moocs@mq - Macquarie University

moocs@mq ISP Project

FINAL REPORT

Summary Report of Research Project:

moocs@mq

Innovation & Scholarship Program July 2013

Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower School of Education, Faculty of Human Sciences, Macquarie University

Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

1


Foreword On 2nd of November last year in the New York Times Laura Pappano famously coined 2012 the “Year of the MOOC”. A similarly audacious claim was made by Sebastian Thrun, founder of the MOOC platform Udacity, when he forecast that by 2050 there would only be ten universities left in the world. In the last 18 months Higher Education has been awash with commentary and predictions about the impact of Massive Open Online Courses on education worldwide. However, once the hype and rhetoric began to abate it became self-evident that the true transformation taking place was more about the coming of age of Open Online Courses, and the range of pedagogical, social and enterprise opportunities they afforded. The purpose of the MOOCs@MQ project was to provide an informed foundation for the sustainable development of high-quality Open Online Courses at Macquarie. This was addressed through three distinct yet interrelated project phases: a contextual analysis, an internal consultation and a collaborative design initiative. The literature review conducted as part of the contextual analysis aimed to disentangle the rhetoric from emerging scholarship relating to the design and implementation of MOOCs. It showed that while there has been an explosion in the number of universities offering MOOCs, and that many people believe MOOCs have the potential to transform Higher Education by radically altering the way students access tertiary education, there has been very little research into the impact of MOOCs on student learning (though it is acknowledged that this is changing). Scholars point out that MOOCs can vary greatly in their philosophical and pedagogical approach, from cMOOCs (constructivist and connectivist, characterised by student generated content and emergent structure) to xMOOCs (more instructionally oriented, with teacher driven content and fixed structure). A variety of purposes for MOOCs have been proposed including alternate entry to programs, marketing, remedial learning, recruitment, experimentation, professional learning and goodwill. A range of issues are still left unanswered in the MOOC domain, including whether and how to invigilate, accredit and manage MOOCs in pedagogically and financially sustainable way, with different Universities trailing different approaches. A review of dozens of MOOCs confirmed the proliferation and variation of MOOC offerings. Rarely does an institutional consultation process bring so many key stakeholders together with such a common understanding of the need to engage: The Learning and Teaching Centre, Centre for Open Education, International Office, Informatics, Registrar’s Office, Marketing Department, Legal Department, Strategy Development & Implementation, the Library, and the English Language Centre, all engaged willingly and earnestly to share their perspectives and positions with relation to MOOCs at Macquarie. The wide variety of insights and viewpoints of contributors highlighted the complexity of Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

2


adopting an integrated approach to offering MOOCs. Encouragingly, there was unanimous support for Macquarie offering MOOCs, as much as for the amount of institutional learning that would take place as for any business implications. However, there was an expressed need to be strategic about the ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘how’ of Macquarie MOOCs, so that offerings were of high quality, innovative and aligned with University goals. The consultation process not only provided a more holistic understanding of the issues and challenges surrounding MOOC implementation, but also brought the centres and offices together in a way that enabled them to better understand how they could coordinate effectively on any future MOOC-related initiatives. The culmination of the groundwork from the context analysis and stakeholder consultation offered an informed basis upon which to create four MOOC designs (one from each faculty). Each of the four academics who engaged in the design phase of the project were experts in their field, and had unique insights into how units could be transformed to be offered in MOOC mode. There were a wide variety of positions represented along the cMOOC xMOOC spectrum, including the extent to which students were generators of content, topics were fixed, and teacher assumed role of instructor. It became apparent that there was scope to incorporate a broad range of pedagogies within each Macquarie MOOC, as well as between offerings. The enthusiasm of the teachers and their willingness to rethink their pedagogies was inspiring, and almost as illuminating as the designs themselves. Once again a wide range of stakeholders from across the University were consulted, and once again the process was at least as valuable as the products that emerged. The outcomes and findings of this project are documented in detail in this report. Part A provides a summary of the three phases (contextual analysis, scoping study, collaborative design) for those readers who prefer a cogent and high-level overview. Part B, Part C and Part D present the detailed results from contextual analysis, scoping study, and collaborative design phases, respectively. There is considerable scope to build upon the findings of this project. In particular, future work could focus on: •

Advancing design and delivery of open online course resources, tools and systems that might be developed across several units within a major, program or discipline, and even University-wide in some cases;

•

Developing MOOCs for units of study recommended during consultation and design phases;

•

Cultivating clusters and partnerships between staff to develop customised online courses and resources where there is potentially an alignment between programs, units, and MOOC participants and also interest among staff for MOOC collaborations that are internal and, in the longer term, external;

•

Developing special interest and highly targeted Massive Open Online Courses, Little Open Online Courses, and Open Online Courses - MOOCs, OOCs and LOOCs, respectively, - that directly engage with future and, potentially, current students of Macquarie University; and,

•

Fostering partnerships with other institutions, such as higher education providers and also platform providers.


May 2013

3


It is also recommended that a central point of contact for future MOOC projects be communicated within the University and as an external point of contact. The recommendation seeks to draw on and from existing knowledge for future activities. The MOOCs@MQ project was a collaborative effort, and immense thanks are extended to all of the people who so generously offered their time to support the initiative. A list of acknowledgements is provided overleaf, but it in no way recognises the extent of people’s contribution nor the degree of our gratitude. Finally, I would like to personally thank Dr Jacqueline Kenney, Project Manager of the MOOCs@MQ project, for her diligent and rigorous efforts throughout the entire initiative. Her professional, thorough and enthusiastic approach was lauded by several stakeholders, and without her work the outcomes of this project would have been meagre by comparison. We hope that you enjoy reviewing this report, and that it adds to your understanding of how Open Online Courses may be effectively designed and implemented in this exciting educational milieu.

Dr Matt Bower 31st July 2013


May 2013

4


Acknowledgements The MOOCs@mq project was a collaborative endeavour. Collaborators in Phases One, Two and Three of the project contributed through scoping study activities for key centres, the review of courses and designs and feedback on project reporting. We would like to thank project collaborators, including: Albert Atkin

Judyth Sachs

Annabelle Lukin

Kathy Vozella

Andrew Burrell

Kelsie Dadd

Carlos Perez

Kristina Smith

David Wright

Leasa Speck

Deborah Richards

Leigh Wood

Dominic Verity

Luke Williams

Eamon Vale

Marc Bailey

Elaine Huber

Maree Gosper

Gayathri Wijesuriya

Marianne Morton

Grant Sayer

Maxine Brodie

Helen Carter

Megan Breden

Ian Solomonides

Mitch Parsell

James Hamilton

Paul Luttrell

Jason Elias

Pavle Jeric

John Hedberg

Sherman Young

Jonathan Wylie

Terrence Collins

In particular we thank the Steering Committee Members for timely helpful feedback, Elaine Huber for insights on project evaluation, and Sherman Young for his ongoing support and frequent updates. Matt Bower and Jacqueline Kenney 24th May 2013


May 2013

5


Table of Contents

PART A: SUMMARY REPORTING ON PROJECT PHASES ..............................................................8 PHASE 1 SUMMARY: CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF MOOCS ..........................................................................................9 PHASE 2 SUMMARY: SCOPING STUDY CONSULTATION ............................................................................................. 12 PHASE 3 SUMMARY: CREATING MOOC DESIGNS ...................................................................................................... 13 1 PART B: PHASE 1 CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF MOOCS ............................................................ 19 1.1 THE PURPOSE OF AND OBJECTIVES FOR PHASE 1 CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS ............................................... 20 1.2 THE APPROACH TAKEN TO PHASE 1 ACTIVITIES............................................................................................. 20 1.3 ONLINE REVIEW TOOL: REVIEW-A-MOOC ......................................................................................................... 23 1.4 REVIEWING THE MOOC LITERATURE .............................................................................................................. 31 1.5 SUMMARY OF DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND CONTEXTUAL IMPLICATIONS ......................................................... 44 2 PART C: PHASE 2 SCOPING STUDY CONSULTATION ................................................................. 48 2.1 THE PURPOSE OF AND OBJECTIVES FOR SCOPING ACTIVITIES....................................................................... 49 2.2 THE APPROACH TAKEN TO SCOPING ACTIVITIES AND CONSULTATION ....................................................... 49 2.3 KEY CENTRE/OFFICE REPORTING ...................................................................................................................... 50 2.4 SUMMARIZING KEY CENTRE/OFFICE FINAL REPORTS .................................................................................... 64 2.5 THE IMPLICATIONS OF SCOPING ACTIVITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................... 65 2.6 OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS AND NEXT STEPS................................................................................................... 67 3 PART D: PHASE 3 MOOC DESIGN OVERVIEWS ............................................................................ 69 3.1 THE PURPOSE OF AND OBJECTIVES FOR DESIGN ACTIVITIES ......................................................................... 70 3.2 THE APPROACH TAKEN TO THE COLLABORATIVE DESIGN TASK................................................................... 70 3.3 AN OVERVIEW OF UNIT DESIGNS ........................................................................................................................ 73 3.4 DESIGN OVERVIEW: CRITICAL THINKING (PHL137), ALBERT ATKIN, PHILOSOPHY ............................ 74 3.5 DESIGN OVERVIEW: ICT & EDUCATION (EDU261), MATT BOWER, EDUCATION ................................. 80 3.6 DESIGN OVERVIEW: PRINCIPLES OF FINANCIAL LITERACY (AFAS300), PETER MORDAUNT, FINANCE 88 3.7 DESIGN OVERVIEW: SOFTWARE ENGINEERING (COMP255), DEBORAH RICHARDS, COMPUTING.... 93 3.8 CONCLUDING COMMENTS ON MOOC DESIGNS................................................................................................ 97 4 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................... 98 APPENDIX 1: MOOC ONLINE REVIEW TOOL............................................................................. 103 APPENDIX 2: UNIT REVIEW TOOL FOR COLLABORATIVE MOOC DESIGN PROCESS .. 106


