coldhearted scientist وداد

A few months ago, it was announced [Who announced? Change to active voice?] that massive open online courses, or MOOCs, would soon solve the crisis in higher education by replacing traditional universities. With their advent costs would fall, quality would soar, and access to learning would be greatly expanded. But soon, the discussion shifted. Now, MOOCs would provide modest education to the masses, replacing as many faculty as possible with “facilitators” to guide students. Elite students, or “deserving” ones, would still study at traditional institutions. The next thing we knew, MOOCs were no longer to replace traditional institutions, but would still provide opportunities for certificates and enrichment to students lacking other forms of access to classes. Then, some MOOC providers changed course, scaling down goals to become mere contenders for a market share as providers of platforms for online courses.

We [Who is “we”?] have moved nowhere, but a part of our discussion, and a great part of our energy has moved from the actually serious issues which confront us to defending ourselves against our description as outdated pedagogues, unengaged in research and lecturing from yellowed notes. This characterization is not only inaccurate, as has been amply pointed out by now; it is also motivated by commercial concerns. As a wake-up call, the debacle may have its uses, however, [however followed by since distracts the reader. Consider dropping however.] since the MOOC discussion has thrown the contours of the neoliberal assault on our institutions into high relief.

Is higher education “broken,” as we keep hearing? Defunding has had deleterious effects on programs. Students now graduate encumbered [encumbered is slightly redundant to burden, consider dropping it] with a debt burden that severely limits their horizons. Many faculty are part-timers without access to a living wage, let alone resources for teaching or professional development. The advent of administrations [Perhaps “that do not arise” would be clearer] not arising from the higher education community clearly signals a repurposing of our institutions to insalubrious ends. [Insalubrious to what?]

Yet [comma] we are still teaching and conducting research. Indeed, one of the most distressing features of the MOOC craze is its enthusiasts’ ignorance of the relevance of research–collaborative learning–to university teaching. What is to be done, if defunding and corporatization, and not “poor teaching,” are our real problems, and if these problems are more difficult to solve than it is to retrain and reinspire a tired teacher or reframe a weak course? [Break into two sentences. What can we do if defunding and corporatization, and not “poor teaching,” are our real problems? What is can we do if these problems are more difficult to solve than it is to retrain and reinspire a tired teacher or reframe a weak course? Also, remove passive voice.]

Rather than react defensively to the mischaracterizations of our endeavor that appear daily in the NYT and the WSJ, we should articulate the relationship between learning and teaching in our terms. [This is not strong enough. How about reversing the clauses? We should articulate the relationship between learning and teaching in our terms, rather than react defensively to the mischaracterizations of our endeavor that appear daily in the NYT and the WSJ.] American academics do not have the custom of writing opinion or other journalistic pieces that is [are] common for faculty in other countries; we would do well to adopt it. We, and not Bill Gates [Referencing Microsoft is a little passé. Perhaps change Bill Gates to “software corporations”?], should be framing the public discussion of pedagogy and research.

We should also take active roles in restoration and expansion of infrastructure that has [have] been eroded. Many of those who, sometimes of necessity, [avoid breaking subject and verb.Perhaps “Many of those who have focused on their own careers, sometimes out of necessity”? Also, “their” careers.] have focused on our own careers as the erosion of the past three decades has proceeded, now say “I am retiring, let the next generation discover a new educational paradigm.” We have been failing, not by lecturing from yellowed notes but by ignoring the contexts in which we work.

At the very least, we should make an inventory of our needs for teaching and research–for learning–and make these clear in every departmental, college, and university meeting. Against endless discussion of ways to “flip” classrooms, we should emphasize, for example, the continued need for current reference works. [If you’re giving an example, state what it’s an example of. Perhaps, “…we should emphasize critical issues; for example, the continued need…”]

We should point out that there is good discussion of pedagogy in many displinary journals, [that are] more up to date and more relevant than anything a commercial educational consultant can offer. We should remind administrators, legislatures, and the public that research is not just industry-funded R&D or abstruse theorizing, but rather is the learning that goes into every course. It is updated daily and brought to class new, and learning is not the delivery of content but a collaborative practice. [The concluding clause should stand along. “Learning is not the delivery of content, but a collaborative practice” as a stand-alone sentence.]

Axé.