(Editor’s Note: Everything underlined is a hyperlink to the sites referenced. No need to write and ask for the URLs!)
As I was reading through some Google Alerts on e-learning, I noticed the headline that Stanford University was offering a free online degree in Artificial Intelligence. That made me curious, so I called Stanford, who it turn said that there had quite a few courses in their curriculum that are offered online – and for free. In this Stanford article, it went on to say that three free courses – Machine Learning, Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and Introduction to Databases – cover material that forms the basis of some of the most prevalent technologies today, from online shopping to web search and robotics. There’s even a free course on how to design iPhone applications.
Apparently there are many more universities offering free courses and curricula. There are nearly 2,000 academic courses that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has put online. MIT’s offerings are part of its OpenCourseWare project, and are complete with syllabuses, assignments, exams and, in many cases, audio or video lectures — certainly an online educational gold mine for those people looking for free education.
At Open Culture, I discovered another 400 free courses from universities and other sources. Of course, this made me even more curious, and I continued to Google other sources. Here’s a brief summary of what I found:
- iTunes U (100,000 free courses)
- Academic Earth (free courses from the world’s scholars)
- EDU YouTube (free courses from multiple universities)
- Khan Academy (2400 free courses)
- The Research Channel (and Research Channel YouTube)
- Videolectures.net (free lectures by distinguished scholars)
- HP Learning Center (free courses on digital photography to Microsoft Office and IT topics)
- WonderHowTo and Videojug (courses on family how-to’s)
- TED: Ideas Worth Spreading (one of my personal favorites)
- Nobelprize.org (For you Nobel award enthusiasts)
- Forum Network (Lectures from distinguished speakers)
Actually, I gave up trying to add more free sources, because I was trying to stay in the realm of corporate and government learning – our readership. But here are a few more that I found, that are just too good not to mention:
Health: http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/videos/default.htm
Languages: http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/
Food: http://www.ciachef.edu/
Books & Literature: http://librivox.org/
Jazz: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10208861
History: http://www.history.com/video.do?action=home
Maybe we should do more than a blog post on this, seeing it’s generating a lot of comments in the discussion groups where I posted the question. Open to suggestions!
Obviously this is only the tip of the free education iceberg. In fact, one of our keynote presenters for our ELCE 2011 Show at the end of September is Sal Khan, of the famous www.KhanAcademy.org. His statistics speak volumes:
- Faculty – 1
- Courses – 2400
- Views – 65,000,000
- Cost – Free
So my question to all of you is “Should Education be Free?” And if so, how do we continue to fund development for new content? Is this isolated to a few industries? How will certificate programs be handled? Will this ever get into the medical arena? Should it? Are we going to have to deploy websites that make their money from “clicks” on Google Ads?
Weigh in, so to speak, on the “elephant in the room.” And by all means, come join us for this provocative conference on September 27th-29th in Anaheim, CA:
About the author of this article
Joe DiDonato is the Editor-at-Large for the Elearning! Magazine Group. Joe's background includes senior learning positions, including CTLO, CEO and board-level assignments. Contact Information: jdidonato@2Elearning.com; (888) 201-2841 x846. To find out more about Joe, please click: Joe DiDonato's Full Biography. To follow on Twitter, please click: Twitter.com/jdidonato
Joe DiDonato has currently added 25 articles...
Well, I know that I've created a shortcut to this article of yours on my desktop!!! Always been a TED fan for certain. Perhaps there is a place for both. It is nice, though, to have supplemental learning that may be complementary to formal education.
Thanks! It helps to know what is out there. The AMA has several free webcasts available also.
If you truly value something then you should be willing to give it away. A simple statement but give it some thought. If you have found your own education immeasurably value through what it has brought you in your life and allowed you to do for others then can you deny the same opportunity to others? I am sometimes criticised or viewed with suspicion for what I give away for free but I find that I am repaid many times over in the same currency - that of ideas and inspiration. A simple analogy that may help society see the need to provide free education - if you do not maintain your house it will fall down, if you do not maintain the roads they become impassible, failure to remove waste leads to disease. Failure fora society to invest in education leads to self interest, hoarding of ideas and wealth, bigotry, suspicion and competition not co-operation. By invest I mean provide free, for life with the only cost being that of a willingness to share. Now that is an elephant in the room!