May 2013

6


List of Tables TABLE 1 – TYPOLOGY OF CMOOCS VERSUS XMOOCS (SIEMENS, 2012; DOWNES, 2012)........................................................11 TABLE 2 – COMPARISON OF MQ MOOC DESIGNS AND CMOOC AND XMOOC DIMENSIONS .......................................................14 TABLE 3 -‐ AVAILABLE AND POTENTIAL MOOC PLATFORMS ..............................................................................................................22 TABLE 4 – INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF MOOC PLATFORMS ....................................................................................................................23 TABLE 5 – FORMAL MOOC REVIEW QUESTIONS AND THEIR THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS..........................................................26 TABLE 6 – SUMMARY OF FORMAL MOOC REVIEWS.............................................................................................................................27 TABLE 7 – SUMMARY OF INFORMAL MOOC REVIEWS .........................................................................................................................27 TABLE 8 – TYPOLOGY OF CMOOCS VERSUS XMOOCS (SIEMENS, 2012; DOWNES, 2012)........................................................29 TABLE 9 – EDUCATIONAL FUTURE SCENARIOS FOR 2025 (FACER & SANDFORD, 2010, P. 83).................................................43 TABLE 10 – COLLABORATIVE DESIGN PARTICIPANTS FOR THE MOOC@MQ PROJECT ................................................................72 TABLE 11 – COMPARISON OF MQC MOOC DESIGNS AND CMOOC AND XMOOC DIMENSIONS ..................................................73 TABLE 12 – PROPOSED TIMETABLE FOR EDUC261 IN MOOC MODE .............................................................................................81 TABLE 13 – TYPICAL WEEKLY STUDY PATTERN FOR STUDENTS IN THE AFAS300 MOOC .........................................................89

List of Figures FIGURE 1 – A TIMELINE OF MOOC EVOLUTION (KENNEY & BOWER, 2012, P. 8)........................................................................10 FIGURE 2 – THE LEPO FRAMEWORK (PHILLIPS, MCNAUGHT & KENNEDY, P.27).......................................................................25 FIGURE 3 – A TIMELINE OF MOOC EVOLUTION (KENNEY & BOWER 2012, P. 8).........................................................................28 FIGURE 4 – US COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONS (LEFT) AND STUDENT ENROLMENTS IN US INSTITUTIONS (RIGHT). SOURCE: KING AND SEN (2012, P. 6) .........................................................................................................................................34 FIGURE 5 – BARRIERS TO MOOC SUSTAINABILITY (FELDSTEIN, 2012).........................................................................................35 FIGURE 6 – AN EXEMPLAR COMPARISON BETWEEN ONLINE AND FACE-‐TO-‐FACE TEACHER SUPPORT INPUT (LAURILLARD, 2013) ...............................................................................................................................................................................................37 FIGURE 7 – MODELLING FIXED AND VARIABLE COSTS BASED ON DESIGN INPUTS (LAURILLARD, 2013) ...................................37 FIGURE 8 – TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE DETAILS AND THE BIG PICTURE OF TECHNOLOGIES (PUENTEDURA, 2012) .................40 FIGURE 9 – CATEGORICAL USAGE PATTERNS OF TECHNOLOGIES (PUENTEDURA, 2012) .............................................................41 FIGURE 10 – PATHS AND POSSIBILITIES OF TECHNOLOGY FUTURES (PUENTEDURA, 2012)........................................................42 FIGURE 11 – THE OPEN ROUTE THROUGH THE CRITICAL THINKING UNIT ....................................................................................77 FIGURE 12 – VISUALISATION OF THE UNITS AND MATRICULATION..................................................................................................78


May 2013

7


PART A: SUMMARY REPORTING ON

PROJECT PHASES

The MOOCS@MQ project took place between July 2012 and April 2013. The broad aim of the project was to find out ‘what it would take to effectively run MOOCS at Macquarie University’ by: 1. Undertaking Review of international practice and state of the art design/implementation; 2. Performing a University-wide consultation with key centres and offices to investigate implementation issues, requirements and parameters; 3. Completing a collaborative MOOC design process for one unit per Faculty (Critical Thinking: Philosophy - FOA; Principles of Financial Literacy: Finance – FBE; Software Engineering: Computing, FOS; ICT and Education: Education, FOHS); This section of the report contains an abridged overview of the MOOCs at MQ project including a summary of the Phase 1 Contextual Analysis, Phase 2 Scoping Study Consultation, and Phase 3 MOOCS@MQ Designs. For further details on each of these phases please refer to Part B, Part C and Part D of this document (respectively).


May 2013

8


Phase 1 Summary: Contextual Analysis of MOOCs The Phase One Contextual Analysis commenced at the beginning of the project in August 2013 and ran concurrently with Phase Two Consultation and Phase Three Design. Phase One reporting was presented during Learning and Teaching Week in September 2012 and finalised for dissemination in March 2013. Phase One activities comprised a review of relevant literature and online reporting, as well as the evaluation of existing MOOCs. Given the developmental nature of MOOCs the majority of materials included in this report were drawn from online sources, including higher education sector media reporting, commentaries, and podcasts, video and webinar materials. The evaluation of MOOC units applied a series of questions to assessing each MOOC, devised from the Learning Environments, Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) Framework (Phillips, Kennedy & McNaught, 2012). The questions identified aspects of the MOOC that contributed to the learning effectiveness of the design and aspects of participant behaviour, tools, activities and curriculum for nine MOOCs. An additional 21 were informally reviewed and some 35 summarily viewed. Summary of concerns The intrepid entry into Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) delivery by higher education participants is at once transparent and deceptive. Offerings are transparent because they are open for the world to view, access and enrol, yet, deceptive because their emergence suggests something new. In fact, the first coming of a MOOC five years ago (Connectivism & Connective Knowledge by George Siemens and Stephen Downes in 2008) was despite the fact that the technology, pedagogies and capabilities encompassed in MOOCs had existed for at least ten years. However, the recent proliferation (course types) and fragmentation (consumer types) are new. The proliferation of MOOCs in their second coming has garnered MOOC-mania among higher education stakeholders and commentators (see Figure 1). Massive interest consistently situates the MOOC discourse among broad, deep and often lasting concerns about contemporary higher education, specifically: • • • • • •

An increasingly competitive, wired and global higher education setting; Equity, diversity and universal education goals; Reusable, shared and user created learning designs and resources; Course and program additions and deletions and cost considerations; Redefining community and community participation in higher education; Reconceptualising lifetime educational journeys of students in combined virtual and physical settings.

The fragmentation of MOOC consumer types is reflected in the emergence and detection of discrete and unique learner needs. In the past 12 months to March 2013 MOOCs have continued to arrive in the marketplace that reflect these diverse needs, from regular university students initially, to the progressive introduction to offer MOOCs that meet the needs of: •

Non-traditional university students;


May 2013

9


• • • •

Diverse and at-risk students; Students wanting smaller groups for study in little open online courses; Teachers in specific disciplines and levels of education; and, Educational stakeholders and leadership.

Figure 1 – A timeline of MOOC evolution (Kenney & Bower, 2012, p. 8)

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) emerged in 2008 and have exploded in number, disciplinary focus, and provider types and consortium or partnership arrangements. Student numbers have varied across the offerings, such as 2,300 non-fee-paying students with 25 fee-paying students in CCK (2008), to over 160,000 non-fee-paying students in a Stanford University Artificial Intelligence course (2011). Not all courses are massive and some smaller offerings are termed ‘LOOCs’: Little OOCs. Kolowich (2012) describes University of Maine, US, LOOCs as distinguished from MOOCs in limited participation, credit availability, and pedigree. More generally, the main differences between the earlier (cMOOCs including those by Siemens, Downes, Groom, Courmier, Courous, etc.) and later types (xMOOCs including Coursera and Edx) may be characterised are shown in 1. Please see Part B for a detailed review of the MOOC literature during Phase 1 of this project. Thematically, discussions of change related to technology include those reporting dramatic and widespread shifts in the use of technology that soften the boundaries between work, play and education (Yakob, 2009; EU/OECD, 2009). In universities educational uses of technology frequent discussions of


May 2013

10


21st century competences, larger cohort sizes and the broader need for contemporary pedagogical practice in tertiary education. Table 1 – Typology of cMOOCs versus xMOOCs (Siemens, 2012; Downes, 2012)

cMOOC typology • Content as a starting point: learners expected to create/extend • Changed relationship between teacher/learners • Distributed, chaotic and emergent • Learners are expected to create, grow, expand domain and share personal sensemaking through artifact creation • Distributed, often blog-based, learner created forums and spaces • Instructor graded assessment and peercommented tasks

xMOOC typology • Formal (traditional) course structure and flow • Traditional relationship between teacher/learner • Learners are expected to duplicate/master what they are taught • Centralised discussion forum support • Automated assessment and peerreviewed assessment

Research reports on required new competences in education frequently refer to the role of technology in those processes, in information availability, accessibility, knowledge creation, and pedagogically driven, self-directed learning (European Commission, 1995; 2000; UNESCO, 1998; NCREL, 2003; OECD, 2004; 2005; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008). From this perspective, universities are expected to be ‘the prime providers of complex skills, agility and creativity, and innovation’ and, as the same observer puts it, in the context of unprecedented, relentless change that produces uncertainty (UGC, 2010, pp. 15; 19). Technology itself is central, but it is pedagogy, technology and funding together that are required to bring desired changes. More, curriculum itself is implied by MOOCs if they are to align with other offerings. Therein, as Laurrillard discusses, precisely how MOOCs may contribute to addressing existing needs in higher education is not straightforward, obvious or necessarily likely. As this report proposes, MOOCs themselves require the same impetus for change in design, technology and funding more broadly in higher education. Laurillard (2013) surmises that It is not easy to describe MOOCs as the answer to the global demand for higher education if it is being answered in this way because we are not doing that kind of orchestration of peer learning, feedback, etc. And if we are relying highly on automated feedback, if we’re not accrediting learning, if we not doing formative and summative assessment, then, we are quite a long way from being an education.

MOOCS, having made a dramatic entry to higher education, have yet to demonstrate how they fit among existing course offerings at universities and, indeed, how and if MOOC-like study can offer demonstrable evidence of effective learning. To date, MOOCs offer a great deal of promise in mass appeal, heighted access opportunities and readily available evidence-based online design principles, however, caution is recommended for a number of reasons. Most of all, care is required to ensure that MOOC offerings are aligned with existing offerings and delivery modalities and, while institutionally-unique MOOCs are a necessity, the adoption of MOOCs must also respond to broader issues and contemporary concerns facing higher education in general. MOOCs may be here to stay but they are yet to find their place.


