In the December issue of the Campus Technology magazine, Gerry McCartney, CIO at Purdue University, was cited in “What Will Happen to MOOCs Now that Udacity Is Leaving Higher Ed?” for his response to the downward spiral of the MOOC.  McCartney “applauded the MOOC makers for demonstrating that ‘content has almost no value…”, and when it comes to the value of this type of education, “the money is not in the content”.

McCartney believes that the learning experience delivered through a MOOC is like learning from watching The History Channel. It is merely access to content—a low-value type of education.  In his opinion, one can get the best Chaucerian professor to publish a book for everyone in the world to read, but it is impossible for the same professor to offer a class to teach everyone in the world because learning requires personal interaction. Personal interaction, as Gerry McCartney points out, is the high-value type of education—something that is not scalable in a MOOC.

McCartney’s view of course values (where automated access to content is low value and personal interaction is high value) reminded me of an argument made by another Gerry in 2001—Gerry McGovern (has it really been that long?).  With a website, a listserv, and a book called Content Critical; McGovern claims that web-based communication is a form of publishing where the content—not the presentation—is key.  I think McGovern deserves a medal for web publishing for making content providers ditch their flash-based intros and allow visitors to land directly on the content page.

McGovern defines content as “how we formally structure our knowledge”; and web content as “publishing”, therefore visitors to a website are “readers” instead of “users”.   He views putting content online as a form of publishing, for which all things made public should be carefully-crafted knowledge, organized in a clear and meaningful fashion.

If we give the three variables Olympic ranking—interaction, content, and presentation, would presentation receive the bronze, content—the silver, and interaction—the gold? I can’t give a simple yes or no answer; however, I do recognize that the evolution of online course design is forcing us to think about course value in a similar way.

Fifteen years ago when I started my career as a computer graphic designer, the word multimedia was as sexy as MOOC is today.  A lot of effort was poured into the development of “engaging” materials ranging from clip art to hypermedia.  Today, before we rolled up our sleeves to build something, my team and I first try to figure out “the learning goals” (or what we want learners to gain from a course). Next, we’d check with our reliable friend Google to see what has already been developed to address that particular subject.

Yes, content is critical, but like a loaf of bread or a stick of butter, it is critical, yet affordable and easy to obtain.  I found it absurd when institutions made originality a criterion to evaluate course materials.  Originality is a good principle for research or disciplinary knowledge development, but in the case of teaching resources, it often means reinventing the wheel.  Instead of spending time recreating something that already exists, why not build the high-value aspect of education instead? The gold—the interaction!

When it’s built right and implemented well, personal interaction can sometimes engage people more in an online course than in the face-to-face environment.  As we leap from the content-critical to the content-cheap era, let’s shift our efforts toward designing and executing high-value interaction within online courses to promote the learning experience that we all desire.