How Google Teaches Lyrics
I’m writing this piece as an exploration of what’s possible at RapGenius. The central idea of annotations as layers of knowledge and annotations as an invitation to the community is intriguing. But besides being a professor, I’m a writer (nonfiction). It’s one thing to submit someone else’s work to be annotated, a speech or news article, for example, but what about when I write something? What happens then?
Oh, sure, you’ll annotate it. But what does that do to my role as writer? How is this whole process going to change my place in the conversation? Please understand that for many of us, writing is about crafting a message for the audience, laboring over it until we think we can communicate our message and in the process achieve the desired impact on the reader. What happens when the medium changes – how are we going to wrap our heads around the change it has on the original writer’s role? And when the medium emphasizes layers of knowledge will that de-emphasize craft?
But that’s not my topic.
This is instead a critique of how Google teaches.
About two weeks ago, I enrolled in Google’s making sense of data MOOC. The timing was perfect, since I had only recently been looking at Google FusionTables and wanted to explore data tools and concepts more. I also jumped at it because although MOOC’s have been a big deal in academia over the last few years, I’d never taken one.
First off, I salute the developers. In the short videos at the start of each of the course’s three chapters, they look like twenty-somethings passionate about their subject. I can imagine them pitching the idea of an introduction to data use to their bosses at some meeting and carrying the day with their enthusiasm.
The course is a useful introduction to concepts. It’s in the practice that the problems appear, at least for rank beginners like me.
The posts in the MOOC’s forums point to part of the problem. Questions have had to be pulled from the course because they couldn’t be answered using the material available or the steps suggested. Putting the MOOC out to beta test would have solved that. The image that I have in my head of the developers changes a little, but not terribly so. I now see some people excited by numbers and how you can work with them rushing too fast to get their work out to the public. That, I can forgive.
It’s the lack of support for these young developers that I find troubling. Google couldn’t afford to hire an educational designer – somebody with experience in teaching – to help them out?
To its credit, Google has done research on what happened with an earlier MOOC. The study notes that in general only 10 percent of participants actually complete MOOC’s. The study found that students who completed activities were much more likely to complete the course, and the understanding data course seems to have been designed to emphasize several practical exercises in each chapter. I’ll be intrigued to see if the graduation rate is any higher for this course. Unfortunately, more needs to be done.
An experienced academic could have suggested that the MOOC include guided practice – homework – after each chapter. He or she might suggest citing additional resources in each chapter, and not just in chapter 3. I hope I haven’t betrayed any aggravation, but when someone re-reads chapters and still comes away with zero confidence in carrying out the proper steps, there’s something wrong, and it’s not necessarily with the student.
Beginners deserve better.
I’m left to wonder if lack of proper educational design isn’t a major factor in the horrendous completion rates for MOOC’s. I also wonder if future researchers will think to ask students about the role frustration played in their course experience. But most of all I wonder: will Google hire teachers to help its enthusiastic young employees when they come up with an idea for the next course?
Oh, sure, you’ll annotate it. But what does that do to my role as writer? How is this whole process going to change my place in the conversation? Please understand that for many of us, writing is about crafting a message for the audience, laboring over it until we think we can communicate our message and in the process achieve the desired impact on the reader. What happens when the medium changes – how are we going to wrap our heads around the change it has on the original writer’s role? And when the medium emphasizes layers of knowledge will that de-emphasize craft?
But that’s not my topic.
This is instead a critique of how Google teaches.
About two weeks ago, I enrolled in Google’s making sense of data MOOC. The timing was perfect, since I had only recently been looking at Google FusionTables and wanted to explore data tools and concepts more. I also jumped at it because although MOOC’s have been a big deal in academia over the last few years, I’d never taken one.
First off, I salute the developers. In the short videos at the start of each of the course’s three chapters, they look like twenty-somethings passionate about their subject. I can imagine them pitching the idea of an introduction to data use to their bosses at some meeting and carrying the day with their enthusiasm.
The course is a useful introduction to concepts. It’s in the practice that the problems appear, at least for rank beginners like me.
The posts in the MOOC’s forums point to part of the problem. Questions have had to be pulled from the course because they couldn’t be answered using the material available or the steps suggested. Putting the MOOC out to beta test would have solved that. The image that I have in my head of the developers changes a little, but not terribly so. I now see some people excited by numbers and how you can work with them rushing too fast to get their work out to the public. That, I can forgive.
It’s the lack of support for these young developers that I find troubling. Google couldn’t afford to hire an educational designer – somebody with experience in teaching – to help them out?
To its credit, Google has done research on what happened with an earlier MOOC. The study notes that in general only 10 percent of participants actually complete MOOC’s. The study found that students who completed activities were much more likely to complete the course, and the understanding data course seems to have been designed to emphasize several practical exercises in each chapter. I’ll be intrigued to see if the graduation rate is any higher for this course. Unfortunately, more needs to be done.
An experienced academic could have suggested that the MOOC include guided practice – homework – after each chapter. He or she might suggest citing additional resources in each chapter, and not just in chapter 3. I hope I haven’t betrayed any aggravation, but when someone re-reads chapters and still comes away with zero confidence in carrying out the proper steps, there’s something wrong, and it’s not necessarily with the student.
Beginners deserve better.
I’m left to wonder if lack of proper educational design isn’t a major factor in the horrendous completion rates for MOOC’s. I also wonder if future researchers will think to ask students about the role frustration played in their course experience. But most of all I wonder: will Google hire teachers to help its enthusiastic young employees when they come up with an idea for the next course?
Comments