May 2013

11


Phase 2 Summary: Scoping Study Consultation The Phase 2 MOOCS@MQ ISP Report details the internal consultation activities and outputs that were undertaken between September and October 2012. The activities included: 1. Initial discussion summary submission by each key office/centre at Macquarie University, guided by a visual reporting instrument for display at Round Table 1 (due Tue 11 Sep); 2. Round Table 1, discussion of summaries by key centres (from Wed 12 Sep); 3. Scoping report submission and feedback on other reports by each key office/centre (due Fri 5 Oct); 4. Round table discussion of reports among key offices/centres (w/c 12 Oct); and, 5. Submission of final scoping reports by key offices/centres (due 19 Oct). This report summarises the discussion notes submitted by key centres and the conversations during the two Round Table sessions. Participants selected for participation in the consultation activities initially included the Learning and Teaching Centre, Legal, Marketing, Informatics and Registrars Office. Activity Variations from Project Brief First, the timing of Phase 2 activities was adjusted to ensure activity completion one month earlier than planned. By completing consultation activities by end October rather than end November potential delays and disruptions to the project deadlines were avoided. In particular, heavy workloads and absences relating to the end-of-semester period and annual leave in December/January when project reporting required feedback to achieve set objectives. Second, the interest generated by the project resulted in extended consultation within the University. Greater levels of consultation were included because a critical aspect of the project was to develop institutional knowledge as well as key linkages between departments and centres in preparation for MQ MOOCs. Consultation was broadened in two ways: •

•

Consultation with the five key centres nominated in the Project Brief led to recommendations for wider participation in the project. Five additional stakeholders were invited to participate in project consultation activities, including: Provost, Strategy Development & Implementation, Library Services, English Language Centre, Centre for Open Education, International, and the Chair, Senate Learning and Teaching Committee. Associate Deans, staff from the Learning and Teaching Centre, Centre for Open Education and DE Online Working Party provided frequent and significant input to shape Phase Two activities. More generally, these stakeholders shared ongoing updates and insights by email.

Stakeholder Consensus on Key Issues Broad consensus was secured among stakeholders for a number of key MOOC implementation issues. First and foremost, there was strong agreement that further consultation and future collaboration be undertaken prior to implementation. In particular, the need for consultation and feedback from academic staff and student groups was unanimously agreed to, as well as broader internal and external consultation more generally. Eight overall areas of consensus about MOOC implementation were identified. There was agreement that: Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

12


• • • • • • • •

MOOCs should be offered by MQ; A clear strategy for MOOCs is required; Resolving how and why MOOCs fit in the overall MQ spectrum of course offerings is necessary prior to moving forward; MOOCs must pay off relative to their cost and also formula to deliver value; Opportunities for unique MQ MOOCs are a priority; Make quality the priority; Experimenting with MOOC types and designs is vital for learning; and, Match MOOCs to stakeholders.

Challenges and Outstanding Questions The identified challenges to successful MOOC implementation could potentially be overcome by: • •

Starting small as opposed to commencing with an objective for immediate large-scale MOOC offerings Defining the opportunity for MOOC offerings without regard for present institutional limitations

The outstanding questions at the conclusion of Phase 2 included the following:

1. On what basis should MQ courses be selected for MOOC-ification? (i.e., popularity, success, design suitability, etc.); 2. Should MQ consider both xMOOCs and cMOOCs? ; 3. Should MQ consider offering MOOCs via diverse platforms? Which ones? Why? (i.e., various national and international partners and available technology platforms); and, 4. Should MQ MOOCs offer pathways to obtain credit for courses taken? (i.e., links with multimodal accreditation pathways, such as existing or new MQ courses (formal learning), and workplace and non-university studies (informal learning).

Phase 3 Summary: Creating MOOC Designs The Phase 3 MOOCS@MQ ISP Report details the collaborative MOOC design activities and outputs that were undertaken between August and November 2012. The activities included: 1. Discussions with four academics, one from each Faculty in the University; 2. The development of a unit review tool for collaborative design to guide design conversations between the project group; 3. The display of designs in an iLearn unit to share and obtain feedback; and 4. The presentation of draft designs to project and research groups for feedback. This report summarises the design approach, presents an overview of core design principles for each unit, before giving a detailed outline of the MOOC design for the four units. Overview of MQ MOOCs compared to MOOCs ‘out there’ An indicative comparison between the four designed MOOCs and existing c/xMOOC dimensions appear in Table 2.


May 2013

13


Table 2 – Comparison of MQ MOOC designs and cMOOC and xMOOC dimensions cMOOC

PHL

FIN

EDU

COM

xMOOC

Content as starting point, learners extend

c/x

c/x

x

x

Teacher-centric content

Changed relationship learner-to-learner

c

c/x

c/x

c/x

Learners learn


c

c/x

c/x

x

Teachers tell & assess

Chaotic & emergent

c

x

c/x

x

Defined by known knowledge

Expectation to expand domain and create artefacts

c

c/x

c/x

c/x

Duplication of set content

Distributed learner created spaces

c/x

x

x

x

Centralised discussion forums

Instructor graded assessment

x

x

x

x

Automated assessment

Peer-commented tasks

x

x

x

x

Peer reviewed assessment

Visual Summaries Visual summaries of each of the four MOOCs are provided overleaf.

Next steps Initial responses from project stakeholders, LTRC and some Heads of Departments, Associate Deans (L&T) and two Executive Deans were positive. Additional feedback is anticipated via the circulation of reports and presentations in forums such as the Teaching Excellence Academy. With allowances for set up and refinements, the designs are ready to use. This concludes Part A Summary Reporting on Project Phases. Part B (Phase 1 Contextual Analysis of MOOCS), Part C (Phase 2 Scoping Study Consultation) and Part D (Phase 3 MOOC Design Overviews) provide the details of each phase.


May 2013

14


Design Overview 1: Critical Thinking, Philosophy, FoA


May 2013

15


Design Overview 2: ICT in Education, Education, FoHS


May 2013

16


Design Overview 3: Principles of Financial Literacy, Finance, FBE


May 2013

17


Design Overview 4: Software Engineering, Computing, FoS


May 2013

18


1 PART B: Phase 1 Contextual Analysis of MOOCs The Phase One Contextual Analysis commenced in August at the beginning of the project and ran concurrently with Phase Two Consultation and Phase Three Design. Phase One reporting was presented during Learning and Teaching Week in September 2012 and finalised for dissemination in March 2013. The following sections present a review of the literature, the evaluation tool used to assess MOOC, and design principles and institutional considerations for MOOCs. The Phase One report concludes with the identification of specific concerns for discussion during Phase Two Consultation among internal stakeholders and application in the Phase Three Design activities.


May 2013

19


1.1

The purpose of and objectives for Phase 1 Contextual Analysis

The Context Analysis activities of Phase One were outlined in the initial ISP proposal (available from https://wiki.mq.edu.au/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=89228267) as follows. This phase will involve a review of literature and a pedagogical analysis of existing MOOCs in order to provide an informed basis for considering the design and implementation of MOOCs at Macquarie University. The literature review will include papers from scholarly journals and conference proceedings. Given the emerging nature of this area, expert reflections in the form of blog posts and news articles will also be synthesised to form an understanding of current perceptions of MOOCs and the factors that influence their success. The pedagogical analysis of MOOCs will be based upon the Learning Environment, Learning Processes, Learning Outcomes (LEPO) Framework for evaluating e-learning (Philips, McNaught, & Kennedy, 2012), which examines the macro, meso and micro elements of online learning designs. The pedagogical analysis will distil how particular elements of different MOOCs from around the world contributed to the quality of the learning experience. This will in turn inform the design process in [the last phase]. The literature review and pedagogical analysis will be disseminated to the project Steering Committee (outlined in the Evaluation section) for feedback and advice.

1.2 The approach taken to Phase 1 activities The two objectives of Phase 1 activities targeted a literature review and pedagogical analysis of MOOCs. The literature review conducted in Phase 1 sought to identify and describe: • • • • •

The historical emergence and range of MOOCs on offer; The nature of differences between MOOCs to date; Perspectives on the utility of MOOCs to education as a ‘game-changer’; and, The distinctive contribution (or not) of MOOC learning designs among a range of existing learning designs and modalities; The implications of MOOCs to higher education stakeholders.

A major review was completed and presented at Learning and Teaching week in September 2012 and minor updates occurred in later project phases. The seminar presentation is available on the project wiki (https://wiki.mq.edu.au/display/MOOCs/Project+documentation+for+comment) and on slideshare (http://www.slideshare.net/jacquelinekenney/a-snapshot-of-moocs-in-higher-education). The Learning Environments, Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) Framework (Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy, 2012) was used as a basis for evaluating existing MOOCs to achieve the second objective of Phase 1. The ‘Review-a-MOOC’ tool that was developed based on this (LEPO) Framework is discussed over-page.


May 2013

20


1.2.1

Collecting relevant materials for the literature review

Materials for the literature review were gathered from online sources. Numerous articles were circulated among project stakeholders and this was important given the explosive level of publication attention that emerged during the first four weeks of the project. While this level of media, government, educational institution and specialist commentary continued unabated to December, the literature review was not updated beyond the inclusion of: • •

1.2.2

Research frameworks developed for evaluating educational technology futures and alternatives; and, Presentation content from two MOOC learning design experts, Professors Gráinne Conole and Curtis Bonk, who addressed the MOOC project stakeholders through Learning Technology Research Cluster seminars. The approach taken to MOOC reviews

Three types of review were undertaken. First, past and current MOOCs were explored. From these exploratory reviews project activities captured: 1. Details of available and potential MOOC platforms; 2. Formal review data for nine MOOCs; and, 3. Informal review data for 21 MOOCs and cursory reviews of an additional 35 MOOCs. Two and three were based on an online review tool. The thirteen questions in the Review-a-MOOC tool were derived from the overall LEPO conceptualisation of learning design, the five components in the model, and their interrelationships, as these were interpreted and applied to the review of selected MOOCs. The LEPO framework is outlined in more detail below. Details of the MOOC platforms identified in Phase 1 appear next. 1.2.3

Review of existing platforms

Existing platforms were reviewed for two reasons. First, to identify the suitability of available as well as potential platforms for MQ use, based on current and foreseeable practice, including Facebook and Edmodo versus other options shown in Table 3. These platforms are reviewed against evaluation criteria in Table 4. The review aids in the selection of possible platforms for detailed review in the development of MOOCs at Macquarie. By specifying platform options the review can include whether or not selected platforms have the capability to support design options.