Here is a response to one of the comments posted in a discussion group where the public teacher was worried about having to work for free:
Good questions. I'll do my best to answer with examples, but know that I'm not coming down on either side of the discussion. And just for clarification, the question has to do with education being free to the recipients, and not educators working for free. Here are 3 models.
The Government Sponsored Model: You've already mentioned this - our taxes pay the way. In some countries, education through college is always free.
The Advertising Model: If you look at some of the sites, you will notice that there are Ads placed throughout. Sometimes this becomes a source of revenue. If you're saying to yourself, "How much can a small ad bring in?" I'll point you to an interesting article that I've always kept handy about a 17-year old who was making $70,000 per month from those ads: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/118/girl-power.html.
The Non-Profit Model: In the case of Sal Khan and http://www.KhanAcademy.org, he is a non-profit. His monies come from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and individual contributors.
Some interesting videos that have prompted discussion:
http://youtu.be/zDZFcDGpL4U (Sir Ken Robinson)
http://youtu.be/VpZtX32sKVE (College Conspiracy)
Of course, some of these are not 'courses' ... they are sets of materials ... and we know that content is only the basis of a learning programme. In relation to the question, however, we have to define 'free'. Good quality courses can only be free if they are subsidised in some way .. even altruistic, social innovators have to make a living. Good quality, open courseware is often released as a marketing tool ... it attracts learners who want the 'richer' experience.
So I think we will see more 'free', 'courses' ... but I don't think this is a phenomenon that will radically change the nature of education more widely ... well, not in the next 10 - 15 years. After that, who knows? Not me, for sure!
If it is a disaster waiting to happen, we have waited since the Revolutionary War. First, it is not free. It is available to all students, but hardly free. Second, without our current system we would surely have a caste society. We will never reach 100%, but it should never be less as a goal.
This reminds me somewhat of the homeschooling movement from perhaps ten years ago versus today. Early on, a homeschooling "diploma" was looked at with skepticism. Today colleges are extremely receptive to a home schooler's portfolio demonstrating a broad range of knowledge and experiences versus the traditional grad's transcript and GPA as indicative of their potential for college work.
Perhaps the same will be said of self-study versus college degree, at least in some career areas. A portfolio of self-organzied skills and experiences may say more to an employer than a BA from XYZ university. I would also hope that those who would be a "renaissance" man or woman would also have a means of demonstrating their knowledge of the arts, languages, philosophy, etc. Being able to do so for free in today's economy would extend opportunity to more people, allowing them to move into a career not saddled with debt.
I love the idea of free access to information. However, I am afraid, very afraid.
On the surface K-12 students in the US are receiving their education for free. However, funding comes from taxpayers. So, it really is not free. In addition, public teachers, like myself, are being scrutinized and accused of making too much money, working too little, etc. which is insulting and ridiculous considering the amount of education we are required to have, responsibility we are saddled with, and the actual salaries we earn.
I am concerned that these "free" courses may add support to cuts in funding for education.
Will these "free" courses lead to the expectation that teachers should volunteer their time and expertise and not get paid?
I wonder, where the funding for those "free" courses come from.
I absolutely believe that education and learning should be free. Too often, we focus on the benefit to the student, but the reality is that a good education is a benefit to society.
There are many ways to get a free education. As mentioned in your article, there are a number of educational institutions, including some with impressive credentials, that offer classes, and even degrees, online for free. Another option involves homeschooling or independent learning: where credentials are needed, the issue of the validity of such degrees can be established through exams, orals, demonstrations, or internships.
Some people argue that students will not be investing in learning if they don't pay for that education. However, willingness to work is very different from willingness and/or ability to pay.
