCs facilitate “knowledge production rather than knowledge consumption”, and that this automatically shifts the pedagogy from teacher to student — or rather, participant.
Education as instrumental: “Education is how to make sure we’ve got a work force that’s productive and competitive,” said President Bush in 2004. “Countries that outteach us today,” as President Obama put it in 2009, “will outcompete us tomorrow.”
In part because of budget cuts, hundreds of thousands of students in California’s three public higher-education systems are shut out of the gateway courses they must pass to fulfill their general education requirements or proceed with their major. Many are forced to spend extra semesters, or years, to get degrees.
Under the legislation, some of the eligible courses would likely be free “massive open online courses,” or MOOCs, like those offered by providers like Coursera, Udacity and edX; others might come from companies like Straighterline, which offers low-price online courses, or Pearson, the educational publishing and testing company. (NY Times3/13/2013)
Or a liberal arts education: “of what a college should strive to be: an aid to reflection, a place and process whereby young people take stock of their talents and passions and begin to sort out their lives in a way that is true to themselves and responsible to others”
Or something different from both?