May 2013

21


Table 3 - Available and potential MOOC platforms

Category

Platform

Follow up information

Internal

iLearn

Details: MQ Informatics

MQ Partnership

OUA (Moodle/OpenToStudy)

https://www.open2study.com/

Canvas Inastructure (Amazon)

https://canvas.instructure.com/

Wikispaces

http://www.wikispaces.com/content/private-label/higher-ed

P2P

https://p2pu.org/en/

Google Course Builder (Google App Engine)

https://code.google.com/p/course-builder/; http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/google-releases-open-sourceonline-education-software/39882; http://youtu.be/GAY5ICoVnA8

Classtogo

http://class2go.stanford.edu/

Khan Academy (Google App Engine) (lessons not MOOCs)

http://www.khanacademy.org/

Coursera (Amazon)

https://www.coursera

edX

https://www.edx.org/courses

Udacity (Google App Engine)

http://www.udacity.com

Pearson OpenClass

http://www.openclass.com/open/home/index

LoudCloud Systems (Amazon)

http://www.loudcloudsystems.com/

Lore (Coursekit) (Amazon)

http://lore.com/

Facebook (as LMS)

http://www.facebook.com/AppsForHigherEducation

Edmodo

http://www.edmodo.com/platform/

Open Access

Subscription

As yet unused

Potential MOOC platforms-in-use are shown in column one (Table 4). The evaluation of each platform is based on the perceived implications of seven criteria. The criteria shown are indicative considerations related to platform choice(s), however, both cost and University priorities would also need to be taken into account prior to platform selections. In addition, a full review of the capabilities of each criteria would be required to inform selection decisions yet is beyond the scope of the current project – indicated by the ‘to be completed’ (TBC) fields that appear in Table 4. The criteria used in Table 4 have been defined as follows. • •

• • • •

Access: Potential for MQ to proceed with using the platform (Selective = institutional review of MQ application involved; Yes = access possible to MQ; Open = an open system); Prestige: Purchase of the associated brand among users in the international market space (High = institutional reputation and actual or potential established platform, well populated by courses; high level of users; Medium = dependent on course popularity/success and awareness of institution outside own operational region; Low = dependent on course popularity/success); Reach: Known capacity (users) of platform (Wide = so far unlimited user platform; Unknown = numbers to date; Narrow = inherent system limitations); Immediacy: How quickly a course might be launched on a given platform (Date based on openness of platform for MQ access and known limitations to this); Tech Risk: Extent of risk relative to prior uses of the platform (High = prior delivery experience, capability and expertise; Medium = some prior or existing delivery experience, capability and expertise; Low = little or no delivery experience, capability and expertise); IP Risk: Provider terms for ownership of content and/or user data (High = co ownership and/or access by platform provider and course provider; Medium = platform provider access but not coownership; Low = course not platform provider access and ownership)


May 2013

22


•

•

Support: Availability of expertise to support delivery and, potentially, tools (High = allocated platform provider support with sign-up or on a fee-for-service basis; Medium = limited platform support provided with sign-up or on a fee-for-service basis; Low = not available with sign-up or a fee-for-service basis); Cost: Associated costs (including infrastructure, staff and training), fees (to sign-up with provider and fees for subsequent course deliveries) and support (ongoing technical and training support pre/during delivery and for post delivery data mining).

Support

IP Risk

Tech risk

Immediacy

Reach

Prestige

Platform

Access

Table 4 – Initial assessment of MOOC platforms

edX

Selective

High

Wide

2013 if accepted

Low

High

High

Coursera

Selective

High

Wide

2013 if accepted

Low

High

High

OUA (Moodle)

Yes but potentially limited

Medium

TBC (unknown)

2012/13

TBC

TBC

TBC

iLearn

Yes (MQ)

Medium (internn’l; High (regional)

TBC (unknown?)

2012/13

High

No

No

Classtogo

TBC

TBC

TBC

TBC

TBC

TBC

TBC

P2P

Open

Low

TBC

2013

Medium

TBC

TBC

Wikispaces

Open

Some well known courses and providers have used

TBC

2013

Medium

TBC

TBC

Canvas Infrastructure

Open

Low

Unknown (over 500 so far)

2013

MediumLow

High in other courses

High in other courses

Google

Open

Potentially high

High

2013

TBC

TBC

TBC

1.3

Online review tool: Review-‐a-‐mooc

An online review tool was developed based on the LEPO Framework (Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy, 2012) (see Appendix 2 for the instrument). The tool was used to formally review eight MOOCs. Some 50 additional reviews of MOOCs were conducted and these remaining reviews were informal. The lower than desired number of formal reviews included in project reporting resulted for three reasons. First, the amount of time required for completing authentic and valid reviews for drawing analytical insights useful to the project. Second, the lower than anticipated response for collaborative review by project stakeholders. And, third, the expansion of consultation activities in Phase Two combined with the early completion of Phases Two and Three activities to reduce likely end-of-year delays that would otherwise negatively impact overall project timelines.


May 2013

23


1.3.1

Key principles of the LEPO Framework

The LEPO model is based on a wide range of established learning theories and models including the characteristics of learners and teachers, in particular (Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy, 2012): • •

Depth of learning as it is determined by the nature of the learning tasks. Surface and deep approaches that are reactions to the teaching environment.

While task, content and context are often seen as fundamentally inseparable, well-designed learning tasks (what teachers set) and activities (what students do) and the learning environment need to be considered as separate components in which learners and teachers interact (Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy, 2012, p. 7). Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy (2012, p. 7) conceptualise the components of the LEPO framework in terms of: • • •

the environment which facilitates learning (learning environment); the activities which are part of learning (learning processes); and, the knowledge, behaviours, skills or understanding which can be demonstrated (learning outcomes).

The learner and teacher are the actors that interact with these components and within a broader educational context. The five components of the LEPO framework and their interrelationships are shown in Figure 2. The LEPO framework (Figure 2) shows ‘the interrelationships between learning environments, learning processes, learning outcomes, and the roles of learners and teachers’ (Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy, 2012, p.27). The model proposes the significance of learner and teacher roles and interrelationships between each of the five components to devising successful learning designs. From highest level of the LEPO model down through each of the components, the model (Figure 2) indicates that: … learning environments facilitate learning processes, and these lead to learning outcomes, which, in turn, determine the learning environment. The model also indicates that teachers design learning environments, facilitate learning processes and assess learning outcomes, while learners work within learning environments, engage in learning processes and demonstrate learning outcomes, as well as interacting with their teachers. The learning environment provides the context in which the learner works. It is informed by the desired learning outcomes, and it specifies the content and resources (both traditional and electronic) which support this design. It also encompasses physical and virtual spaces, and the nature of any e-‐learning artefacts. In addition, the learning environment specifies the teacher’s design of the learning and assessment tasks which will facilitate the learning processes undertaken by learners.

(Phillips, Mc Naught & Kennedy, pp. 27-31)


May 2013

24


Figure 2 – The LEPO Framework (Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy, p.27)

In addition, the LEPO framework specifies that learning environment may be classified in macro-, meso-, or micro-levels of design ‘depending on the timeframes of the planned activities’ (Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy, 2012). Macro-, meso-, or micro-levels of design activity are defined as: • • •

Macro-level design: the learning environment is typically expressed in a ‘study guide’, a document which specifies the overarching activities and context of a unit of study, including the desired learning outcomes, assessment activities and deadlines, and content to be covered. Meso-level design: the learning environment may specify a particular learning task in detail. For example, an experiment or field trip, which may run over several days, might be described in a laboratory manual. Micro-level design: learners may engage with an e-learning simulation, which covers a conceptually difficult area. The design of this simulation would typically be specified in detail, while learners would also be given specific guidance about how to use and interact with it, including the tasks they are required to undertake.

Learning processes are defined in two ways: intentional study (contextual learning) and internal cognitive processing (cognitive learning processes) (Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy, p. 34): •

•

Contextual learning processes refer to what the learner actually does, whether intended or not – in other words, participation in learning activities. This includes: interaction with the learning environment; engagement with designed learning tasks; how this engagement occurs (e.g. individually, in groups, as directed by the teacher); and self-directed review and reflection activities. Cognitive learning processes refer to all cognitive activities that contribute to learning (e.g. problem solving, reflection). They are fundamentally at the level of personal activity, whether through individual cognitive activities or through social engagement with others.

The distinction emphasises that while learning activities are the method by which learners engage with the learning environment, there is also a relationship between the learning activities and learning processes (Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy, p. 33). Specifically, that ‘the range of activities characterised as learning processes in the LEPO framework is quite broad’, such as learner- centred or teacher-centred and informal or formal activities, including (Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy, pp. 34-35): Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

25


• • • • • • • • • • •

participating in lectures, laboratories, tutorials and other scheduled classes; participating in group activities in small or large classes; listening to lecture recordings; doing (and perhaps repeating) formative self-tests; preparing assignments for formative or summative assessment; taking part in structured discussion activities; engaging in individual study/revision; doing exercises and examples; pre-reading for classes; discussing study topics in a learning common room, coffee shop or garden; and, discussing aspects of study.