In my experience, people who grow up as independent learners remain independent learners throughout their lives. Being invested in learning doesn't necessarily require that students pay a financial fee. It does require that they see the learning as relevant to them in some way, even if it's only because they find the subject interesting. When students at any level are able to see the connection between what they are learning and the application of that learning to their lives, they will be invested in the outcome. One way to encourage this is to avoid grading systems that focus on how much work students do, or on how well/quickly they learn in comparison to other students. When challenged to improve their own scores or abilities, with the only comparison that between their performance now and their past performance, many students will take great pleasure in the process.
Actually as a school victim who ended up as an Instructional Designer, I do beleive that the individual learning objects are out there and freely available. What is not freely available is a 'structured learning program.' I am mostly self-taught on a variety of subjects that have held my interest since childhood but when any of the boys ask me to teach them, I cannot but emphasise the importance of first creating a 'program' for learning.
That said, however, if the learner's interest lags, no amount of agonizing over a program will help. This is what happens in school where a year is not neacessarily the best time frame to learn algebra (for example).
In short, the information is all around us now. The challenge is to connect the info to an individual's own life (story). What do you think?
Also consider the future of which Open Educational Resources are...
http://www.acrossworld.com/products-services/educationbridge
At the end of the day, it is not the education that costs; it is the sheepskin/parchment/credential that costs. In this day and age I contend that it is possible to put together an instructional design program, for instance, using freely available sources. (And the resources listed in the article certainly support my supposition.) I even put out the challenge in one of the corporate learning LinkedIn groups for folks to try it. I was curious to find out what they thought important to learn. (No one took me up on it though.)
Having said that, do we have a right to a free education? I resist that notion. It is human nature to get much more value from such things if we have to pay for them somehow. As mentioned above, 'free' really isn't; someone has to pay. To have value to the learners, they must significantly take part in that. I read once that the number one indicator of success in school & beyond is willingness to work.
--Allen
I am afraid I am going to serve as the wet blanket here. Yes, ideally it would be wonderful to have free education and be recognized for a myriad of self taught skills and ambitions. Unfortunately, there are societal and institutional systems - the traditional paradigm - that create an elitist pathway that is self perpetuating. Those not conforming to this pathway because of certain characteristics and disadvantages-race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, etc -rarely have opportunities that provide equity in our societies. I wish providing free education could change things, but I am not optimistic. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer either.
If we want an educated country, we will do best to put education as a priority and make it possible for all. It's so obvious that education is not anywhere near the top of our nation's priority list. The state of education on many levels is honestly embarrassing for our great country. Do I have all of the answers of how this will work? No, but I would love to be part of the solution for this serious problem. An educated society will have such a positive impact on so many other areas of our great nation!
There are countries in which education (including university level) is paid for by the state (government). So, it is not "free", but it is a part of the social system. It is also very competitive and the degree needs to be earned through hard work, rather than being paid for by an individual via loans or out of pocket. In this type of arrangement the focus is on producing well trained experts/professionals versus individuals who have paid cash for their degrees, enriched "educational" corporations, and while being "valued customers" wrote bad reviews for the professors who refused to issue good grades for poor work.
As for the "artificial Intelligence" concept, it is very interesting. However, needs to be treated as an arcade game as opposed to guidance in life. Artificial intelligence programs are designed by humans who incorporate their own biases and points of view in the software they write. My hope is that people will continue seeking knowledge and learning on their own rather than relying on someone else's subjectivity and suppressing their own creativity.
Free education is a great idea, however people abuse it.
As a Training provider in the UK we have both commercial paid for training and funded provision, I find that if people are paying for their education they will turn up, and actually be more willing to learn as it is costing either them personally or their employer.
Some of those who are on the funded route often do not bother to turn up, or they can be disruptive because they do not want to be there.
Free education system should have clauses attached, if the system is abused the individuals should be forced to pay. As someone who is now in debt after finishing a part time university course, because I was paying for it, I did not miss any of the two year lectures unless absolutely necessary.
Education and Training should have a point, the student should be able to advance within their chosen carer, they should gain self esteem from the learning process, it is a waste of time money and resources if the training process is there just to keep people of the streets.
Learning is mostly free. No printed books have password protection. Anyone can read them and learn. The brain does not require anybody's permission to begin learning.
It might be argued then that you're not paying for the Learning itself, instead you're paying somebody to state and verify that you've become Learned.
