Democratizing education? Examining access and usage patterns in massive open online courses

Toward a level playing field? Do free learning resources benefit the disadvantaged and decrease gaps between rich and poor? Hansen and Reich studied the relationships between socioeconomic status (SES) and enrollment in and completion of free Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) offered by Harvard and MIT. Students from low-SES backgrounds were less likely to enroll in MOOCs and earn a certificate than their high-SES peers. Thus, although there are many free online learning opportunities, it is not safe to assume that they will “level the playing field.” Science, this issue p. 1245 The availability of online courses may not reduce the effects of socioeconomic disparities for adolescents and young adults. Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are often characterized as remedies to educational disparities related to social class. Using data from 68 MOOCs offered by Harvard and MIT between 2012 and 2014, we found that course participants from the United States tended to live in more-affluent and better-educated neighborhoods than the average U.S. resident. Among those who did register for courses, students with greater socioeconomic resources were more likely to earn a certificate. Furthermore, these differences in MOOC access and completion were larger for adolescents and young adults, the traditional ages where people find on-ramps into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) coursework and careers. Our findings raise concerns that MOOCs and similar approaches to online learning can exacerbate rather than reduce disparities in educational outcomes related to socioeconomic status.

[1]  P. Levine,et al.  Early Childhood Education by MOOC: Lessons from Sesame Street , 2015 .

[2]  Joseph Jay Williams,et al.  HarvardX and MITx: Two Years of Open Online Courses Fall 2012-Summer 2014 , 2015 .

[3]  Justin Reich,et al.  Socioeconomic status and MOOC enrollment: enriching demographic information with external datasets , 2015, LAK.

[4]  Justin Reich,et al.  HarvardX and MITx: The First Year of Open Online Courses, Fall 2012-Summer 2013 , 2014 .

[5]  E. Emanuel.  Online education: MOOCs taken by educated few , 2013, Nature.

[6]  U. Boser.  Are Schools Getting a Big Enough Bang for Their Education Technology Buck , 2013 .

[7]  C. Avery,et al.  The Missing "One-Offs": The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students , 2012 .

[8]  Justin Reich,et al.  The State of Wiki Usage in U.S. K–12 Schools , 2012 .

[9]  Selcuk R. Sirin.  Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research , 2005 .

[10]  M. Warschauer,et al.  Technology and Equity in Schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide , 2004 .

[11]  P. Attewell.  The First and Second Digital Divides , 2001 .

[12]  Paul Attewell,et al.  Home Computers and School Performance , 1999, Inf. Soc..

[13]  Harold H. Wenglinsky.  Does It Compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics. , 1998 .

[14]  Ralph Destefano.  Sesame Street revisited , 1998, SIGGRAPH Abstracts and Applications.

[15]  Larry Cuban.  Teachers and machines : the classroom use of technology since 1920 , 1986 .

[16]  J. Schlesselman,et al.  Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis , 1982 .

[17]  Howard Dittrick,et al.  Teaching By Television , 1947 .