Last, the LEPO framework explicitly considers the role of teachers broadly and in the foreground of a learning environment. The LEPO framework (Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy, p. 39): • •

1.3.2

‘foregrounds the role of teachers, recognizing their role in designing learning environments, facilitating learning processes and assessing learning outcomes.’ views the term ‘teacher’ broadly and does not interpret the term ‘to mean a single teacher; it can include teams of teachers and/or tutors, as well as people supporting teachers (teaching assistants, librarians, e-learning advisors and instructional/educational designers).’ Applying the LEPO principles to the review tool

Table 3 summarises the LEPO principle(s) together with the focus of each question in the Review-aMOOC tool. The questions aimed to gather data that would provide evidence of the principles of the LEPO framework as these aim to aid in the evaluation of the effectiveness of an e-learning environment: ‘The object being evaluated is the e-learning environment, where this has been designed to facilitate a mixture of learning processes and outcomes.’ (Phillips, McNaught & Kennedy, p. 46). Table 5 – Formal MOOC review questions and their theoretical foundations Principle*

Focus

Question(s)

N/A

Summary information

Macro

Curriculum design

5

Learning design (p. 32)

Outcomes and awards

6

Learning design and learning processes (p. 34)

Contextual and cognitive learning processes

Learning effectiveness and student learning (p. 18)

Use of tools to foster learning

8

e-Learning artefact design and learning design

Affordances, artefacts and tasks (including assessment)

9

Learning effectiveness and innovation (p. 18)

Comparison of traditional course/MOOC

11

Learning effectiveness of design (p. 18)

Effectiveness of e-learning design

12

N/A

Open/reflective

13

1-4

7 and 9

*Page numbers refer to Phillips, Kennedy and McNaught (2012)

The summarised design principles that were used to guide the questions in the MOOC evaluations covered macro design elements, including generic artefacts (tools to manage content and navigation) and generic learning tools (quizzes, the activity-management system, other systems, such as blogs and other Web 2.0 systems). As well, micro design elements (learning objects) were reviewed to identify associated learning processes, fit with the learning design, and learning effectiveness. Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

26


1.3.3

Summary of courses reviewed

The review tool was used to conduct formal reviews of nine MOOCs and to guide an informal review of a further 21 MOOCs (Table 6 and Table 7). The insights gained from the MOOC reviews are presented following the literature review from Section 1.5 as these serve to synthesise and extend the discussion. Table 6 – Summary of formal MOOC reviews

Category

Formal (F)/ Informal (I) Review

Course

Reviewer - Role

Coursera

F-1

Software Engineering for SaaS

Kenney – Project team

Coursera

F-2

Gamification

Smith - Student

Coursera

F-3

Machine Learning


Coursera

F-4

Introduction to Sustainability


Coursera

F-5

Securing Digital Democracy


Udacity

F-6

Introduction to Physics

Huber – LTC Staff

Udacity

F-7

Statistics 101

Lukin – Academic Staff

Coursera

F-8

World Music


Coursera

F-9

Vaccines


Table 7 – Summary of informal MOOC reviews

Category

Formal (F)/ Informal (I) Review

Course

Reviewer - Role

Coursera

I-1

How to reason and argue


Coursera

I-2

Human-Computer interaction


Coursera

I-3

Mathematical biostatistics


Coursera

I-4

A history of the world


Coursera

I-5

Model thinking


Coursera

I-6

Networked life


Coursera

I-7

Fantasy & Science Fiction


Coursera

I-8

Internet history, technology & security


moocmooc

I-9

MOOC on MOOCs


Athabasca

I-10

Connectivism & connective knowledge


P2PU

I-11

Virtual Worlds, Games & Ed Tech


Uni of MW

I-12

DS106 Digital Storytelling


Wayne State U

I-13

Virtual Schooling


Webs

I-14

MobiMOOC


Coursera

I-15

Introduction to Finance


Coursera

I-16

Statistics One


Coursera

I-17

Networked Life


Coursera

I-18

Introduction to Sociology


Coursera

I-19

E-learning & Digital Cultures


Coursera

I-20

Fundamentals of Online Education


Coursera

I-21

Learn to Program


Formal reviews are available on request. Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

27


1.3.4

MOOC evolution, definitions, and typologies

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) emerged in 2008 and have exploded in number, disciplinary focus, and provider types and consortium or partnership arrangement (Figure 3). Student numbers have varied across the offerings, such as 2,300 non-fee-paying students with 25 fee-paying students in CCK (2008), to over 160,000 non-fee-paying students in a Stanford University Artificial Intelligence course (2011). Not all courses are massive and some smaller offerings are termed ‘LOOCs’: Little OOCs. Kolowich (2012) describes University of Maine, US, LOOCs as distinguished from MOOCs in limited participation, credit availability, and pedigree.

Figure 3 – A timeline of MOOC evolution (Kenney & Bower 2012, p. 8)

While MOOCs themselves are little more than ‘distance education at large scale’ there are a few reasons why they are not the same and these differences justify the frenzied attention MOOCs have received worldwide. MOOCs provide a way to deliver (JISC, 2012, p. 19): • • • • • •

A single course to massive (unlimited) numbers of students online; Instantiations that evolve almost immediately ‘right here, right now’; Free learning materials available; Computer marked assessment; Time-defined courses; Certificates of completion, points towards units, or recruitment opportunities;


May 2013

28


Wiley (2012) observes that not all MOOCs are massive, some are massive and not open, and many try not to be ‘courses’ by design. Going further, Wiley suggests that just about all MOOCs violate at least one ‘letter’ of the acronym. MOOCs, McCauley, Cormier and Siemens (2010) suggest do not necessarily: • • • •

Mirror discussion at a conference, in a research lab, or in a workshop; Bring a wide variety of perspectives on a given topic; Resemble membership between ‘people in a corner having an in-depth discussion that they can choose to enter’; and, Adequately structure a course for interested learners to ‘build sufficient language and expertise to participate peripherally or directly’.

One task in the Hybrid Pedagogy MOOC invited 500 users to collaboratively define MOOCs. The 1,000word essay written by the MOOC participants defined MOOCs as follows (Hybrid Pedagogy, 2012): Massive: A typical classroom can hold 30 students or even more. An auditorium around 300. A massive class can go exponentially beyond these numbers: thousands, hundred-‐thousands, or even millions, a group size beyond Dunbar‘s number for a ‘tribe’ (500-‐2500 individuals). Open: Available for free and to anyone willing and able to participate. Not bound by geography or time zones. Uses open tools. Uses open educational resources and creative commons licensed assets. Generates open content that can, in turn, be reused freely. Online: Use of the Internet, where individual people from all over the world can participate in the event. includes access via mobile devices. Course: A sequence of lessons imparting knowledge via an instructor, who guides the process and established guidelines for participation, earning credit, and passing. Conversely, Davidson uses the ‘C’ to stand for “courseware,” and sees the MOOC as the platform to run the learning on, not the act of learning itself.

Yet, the definition describes what has come to be known as cMOOCs – where ‘c’ stands for connectivist to acknowledge the theoretical underpinning of the epistemic approach, developed by one of the original facilitators, George Siemens. In contrast to cMOOCs, more traditional approaches to learning have been adopted in later MOOCs, such as those by Coursera and Edx. These MOOCs are commonly termed xMOOCs and these are characterised by discussion forums, downloadable PDF course documentation, wiki’s and simple auto-marked assessment tasks using multiple-choice questions, and also peer review. These courses often link study with employment and social networking sites. The differences between the earlier (cMOOCs) and latter (xMOOCs) types are shown in Table 8. Table 8 – Typology of cMOOCs versus xMOOCs (Siemens, 2012; Downes, 2012)

cMOOC typology • Content as a starting point: learners expected to create/extend • Changed relationship between teacher/learners • Distributed, chaotic and emergent • Learners are expected to create, grow, expand domain and share personal sense-making through artifact creation • Distributed, often blog-based, learner created forums and spaces • Instructor graded assessment and peercommented tasks


May 2013

xMOOC typology • Formal (traditional) course structure and flow • Traditional relationship between teacher/learner • Learners are expected to duplicate/master what they are taught • Centralised discussion forum support • Automated assessment and peer-reviewed assessment

29


To a greater or lesser extent both types of MOOCS offer a number of potential benefits, including: • • •

MOOCs allow for collaboration that is not immediately available in a traditional style classroom. MOOCs not only have the potential to alter the relationship between learner and instructor, but also between academy and the wider community (EDUCAUSE, 2011). Flexible access, multiple learning pathways, social inclusion, intercultural collaboration, digital literacy development, and potentially immersion in a community of practice that may result in a lifelong learning network (EDUCAUSE, 2011)

And, more generally, MOOCs reflect a shift towards open education, including shifts to open: licensing, source, content, courseware, educational resources, access, science, data, teaching, assessment, business models and policy (Wiley, 2012). Openness has been categorised by degrees of openness that promote (Virtual School MOOC, 2012; Open Education, 2012; Morovec, 2008; UNESCO, 2012): • • • •

Open systems (education 2.0) Open classrooms (crowdsourcing); Open knowledge (knowmads); and, Open Learning (everyone).

Characteristically, McAuley, Steward, Siemens and Cormier (2010, pp. 4-5) propose that MOOCs: 1. Integrate • Connectivity of social networking; • Facilitation of an acknowledged expert in a field of study; and, • Collection(s) of freely accessible online resources. 2. Build on participant behaviours • Are actively engaged in learning; • Register in large numbers (several hundred to several thousand participants); • Self-organise participation according to learning goals, prior knowledge and skills, and common interests; and, • Have Internet access. 3. Offer • Start, end and run on predefined timelines and topics; • Are usually without fees; • Have no prerequisites beyond Internet access and interest; • Do not predefine expectations for participation; and, Frequently give no formal accreditation for successful course completion. An alternate typology of MOOCs proposes that distinctions may coalesce around the goals of the course (Lane, 2012). The typology proposes three types of MOOCs: • • •

Network-based MOOCs: Goal: conversation, socially constructed knowledge; Pedagogy: connectivist style. Task-based MOOCs: Goal: skills, topics and varied formats with distributed learning and community. Pedagogy: instructivism and constructivism. Content-based MOOCs: Goal: acquisition of content knowledge. Pedagogy: instructivist.

Educators have faulted such a typology in a number of ways. The grounds for error include points such as categories that are not mutually exclusive, rendering the types unstable, categories that are erroneous because any difference must be attributed to the underlying distinctiveness of pedagogy (Siemens, 2012), and that deeper analyses of the courses reviewed would reveal family resemblances that transcend any specific goal (Lukes, 2012).


