This Coursera stuff is dangerous. I’ve been loving my social network analysis class so much that when the teachers mentioned a Python class just started (and Python is a useful tool for getting data off the web and into a form you can analyse/visualise) I um, sort of signed up even though I already have way too much to do. You see, I know digital culture in and out but have never really learnt the programming that I would like to. Other than BASIC. I teach BASIC 🙂

I have to say, the Python professors are pretty cute, and totally playing on the stereotypes of comp. sci. geeks with their matching t-shirts and rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock games. We’re going to program that for our first week’s assignment. They’ve built a browser-based programming environment for us to practice our Python in, too, which sounds as though it’ll make things easy. One of my favourite thing about Lada Adamic‘s Social Network Analysis class is the NetLogo models you tinker with to simulate and understand each concept that’s presented in the videos.

The four professors in "An Introduction to Interactive Programming in Python" playing rock, stone, scissors, lizard, Spock
The four professors in “An Introduction to Interactive Programming in Python” playing rock, stone, scissors, lizard, Spock in the Introductory lecture.

When I first heard about MOOCs I thought they would be bad replicas of an out-dated teaching paradigm, where the teacher pours knowledge into a video, the student watches the video and then knows (or not), and knowledge is tested in brainless multiple choice quizzes. Instead I’m seeing wonderful hands-on models to play with throughout the video lectures, lots of fellow students in discussions in the forums and homework that involves actually doing something, whether it’s reading a complex sociology paper to figure out the answer to a tricky quiz question or modelling your Facebook network and uploading it for an automatic grader to check whether you could tell the size of its giant component.

I followed a little bit of MOOC MOOC, the MOOC on MOOCs that Hybrid Pedagogy ran in August. It was full of skeptics and most of the people I talked with (including me) had never actually tried a MOOC. Some of the assignments were really interesting, like write a collaborative 1000 word essay on “What is a MOOC? What does it do, and what does it not do?” with 50 other people in a single Google Doc. It was so annoying how people kept rewriting my wonderful insights 🙂

I don’t know where MOOCs will take academia and our current system of universities. Obviously all these universities offering free courses on Coursera are going to want to earn money from them at some point. A likely source of income is allowing students to pay take an exam after completing a course and getting some form of accreditation. A greater worry, I suppose, is the possibility that once a course is canned, we might not really need the professors much longer. Or at least, we might not need as many professors or as many universities. I think at least as likely a scenario is that more and more people are going to want to learn more. I wouldn’t have signed up for a university course on Python, so for me the alternative to taking a Coursera class for free is either not learning Python or teaching myself from books and the internet. I imagine most of the other students are not taking these classes instead of going to university.

Professors tend to get defensive about MOOCs, as Mark Guzdial wrote in his Computing Education Blog:

I’m damn sure that there is no MOOC that can replace what is going on in my classrooms this summer.  Now, society can decide that what I’m offering isn’t worthwhile, or is too expensive, or can be offered to too few students, or may even not as work as well as I hope.  Maybe that’s the real danger of MOOCs — it offers something for free (to the students) that seems as good as what a good University education could be, or as good an education as members of our society need.

Obviously a MOOC provides far less of the facilitated classroom discussions that we have with our undergraduates in my program, and it’s nowhere near offering the kind of close mentoring of MA students that I just came from this morning, where I spent two hours discussing two students’ thesis projects with them. MOOCs can’t provide individual feedback on writing, and the massive peer-review feedback some courses do is not generally very enthusiastic or informed from what I’ve read (I haven’t tried these assignments yet). But there are lots of kinds of learning a MOOC can support. So let’s see what they are good for.

I do find myself imagining setting up a Coursera course of my own. That would be a lot of fun, given the time and support to do so. It would be really interesting to do a test case. Maybe set up one of our big undergraduate classes as a MOOC and hopefully recruit lots of students from everywhere. Then run the same course with our local students. Maybe without lectures, but adding in tutorials and better feedback. And then seeing what the end results were for both groups of students.

And next spring I’m learning guitar. Finally.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.