VS
The prompt this week is to review two instructional platforms from a suggested list (or select our own). I have chosen Coursera and Khan Academy for my review. These websites each have different goals, audiences, and methods of going about accomplishing those things. Below I will provide a brief blurb on each site pulled from their respective Wikipedia articles. I will give my initial impressions and a personal anecdote of experience with each. I will then rank each site in three categories;
1. ease of use for a person in my identity and with my skillset
2. what I feel are the top two strengths of each website through the instructional design lens at my current understanding level
3. a suggestion apiece for how I could see these sites used in a guided learning experience through the lens of the petal learning through topic exploration method I outlined in my podcast episode below. (I know, exhausting to site myself, but this is my blog and I'm curious if it holds up, so there we are.)
Coursera:
Wikipedia says:
a for-profit U.S.-based global massive open online course provider founded in 2012[2][3] by Stanford University computer science professors Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller.[4] Coursera works with universities and other organizations to offer online courses, certifications, and degrees in a variety of subjects.
As of 2023, more than 300 universities and companies[5] were offering courses through Coursera, and by 2024, the number of courses available had risen to approximately 7,000.[6]
Initial Impression/Personal Anecdote:
My initial impression of Coursera is disappointment and aversion. The feel of it is very tech forward, very corporate, and very tailored to an aesthetic of corporate accessibility that I think I find too close to feeling like a for profit college. I build this impression based on the classes it defaults to on my log-in screen. As an additional piece, log-in is easy enough if you already have a gmail or email account you don't mind linking to their site, I have yet to see if they spam me with promotional emails that I will have to unsubscribe to, or have their default emails set to have more restraint.
The courses and layout that contributes to my sense that this is a very corporation driven site is that its suggestions for classes are largely tech based. I am not sure if these are tailored to the information that comes in with my email address, or if I am seeing what anyone logging in as a new user would see. The site offers up largely Computer Programming options, courses that lead to getting various certifications through the platform, and content from well-known giants in tech and academics (Google, Harvard, Intuit, Unilever). I am led to believe that an algorithm that uses some of my personal information does inform some of these options because it also suggests degrees I could pursue through the platform, and the suggested universities are geographically nearby (this may be simply tied the fact that I used my Western email address though).
My disappointment stems from having studied Coursera in my MLS classes back in its originating year 2012. At that time it was the model of what libraries thought MOOCs could become. It was still open access and not quite at a place where top companies and universities trusted it, but there were enterprising instructors who had already started providing courses. It is interesting to see how it has grown from then until now. To see that it obviously made a name for itself, and now can authentically offer a pathway to degrees. Of course 12 years ago the commodification of education was not quite where it is now. Student loans and the 'business' of higher education was starting to see more widespread criticism, the suing of the first few predatory for profit colleges were on the horizon of disillusioning people, and while (at least in library world) there was a lot of hope for democratized access to high quality educational content, there were also those who were pretty aware that if this was going to take off it would have to turn a profit somehow, or else struggle mightily with investment from the types of places producing the types of content that would keep it relevant.
These are all social commentary things, but I think they are relevant to the overall accessibility and validity of what Coursera is now offering. That is, the promise of degrees or certificates that fit your lifestyle for a 'reasonable' price. All of this is a fascinating and disheartening piece to me as in the instructional design space because it is all an entry-barrier to the actual instructional experience. It also is setting people up to fail in the types of ed tech experiences that I think are most effective precisely because all of these promises of ease set the stage for actually a great deal more psychological and physical pressure on someone taking these courses. That pressure impacts the learning experience. It also impacts the type of learning experience someone expects. This type of pressure also contributes to an approach to ID that champions the ISD types of design. A high expectation for specific types of results and outcomes, because the expectation for what may come of the experience is highly specific (a job, an opportunity to make more money, a perception of clout that I am not sure the kind of companies people hope to be working for are actually taking seriously). In that way, while people will likely gain new skills, and knowledge, they are not actually being prepared to accomplish what they may have wanted from this experience. In my opinion, for profit in when it comes to ed tech, should produce for profit out. I am skeptical about whether or not Coursera delivers on this.
What I think is missing here is accessibility for those who do not already have a sense of what they are pursuing. Who see Coursera as an alternative route to a degree, or perhaps a cheaper route. I worry for those who are coming to Coursera after years out of the workplace, or years in the same job and are now trying to shift to something new. The promises, I think, can come across as for someone like that, but I do not think this is the learning experience for them. Coursera is meant for those already riding the wave of corporate ladder climbing (horizontal or vertical type). Or it is for those who have some extra time to spare for personal interest or curiosity.