May 2013

30


All three criticisms potentially indicate that pedagogical difference is at stake. Two proposed conceptions of knowledge that provide more accurate depictions of the proposed epistemological and ontological differences availed in cMOOC pedagogy are connectivist and rhizomatic views of knowledge. These are defined as follows. •

Connectivist view of knowing (Siemens, 2004; 2006): • Knowing is the culmination of the connections between people • Learning and connection: professional, personal and academic • But … it is also connection between organised and disorganised worlds …… world of the Web

•

Rhizomatic view of knowledge (Cormier, 2008; 2010; Sharples, McAndrew, Weller, Ferguson, FitzGerald, Hirst, Mor & Gaved, 2012): • A rhizomatic plant has no center and no defined boundary; rather, it is made up of a number of semi-independent nodes, each of which is capable of growing and spreading on its own, bounded only by the limits of its habitat • No one place where knowledge about a matter begins and ends • Stores knowledge in people and community (rather than publication) which accommodates a faster rate of change (flux) – knowledge as a moving target • Rhizomatic knowers use a variety of approaches and tools, and community to test/filter ideas (networking and the social web) • Social learning practices and discursive knowledge discovery • Towards community as a valid knowledge repository and away from packaged views of knowledge and expertise – knowledge as fluid, in transition and useable

To date, MOOCs in all their variations offer what Seymour Pappert, often referred to as the father of educational technology, noted as the ‘possibility of reform’ (Martinez, 2012). In discussing the two conditions for educational reform, the first being technology that enables construction, connection, and distributed expertise which brings about the reality of a new pedagogy, and the second, in that technology amplifies the voices of people who are traditionally without voice or representation in society, it is immediately apparent that MOOCs offer great possibility. MOOCs potentially enable some level of educational reform because they allow both new pedagogy in diverse technology application and voice through unprecedented access to higher education participation.

1.4 Reviewing the MOOC literature Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have been portrayed as ‘universities reshaping education on the web’, being ‘big the way Google was’ and ‘the single most important experiment in higher education (Lewin, 2012, Young, 2012, Weissmann, 2012 in Siemens, 2012). While truisms in the sense that over one million learners participated in MOOCs offered by one provider over 12 months, there is no measure that learning is occurring nor that evidence-based designs from over 40 years of researching learning with technology have been applied in designs, as one commentator observes (Edtechdev, 2012): Especially disturbing is that none of the major MOOC providers have hired anyone trained in instructional design, the learning sciences, educational technology, course design, or other educational specialties to help with the design of their courses. They are hiring a lot of programmers…


May 2013

31


Central to the debate about the educational prowess of a MOOC is the apparent geographical distinction, where it is noted that a cMOOC is for ‘connnectivist’ learning not Canada. The original connectivist MOOCs were of Canadian descent and, as will be discussed shortly, these vary significantly from the highly popularised US-based MOOCs (xMOOCs) that whipped every educational stakeholder into something of a frenzy during 2012. This being said, it is difficult to assess the impact of MOOCs on education generally or higher education in particular given the newness of the mode (massive open online), its placement among other course offerings at universities, and the design methods used to date. Hill (2012) proposes that When analyzing the disruption potential of MOOCs, it is easy to forget that the actual concept is just 4 or 5 years old. Furthermore, the actual definition of the concept has undergone a significant change in the past 12 months as an entirely new branch has emerged.

1.4.1

The potential of MOOCs

In an email response to the University Chief Information Officer and Vice-President of Information Technology, Indiana University, Curtis Bonk (2012) indicated that MOOCs might potentially be used in 20 different ways in higher education. Herein, the 20 uses on the list potentially ‘have significant overlap with non-educational large-crowd online experiences’ and ‘nothing to do with the purpose and function of MOOCs as originally constructed (Bonk, 2012). The 20 proposed uses are as follows. 1. Alternative admissions system or hiring system 2. Just-in-Time skills and competencies 3. Theory- or Trend-Drive 4. Professional development 5. Loss Leader (dip toe in water) 6. Bait and switch 7. Experimental 8. Degree/Program Qualifier or System Bottleneck 9. Personality 10. Name Branding *Cross (2012) in Bonk (2012)

11. Goodwill 12. Interdisciplinary 13. Recruiting* 14. Marketing* 15. Conference* 16. Learning Room* 17. Religious Revival 18. Rotating 19. Repeatable 20. Re-usable MOOC

While MOOCs open the door to universities in general and, specifically, to those who may otherwise not attend a university program of study, they also have the potential to widen access and study options to existing university students. For example, the current Learning and Knowledge Analytics online unit at Athabasca University offers: • • •

Course start dates on the first of every month for individualised study and start dates in January, May, and September for group study Delivery options to enable completions over 13, 26 weeks or 12 months depending on mode and credit points (either three or six credit points for the unit); and, Attendance and communications online, mail and face-to-face;

The transition from traditional courses to online units of study as above presents greater student choice yet, the move to flexible online delivery including MOOCs widens study participation options further still. Central to these options, however, is the design of the course to enable flexible start dates and also administrative reporting for both results and individualised study programs and credit variations. Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

32


1.4.2

MOOCs as game changers

For students, MOOCs are seen to offer a number of benefits. These include increased access to universities directly and indirectly, such as exposure to and entry into courses present and future, as well as access to university resources and contact with those in the university environment. As Evans (in Rosconia, 2012) proposes, such benefits are open to off-campus participants in a way they never have been before. This access enables participants to partake in supplementary education (Gates Foundation, 2012), control and choice in educational opportunities and also access to opportunities for recruitment and job search (Skilledup, 2012). In the case of cMOOCs, such courses create knowledge-producing learners, as opposed to knowledge-consuming learners, skilled for work and study in a digital age. And, last, access to prestigious higher educational institutions has been granted through the MOOC movement, wherein any participant can register in any university MOOC offering. For educators, MOOCs increase pressure on university staffing to enhance openness to participants (Kernohan, 2012). This increase in options for students that can result in significantly high numbers of students, such as tens of thousands, can render a return to regular class teaching to be an unrewarding and unattractive option after the experience of ‘Wonderland’, as was the case for Thrun (2012). Yet, teaching and learning in massive courses also poses the need for a vast array of skills that are akin to those required in Personal Learning Environments (PLEs), including the 23 roles posed by Downes (2010; 2011): • • • • • • • •

Agitator Alchemist Bureaucrat Coach Connector Collector Coordinator Convener

• • • • • • • •

Critic Curator Demonstrator Designer Evaluator Facilitator Lecturer Learner

• • • • • • •

Mentor Moderator Programmer Salesperson Sharer Tech Support Theorizer

The multifarious new roles of the educator in MOOC environs, as is the case with PLEs, demand the acquisition of additional and/or more nuanced student-facing skill sets in those who teach (Kop, 2010; 2011; Fournier & Kop, 2011). That is, many equate greater technology use with reduced teaching skill, however, the opposite is a more accurate representation of technology-supported learning and teaching in general and with MOOCs/PLEs, in particular. This point is indicated by a comment made by the JISC in 2009 that was reposted during a discussion in a JISC MOOC Webinar in 2012: Rather than replacing the teacher, technology has in many ways increased the focus on pedagogic skills’. The art of the practitioner as instigator, designer and animateur remains key to the process of learning.

For universities, MOOCs are game-changers by virtue of the implications that emerge from student participation in more complex, open and diverse unit and program offerings. These imply changes to technology infrastructure, administrative and strategic options, and both staffing recruitment and training. From an economic perspective, US research suggests that MOOCs are one of four major pressures on higher educaion today (King & Sen, 2012), including:


May 2013

33


• • • •

The Internet: from community, to exams and books; Distance Education: US university students taking online = 20% one course; 9% whole degree (US Department of Education, 2011), in Kyng & Sen (2012); For-Profit Universities: low-touch and no research but high spend on teaching (Uni. of Phoenix spends USD$200 million per year teaching-related R&D); Online start-ups: MOOCs as no-touch, profitable at scale, overcome physical limits to student numbers and utilise existing technology, people & processes

There is wide recognition of a tightening competitive environment in US higher education Figure 4. With diminishing local markets, increased acceptance of online offerings and the emergence of highly successful teaching-based institutions public institutions are struggling. The gradual levelling and decline in the number of public (top line) and private (2 year and 4 year – second from the top and bottom line) institutions prevailed between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 4, left graph).

Figure 4 – US college/university institutions (left) and student enrolments in US institutions (right). Source: King and Sen (2012, p. 6)

The corresponding period, for profit (red line) institutions have grown in number from under some 700 to approximately 1,200, and, have tripled in number between 1995 and 2010, from around 500 to over 1,200 institutions (Figure 4, left graph). The number of students enrolled in private institutions has increased from some 5 to 10 percent and declined in public institutions by approximately the same amount. With fewer local students attending public university and more students attending private colleges, the introduction of MOOCs by some universities and other online start-ups presents a serious additional pressure to US universities. The spread of these pressures on US universities is shown in Figure 4 (left graph). The pressure is at once economic because it directly influences revenue streams but also as the introduction of MOOCs has brought with it the outsourcing of traditional university, such as the recent adoption of Pearson for in-person assessment for Udacity MOOCs. Figure 5 indicates concerns for different MOOCS to achieve a sustainable education model and business model. The details do not go far enough to indicate the impact of MOOCs on the student experience as a deciding factor for success. Yet, to date there is little research to indicate how students see MOOCs relative to other university alternatives and none to suggest they might replace physical for virtual university education. Hill (2012) proposes that the information in Figure 4 indicates a need for universities to: Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

34


• • • •

Develop revenue models to make the concept self-sustaining; Deliver valuable signifiers of completion such as credentials, badges or acceptance into accredited programs; Provide an experience and perceived value that enables higher course completion rates (most today have less than 10% of registered students actually completing the course); and Authenticate students in a manner to satisfy accrediting institutions or hiring companies that the student identify is actually known.