It's interesting where the notion of "free education" begins and ends, as evidenced by some of the discussions going on. A majority seem to come out in favor of free K-12, with probably a growing majority looking towards the notion of free college. (I remember my entire debt when leaving the university was only $500. Times sure have changed.)
But in those other discussions, we also talked about "free education" when it comes to the "technology adoption life cycle" (Geoffrey Moore - "Crossing the Chasm"). Having worked in a few of those start-ups, the common wisdom was not to create any "barriers to adoption" of our products. Read: free education and even consulting. At later stages in the adoption cycle, you still had to be concerned with how much you were going to charge for a day of classroom training. A $1000/course day fee would pretty much insure that your software became shelfware, because no one would pay to learn how to use it.
As you 'noodle' through these examples, you have to wonder whether some of the dynamics transcend public and corporate education. And don't get me wrong! "Free" never was uttered in my presence when I was running Oracle or PeopleSoft's education. However, when I crossed over into the dot.com space, I toned it down.
The other surprising dynamic was what happened when your professional services revenues exceeded your software license sales. Right! Your market cap plummets because you've just told the market that you're a services company with a 2:1 multiple on generated revenue, versus the 20:1 multiples enjoyed by software companies. Remember Oracle taking our a $1 billion in profitable revenue to restructure that dynamic? Painful.
This article lumps all forms of learning under "education". Public K-12 education in the US is still free (or at least paid for with taxes). The links and references in the article point to a variety of "educational" content but what is an education? Our educational institutions attempt to channel the innate human behavior of learning (which is also free) and then measure how much of a particular subject or process is retained. I personally define an education as much more than that, but in today's world, the baseline measurement for an "education" is a college degree. It is a prerequisite screening tool for employers. One could argue that there is sufficient educational content available for free but how would you know the information is learned?
This is a question of what business model is behind the university. Looking at Stanford it looks like to me that they offer some free courses in order to perceive more students for their "pay"-courses. Once in and convinced of the quality of education it may be very likely, that students stay at the university for another course. The university could be also owned/financed by the state - here in Austria university courses (I'm not aware of online courses, though) are all free at state universities, you do not have to pay tuition.
Some great points in the article and comments. But I have to wonder what we're actually defining as "education." Few would argue that children and adults need access to a basic education as a right, but E-learning encompasses a wide range of educational material.
Thoughts? Is there a way to put education in a box or is that a slippery slope?
Thanks for the great info...
Great post thanks!
The notion of a "free education" is almost completely misgiven. MIT and the rest will provide content....but you will have to organize it for yourself. Your time is worth something (presumably), so the cost you are paying may not be dollars and cents but it is a cost. Like some of the other commenters, I work almost exclusviely with home educators. There is a powerful thread in the home education community which strives for "free home education". They are amazingly creative in seeking out and finding "free" resources. But once they have these "free resources" what they find is 1) they are incomplete, 2) they are often obsolete or just plain untrue, 3) even the good free material has remarkably poor production values, making the very act of trying to use them another investment in your time and effort. And then comes the "oh poop" (feel free to substitute another word) effect when teacher and taught hit a part of the topic neither can or does understand. Where is the "free" instructor who will guide you through it? If you are a lucky home educator, Ms. Smith next door just happens to have a master's degree in math and can get you through calculus when mom can't.....but maybe there is no Ms. Smtih next door. Or maybe Ms. Smith doesn't want to help, isn't available this week, wants to go on vacation or just doesn't like your kids.
You get the point. We pay for education because it is valuable and talented people invest their time and effort making it "effortless" for the rest of us. There is no way to make education truly free...as several writers have pointed out. The government, the Gates Foundation or someone is going to pay for it. Our goal should not be to avoid educaiton's cost but to get the best education can provide for a cost society (and students and their families) can afford.
both thumbs up for Thomas's plain speaking. there will always be intervention points in the learning cycle. Interestingly, the comments also throw up the distinction between learning (self interest) and education (as required by peers?) what about it people?
I also like what Lorraine points out about the old 'something for nothing' problem with humans.