Education systems around the world are, in this “age of globalization,” under the pressure of both internal (national) and external (global) forces to meet various needs and respond to different changes. How they attend to these demands as well as their degrees of responsiveness in the process varies. On the other hand, with information “exchange” more easy and with increased connectivity, common experiences and phenomena among peoples, cultures and places are ubiquitous…from food to clothing to education.
In the case of the latter, online courses have allowed these shared experiences. But recently, the phenomenon of online education has been more at the spotlight as Massive Open Online Courses, or MOOCs, are being offered by educational companies like Udacity, edX, and Coursera. Through such media, several US universities provide free ‘world-class’ courses to students around the world. So far, the majority of students are from outside of the United States.
There is debate already about what this advent means for higher education. This article argues that it will “put pressure on universities in poorer nations.” These authors warn against the “McDonaldization” or standardization of higher education. Here, I propose a few pros and cons of this educational phenomenon, with ‘developing countries’ in mind.
Pros:
– As argued in the first article above, and if the nations’ governments are responsive, MOOCs can prove beneficial to improving conditions in and the educational quality of national universities.
– Individuals, not able to afford or access local schools, now have a window to higher education through MOOCs.
– MOOCs offer the possibility of increased exchange of ideas –between students primarily.
– Those already in possession of tertiary degrees can extend their learning, acquire new knowledge or explore new interests, without incurring any additional costs.
Cons:
– As a counterpoint to the first idea, in the case of unresponsiveness, governments may not feel the need to improve conditions in national universities as students have that alternative access.
– Although certificates are available for some courses, no degrees are granted. Students have no means to legitimize their learning in a world of increased emphasis on credentials.
– Earlier I was cautious to point to the increased exchange of ideas as a possibility. The rationale for that constitutes the counter-argument in this point. Given, so far, the monopoly that undergirds this educational phenomenon, transfer –rather than exchange- of what may be regarded as orthodox knowledge and ideas may take place. Some would advance that this is an existing practice, not a new one.
– In relation to standardization noted above, MOOCs may lead to an education that is not adapted or lacks relevance to many students’ experiences. Take this Sociology course for example. Does it help a student in Ecuador understand his/her own society?
While MOOCs may “put pressure on universities in poorer [emphasis added] nations,” as one of the aforementioned authors suggests, potentially leading to a revitalization of national universities in countries with responsive governments, a major drawback may be what observers have seen for decades as [fostering] cultural and intellectual dependency. In this light, in the age of MOOCs, ‘developing’ nations concerned with breaking that dependency while endeavoring to a more balanced intellectual exchange between the global north and south, more than ever, need to reaffirm their commitment to educate their own scholars, produce their own research, researchers, and ideas.
Voices Unidas 