Enrolling in a free course related to a field of interest that I have is quite easy. It's interesting to me that the button to do so says, "Enroll for free!" and then I immediately get a pop-up telling me that if I want any sort of clout in the form of proof I have taken the course it will cost me $49, which is the default option selected in the pop-up. I can select the 2nd option, 'Audit' for actual free though and then am immediately sent to the courses content page.
I appreciate that there are not many distracting frills here. It uses the 3 column approach to present, which can feel more overwhelming that the advised user experience of 2 column, but it utilizes each column well. I appreciate that it opens with a time management tool that can be set as someone is observing the course content. I am not sure how I feel about how insistent the page is about goal setting though.
Opening a content item I also appreciate that all of the ways I can interact with this learning experience are presented immediately and in an easily visible place. I also appreciate that the topic can be experienced visually, via transcript, I have an accessible place for notes, downloads are available, and there is a link to a place to discuss the content.
Clicking on the link to take me to the discussion forum takes me to a different part of the course where I can see easily the other places in the course I can explore, and that are relevant to the learning experience. I think it is quite slick and great user design that performing my duties in the learning space is also passively teaching me how to use the learning tool. The seamless way that I am learning the system while also interacting with my coursework is incredibly elegant.
Khan Academy:
Wikipedia says:
an American non-profit[3] educational organization created in 2006 by Sal Khan.[1] Its goal is to create a set of online tools that help educate students.[4] The organization produces short video lessons.[5] Its website also includes supplementary practice exercises and materials for educators. It has produced over 8,000 video lessons teaching a wide spectrum of academic subjects, including mathematics, sciences, literature, history, and computer science. All resources are available for free to users of the website and application.
Initial Impression/Personal Anecdote:
It seems a bit chaotic to compare Coursera and Khan upon this reflection. They are geared toward very different audiences. Though it does make for an interesting investigation on the marketing piece as compared to the learning design piece. Khan being directed at a younger crowd, and as a non-profit platform, change the feel and dynamic of the site, as well as the ways they create an inviting experience. Khan also requires a log-in to access any content. The process is similarly seamless with an email/gmail address. I am already getting less unnecessary emails (re: none) from Khan however, even just a few days into my membership. I appreciate the more laid back approach. It is clear this is a platform that wants users to return to it, but that it is not coming from an intent to sell itself or its content. I also appreciate that not being a for-profit endeavor, and intended for a younger crowd, fundamentally shifts all that Khan is allowed to be and represent itself as.
Khan is a website I have used for my children since they were toddlers as they also have an app geared toward the very young crowd. I have always appreciated that they are able to fund themselves to the extent that they don't have to have ads. I get a little nervous that they attract those kinds of funds, knowing that it is very difficult and competitive in NPO world to get the kind of funding that I think contributes to the security it seems Khan has in its space. Though I am more loathe to go digging for things to criticize in donors than I am in those who are blatantly corporate, but I do wonder, if no profit, what kind of pressures or asks are made of the ID team that develops content for Khan, and if these experiences being provided for children are also being designed to transition them more easily into a more blatantly ISD type of learning experience later on.
The learning experiences are similar to Coursera in that all learning pieces are located on the same page when you enter a topic. I found it much easier to navigate to the learning experience I wanted than on Coursera, in large part because I did not have to wade through pay structures, and also Khan is an all inclusive experience in that its not bringing together a bunch of outside institutions and trying to give them all some kind of way to have visibility. I also felt the organization structure of the courses overall was easier to follow. I have to assume that all of this is by design though. Both websites being masters of their craft and having been around as long as they have with the kind of usership they have.
Khan puts far less on a page. Though the basic elements are there. It's immediately more guided and interactive than I found Coursera to be. The feel of Khan is that it is trying to be engaging in the way a site that caters to those who don't necessarily have to be there (or want to be there) must be. Whereas Coursera wants you to get through your course, but is not as concerned with making sure your experience is engaging in an enjoyable or curiosity-driven way.
Khan is another site that would be reliable for contextualizing a topic during a learning experience using the petal method. It is one that specifically came to mind when I was creating my script for the podcast. Many of its top donors have reputations for being educational giants (The Gates Foundation, for example). The piece where it does need to also have intention when it comes to engaging design and, to a degree, wants to foster learners who are critical thinkers and are experiencing their learning from a self-fulfillment place without the pressure of a paywall is a really positive thing to me, and I think is a better set up for a user to have an authentic and empowering learning experience. Though the perception of it for children may be off-putting to adult learners. And that it focuses its messaging on grades, rather than money attainment, means that adults may be far less likely to use it for skill acquisition and thus favor more ISD minded ed tech experiences, even if they would actually prefer to learn, or learn more effectively with a design that wasn't created in with the corporate ideals in mind.
Comments
Post a Comment