In this view, how MOOCs will change the higher education landscape is envisaged as a function of how adequately higher education providers use the opportunity to improve education itself, using technology and, yet, far beyond the conception of high registration numbers to conceptions of quality education. Some have suggested that MOOCs dilute quality learning or are only suitable in some disciplines and, others have argued that MOOCs will never replace university courses because the differences between the two are immense, for example, recent commentaries have proposed that: • • • • • •

MOOCs are a red herring that won’t solve higher ed being bust. The issues are about higher ed, digital pedagogy and online learning (Stommel, 2012) MOOCs success is measured by subscription (Cohen, 2012 in Vaidhyanathan, 2012) MOOCs remove teaching students from education (Cohen, 2012 in Vaidhyanathan, 2012) MOOCs show suitability to quantitative subjects, particularly for objective questions and assessment (Skilledup, 2012) The difference between a real college course and a MOOC is like the difference between playing golf and watching golf (Vaidhyanathan, 2012) MOOC videos of talking heads, famous profs giving the same old lectures they give in their outdated face-to-face classrooms. Really? We think THIS is preparing students for the 21st century? Paradigm shift? No. That's squandering a technology, not taking advantage of its particular affordances that cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the analog, pre-digital world… (Davidson, 2012)

Figure 5 – Barriers to MOOC sustainability (Feldstein, 2012)


May 2013

35


In educational technology circles in higher education, many have expressed outrage that the opportunity to improve education based on decades of research has and may continue to be missed by the MOOC movement, to the detriment of students. This gap in evidence-based MOOC design principles, discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections of the report, are primarily concerned with the interpenetration and alignment between technology, content and pedagogy. Here, many have criticised the use of simplistic, yet reliable, technologies in Coursera MOOCs, and others have targeted the implications of these choices to learning and learners because they imply poor integration with desirable outcomes of combining sound pedagogy and content (disciplinary) knowledge. For example, more holistic way of conceptualising what technological possibilities exist for the future in higher education were proposed at a Horizon Futures session in 2012, as discussed shortly. 1.4.3

Barriers and Drivers to MOOC success

Laurrilard (2013) argues that two major drivers exist for the use of technology in any course and particularly for those used in large scale courses: good design (re)use and cost reduction in the delivery of education. In a recent talk these issues were discussed as interrelated, as follows. Funding is the issue: technology and design resource sharing in education Professor Diana Laurrillard, who leads the London Knowledge Lab, has worked on learning with technology projects related to pedagogical design for a number years, funded by the UK Institute of Education and Association for Learning Technology. Past and current projects have sought to offer tools to share patterns for learning among educators through a computational representation of pedagogic design. The project’s output in the Patterns Collector tool recognises that technology enhanced ways of learning and teaching are underused, under rewarded and little resourced in the allocation of time for innovation (Laurillard, 2013) and the need among teachers in schools, colleges and universities to: • • • • •

Build on the designs of others Articulate their pedagogies Adopt, adapt, test and improve their learning designs Co-create and share learning designs Understand the costs and benefits of moving online

In discussing these needs, (Laurillard, 2013) proposes that the reasons for underuse both relate to the absence of technology and its support by institutions, and also poor uses and little support for sharing designs, collaborative adjustment and improvement. Better meeting teacher needs by sharing designs is significant as technology applications require trial and adjustment prior to implementation success and because of the differences between online and face-to-face teaching and learning. In mapping the (re)use of a high quality face-to-face learning design in an online environment the cost savings of such an approach become evident for large student numbers. Splitting the costs of course delivery between online and face-to-face deliveries enables a comparative analysis of costs and benefits of each mode and based on concrete design elements (Figure 6).


May 2013

36


In a massive open online course (MOOC) the details enable the calculation of costs for large numbers of participants. The costs can be modified as per-student preparation costs and teacher hours per student are adjusted based on the actual design of activities. The Pattern Collector is useful in calculating costs because it can distinguish between variable and fixed costs associated with learning designs (Figure 7).

Figure 6 – An exemplar comparison between online and face-to-face teacher support input (Laurillard, 2013)

Figure 7 – Modelling fixed and variable costs based on design inputs (Laurillard, 2013) Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

37


Laurillard (2013) proposes that some design elements, such as peer advice, peer feedback, peer authoring, class voting and so forth, provide ‘clever pedagogical patterns’ that enable the reduction of costs otherwise embedded in teaching support that require significant and fixed teaching input. Laurillard (2013) concludes, however, that that ‘the question is ‘what are they, and how do we develop and share them?’ for a MOOC if it is to be both feasible and free, assuming: •

There are only ‘fixed’ costs: • Reused ‘transmission’ teaching via multimedia; • Reuse of orchestrated peer learning; • Use of free interactive digital learning objects; • Reuse of automated assessment tests; and, • Certificate of ‘attendance’.

•

There are no ‘variable’ (per student) costs: • No individual student support; • No tutor-based assessment, formative or summative; and, • No accreditation of learning.

•

Actual remaining costs are seen as ‘marketing’: • Hosting, converting materials, monitoring.

With respect to the design of MOOCs to date, January 2013, Laurillard (2013) indicated that MOOC designs were not yet a concrete form. More, MOOCs largely emphasised the inadequacy to date of designs for quality learning and the funding of alternate projects focusing on design concerns to produce credible courses in higher education given global demand (Laurillard, 2013): I don’t think they’re new and I don’t think they’re innovative in the way they’ve been so far. I think what has caught people’s imagination is the sheer size of the numbers they’ve attracted and the size of the investment they’ve attracted. Imagine, if you just imagine $22 million just going into Coursera alone. Just imagine what we could have done with that in terms of investment in terms of new ways of handling what technology offers in the UK. We’ve never had anything that comes close to that kind of investment in technology enhanced learning, even if you add up everything since the early decades, since we first started looking at it. So, I am deeply envious of what they have been able to do with Stanford. I think the notion of massive open online courses has a long way to go before they become genuine courses but that this is an ambition we should all be aiming for because the global demand for higher education is huge, ever increasing and completely impossible to meet with our current ways of doing higher education. So, it’s an important cause to work for but, I just, ah, I am cross really, I suppose, that MOOCs have got the headlines they’ve got when in this country when we have been doing something so similar for a very long time but nobody, and this includes the MOOCs, has cracked that one to twenty-‐five ratio of staff to student to make a really worthwhile education and that is what we really have to do.

Laurillard’s (2013) summation of the move on MOOCs affirms that design, demand and dollars are the central issues in higher education today; the issues retain their poignancy with or without MOOCs because, thus far, MOOCs offer no resolution.


May 2013

38


1.4.4

Mapping MOOC futures

Transforming academic admission requirements Daniel (2012) emphasises the failure and ultimate demise of non-credit online courses that offer no pathway through to for-credit courses. Past approaches to non-credit non-pathway courses that have been offered through Fathom and Allearn have involved highly prestigious universities, such as Chicago, Colombia, London School of Economics, Oxford, Stanford and Yale. The issue at stake is one of alignment between institutional programs and open courses yet, also, one of admissions requirements for the former. Where traditional university courses guard entry to for-credit courses historically, MOOCs enable a converse position in which non-credit with-pathway courses (a MOOC) potentially enable entry to for-credit courses yet without traditional entry requirements. Allowing ‘anyone’ entry into a for- credit course has been highly successful at the Open University, UK, yet has required the introduction of partial admission restrictions in an otherwise open system to ensure international competitiveness in the Austrian higher education sector (Nickel, 2006). More, the open entry practice in Austrian universities has had comparably less success in retaining students and in generating social opening with those distant to higher education than the regulated entry and shorter courses of private providers to produce a specialised workforce for the regional economy through the Fachlochschul programmes. These observations recommend that designs might ensure that non-credit courses have explicit pathway options to for-credit courses and as these (a) allow timely completion of related additional assessment; (b) create entry into subsequent study course patterns in the online setting; and (c) facilitate admission through stated requirements and the procedures involved. Transforming academic remuneration MOOCs as sources of reward for academics. MOOCs have demonstrable capacity to generate revenue. Provides, such as SkilledUp are offering over 60,000 students courses from 190 providers and some facilitators are earning over USD$25,000 in a month from fee paying students in low-cost online courses. In such settings one student completed some 90 courses for less than USD$3,000. Promoting universal design for diverse ability Coursera and Edx MOOCs have made a commitment to universal design principles that are recommended for diverse ability. With over 20 percent of the world’s population having some form of diverse ability (disability) in advanced nations and higher proportions among ageing populations, these design principles allow for easily modifiable forms, simple presentation and additional support options. For example, Coursera courses offer audio, visual and written materials including multiple forms of notes allowing manipulation and standard contact points for special-need based requests for assistance.


May 2013

39


Technology futures based on 10-‐year trends In reflecting on technology developments over the past 10 years, (Puentedura, 2012) proposes that it is as important to look at the details, such as the technologies in Horizon Reports between 2004 and 2012 and nominated for use in one to five years (Figure 8), as it is to look at a big picture perspective. In doing so, Puentedura (2012) claims that we need to think about which technologies relate most deeply to what makes us profoundly human.

Figure 8 – Taking account of the details and the big picture of technologies (Puentedura, 2012)

In mapping the technologies reported by Horizon between 2004 and 2012 Puentedura (2012) emphasises underlying usage patterns. The usage patterns are shown through colour coding each educational technology into five categories, including: social (orange), mobility (blue), visualisation (green), storytelling (amber) and gaming (yellow). As we are profoundly social, the author claims that it is gossip that makes complex societies and language work (following Robyn Dunbar’s ideas on language). Resultantly, our technologies must be profoundly social because we are: we must be able to gossip, which explains why, practice-to-date has continues to incorporate the social in the technologies used in education, apparent in the Horizon Report since 2004. Second, we are historically mobile for survival reasons and our technologies are essential to mobility: not just mobile technologies but the cloud for social mobility. Mobility runs through former and longer-term technologies. Third, visualisation is key to our humanity as it makes the abstract concrete: calendars, ideas into objects, etc. There is a deep level of visualisation that keeps resurfacing in technologies.


May 2013

40


Fourth, storytelling through image, words, narratives that explore meaning and live somewhere and where they are aggregated. Storytelling has always had immediacy. Fifth, gaming, devices from history take visualisation and storytelling and bring them together to ask ‘what if’ questions that involve us and drive us to more ‘what ifs’. We are only just beginning with gaming (Figure 9).

Figure 9 – Categorical usage patterns of technologies (Puentedura, 2012)

Puentedura (2012) proposes that when we look at these altogether (Figure 9) it is a little hard to tell what is happening. But when we separate them out and we get a diagram or view of paths and possibilities that can take us into the future and into how deeply we think about these technologies (Figure 10).


May 2013

41


Figure 10 – Paths and possibilities of technology futures (Puentedura, 2012)

Socio-‐cultural and technological future scenarios for educational design Facer and Sandford (2010, p. 74) note that ‘Education is a future-facing activity’ that has had educational technology at the heart of debates about future for a quarter of a century. Their 2010 report on educational futures emphasise three helpful principles for evaluating the likely future development of MOOCs. First, that no single form of education is likely to emerge as ‘dominant’, second, that changes to educational offerings using technology are least helpfully considered in terms of definitive elements, and, third, that future scenarios are most likely to be influenced by a range of socio-cultural factors, including changing demography, new human-machine relations and a weakening of institutional boundaries. The research into socio-technical futures by Manchester University and Futurelab over two years involving 100 disciplines and consultation with over 130 organisations in industry, practice and educational beneficiary groups derived four principles for future thinking in educational technology. The principles are (Facer & Sandford, 2010, pp. 76-77): • • • •

Principle 1: educational futures work should aim to challenge assumptions rather than present definitive predictions Principle 2: the future is not determined by its technologies Principle 3: thinking about the future always involves values and politics Principle 4: education has a range of responsibilities that need to be reflected in any inquiry into or visions of its future

The principles a set of three ‘worlds’ (scenarios) for educational futures were conceived based on the four principles above and the following five areas from which socio-technical change was most likely to influence education, in the eyes of stakeholders from academic, policy and practice fields (Facer &


May 2013

42


Sandford, 2010, p. 80). The five areas envisaged to impact educational futures most significantly were (p. 81): •

• • • •

Lifecourse and generations. (∆ Family structures and intergenerational transfers of learning: changes and challenges; ∆ GenerationY and the Opportunities for a Globalized, Networked Educational System; ∆ Evolving family structures, roles and relationships in light of ethnic and social change.); Identities, communities and citizenship. (∆ National Identities: Are they declining?; ∆ Communities and Citizenship: paths for engagement? ∆ Virtual Disruptions: Traditional and New Media’s Challenges to Heteronormativity in Education) Knowledge, creativity and communication. (∆ Risk as Mediation: Societal Change, SelfEndangerment and Self-Education; ∆ Thinking about the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge; ∆ Forms of literacy); Working and employment. (∆ Happiness and well-being; ∆ How will technological change affect opportunities for creating new economic activities, new sectors and new industries to the year 2025?; ∆ The R&D, knowledge, innovation triangle: education and economic performance); Public, private and third sector (non-profit) relationships in education provision (∆ Private Public Education; Relationships between Health and Education Providers; Operating Systems? ∆ An analysis of the structural relationship between the ICT Industries and Education).

From these analyses, three scenarios for educational futures involving technology were considered. While without direct discussion of MOOCs, the research proposes that (Facer & Sandford, 2010, p. 74) the next 25 years will challenge our current organization of education around the unit of the individual child, the school and the discourses of the knowledge economy; and will require the development of new approaches to curriculum, cross-‐institutional relationships, workforce development and decision-‐making in education. Finally, the paper argues that these developments challenge educational technology research to move beyond pedagogy to curriculum; beyond the school to the community, home and workplace; and beyond social sciences to collaborations with medical and bio-‐ethics fields

The three scenarios for education in 2025, termed ‘complex future worlds’ (Facer & Sandford, 2010, p. 82),1 appear in Table 9. The researchers propose that no one path is optimal and that the worlds and related paths are likely to co-exist. Table 9 – Educational future scenarios for 2025 (Facer & Sandford, 2010, p. 83)

Future

World 1: Trust Yourself

World 2: Loyalty Points

World 3: Only connect

View

A highly individualized world of contingent and shifting allegiances in which there is no support for collective responses to social problems, and in which individuals are free/required to take high levels of personal responsibility for their actions. In this environment, we see two education systems emerging:

A world where relationships between people and the groups they belong to are managed by contracts, where rewards and benefits are achieved in response to contributions and where personal reputations are carefully managed within their employment/ community/religious groups associations. Individuals are required/enabled to find their place within these groupings. In this environment, we see two education systems emerging:

A world organized around a collective understanding of interdependence between people, between individuals and machines, between individuals and ecosystems, in which the concepts of ‘identity’, benefit and action are understood as profoundly social. In this environment, we see two education systems emerging:

Lens 1

‘Informed Choice’ – a highly

‘Discovery’ – an education system

‘Integrated experience’ – an

1See

http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/outcomes/final report for a full discussion of futures.


May 2013

43


Lens 2

1.5

personalized education system structured around the individual collaborating lifelong with paid mentors and structuring education provision from diverse sources around their needs.

that enables individuals to understand where they might most effectively contribute to particular social and economic associations, and to build reputations within those associations.

‘Independent consumer’ – a highly atomized education system in which individuals are able to choose from a complex menu of standardized provision from private, public and not for profit sectors.

‘Diagnosis’ – an education system targeted at early identification of capacity and potential and the close alignment of individuals’ educational experiences with projected future economic roles.

education system embedded indistinguishably in society, economy and community, in which learners learn through ongoing participation.

‘Service and citizenship’ – an education system distinct from society in which social cohesion and competencies for social participation are explicitly taught.

Summary of design principles and contextual implications

1.5.1

Defining quality for MOOC design principles

The quality of a MOOC design can be measured against many different evaluative criteria. Such evaluative criteria could be based on existing research into online learning designs, hybrid learning designs, or current MOOC practices. First and foremost, evaluative criteria for MOOCs must reasonably consider the: •

• • • • •

1.5.2

Inherent differences in MOOC designs between cMOOCs and xMOOCs as these vary significantly and as these imply either: • Commitment to higher education knowledge creation or knowledge replication; • Lecturer/teacher participation in rigorous feedback and assessment processes or peer review and automated feedback and assessment procedures; Variance between courses that target the completion of a complete university course, a scaleddown version of a university course, a single topic or lesson, a remedial learning support course, a practical or conceptual course community-college style course for interest; The learning goals, awards and for-credit options set out in an individual course which provide more or less reason for participant commitment and completion; Merits of stand-alone courses versus those that present opportunities for follow-on courses; The extent of learning allowed by the course in terms of duration, as these vary from single days, one week and up to 35 weeks; The response to varied audience needs that are embedded within a design as these serve to engage diverse cohorts, target specialised groups, seek to generate social events and/or institutional interaction occasions, etc. Defining success in MOOC environments

In addition to the more primary differences between MOOCs that warrant consideration regarding evaluative criteria, the broader, secondary questions emerge in an effort to define evaluation criteria for MOOCs. Specifically, the following points emerge in considering answers to the question, ‘What is a good design in a MOOC?’ given that MOOCs may be defined as successful for numerous reasons, such as: • • • • • • • • •

The number of participants the course initially attracts; The number of participants that complete the course; The number of participants that achieve set requirements for an award; Disciplinary content standards based on reputational standing of convenor; A unique pedagogy and/or novel design facilitating new modalities in learning; The design of specific activities and/or sponsored tool and resource offerings; The quality and reputational standing of the participants; The quality and reputational standing of the presenters engaged by the facilitator; The rub-off effect of a prestigious institutional provider in terms of platform or course;


May 2013

44


• • • • • 1.5.3

The number of spin-off courses that are created by the convenor(s); The number of times a single course has been offered; Whether student-generated content has been widely achieved and to what extent; How extensively truly open content is utilised; and The quality of the individual learning activities. Facilitation roles

Several options for facilitation support were identified. The roles and related contribution, including skills, expectations, requirements, etc, will be included in design reporting. Potential sources of facilitators, tutors or cultural guides include: • • • •

• • • 1.5.4

Current students where they are co-completing MOOC units; Past students in various capacities, such as those who showed aptitude in the unit, in an aligned major, or who have progressed to a subsequent year/stage; New Peer-Assisted Learning unit and as an option for Department of Education students (undergraduate and postgraduate) or as a People unit that targets research and metacognitive skills development through combined cultural guide (MOOC) and reflection tasks; Using MOOC facilitation as a professional development or other Graduate Capabilities achievement measure on a points basis that is awarded an MQ statement (such as Effective Communication, Engaged and Ethical Local/Global Citizens, Socially and Environmentally Active/Responsible, Capable of Professional and Personal Judgement and Initiative, Commitment to Continuous Learning); Developing academic community contribution as an alternative to PACE unit; Research student involvement, such as MRes and/or PhD; and, Alumni involvement by invitation. Considerations for developing Macquarie University MOOCs

Broad design considerations for units In designing the four MQ MOOCs several audience needs were considered relative to MQ strategy. For example, how the mode of study offers benefits to a specific area of learner need relative to other modes of study – the focus of the DE Working Party rather than of this project. Yet, also the learning design approach was sensitive to such needs, including considering what is being offered in terms of the benefit that a MOOC participant gains when comparing alternative modes or even transferring between modes. For example, the advantages and disadvantages of a MOOC participant transferring to a fee-based course for credit and the benefit that a MQ student would gain by completing a MOOC and then also electing to complete the unit for-credit on-campus or by another method. The value conferred through completing a fee-based course for credit is located in (i) class/online interactions, (ii) teacher feedback processes, (iii) assessment, (iv) on-campus or remote participation in broader MQ activities, access to services and other MQ resources. The first three most closely influence design choices for the units, at this stage. For example, where a cMOOC design is used the richness of the learning experience will differ little to a full course. Indeed, the convenors in the project have elected to create MOOCs that offer all activities in (i) and (iii) and, also, to offer the MOOC for use to both MOOC participants and students. This being said, the selections replace (ii) with peer-review and automated marking. Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

45


Within the scope of the project, there is the dual aim to ensure the adequacy of the MOOC designs for implementation as well as pedagogic design principles. In view of the first, design-for-use, four key questions emerge: (a) If a participant completes the MOOC and through the allocation of badges to signify completion adequacy is entitled to apply to complete a for-credit completion, MQ charges a unit fee. That fee will entitle the student to access (ii) and complete (iii) however, they have already consumed (i). From a student perspective, how significantly different do MOOCs need to be to justify charging a full course fee? How might MOOC design vary sufficiently to regular units to ensure value for these students? (b) If the value of teaching input (i, ii, and iii) is indicated as a key benefit to current MQ students (local and remote) how can this be demonstrated to students in the above scenario where MQ requires students to re-sit the same class using the same MOOC for distance learning? Promoting the options up front to potential students in the MOOC environment would make this clear. A solution may be that for-credit requires the completion of complete additional assessment including weekly activities that attract individual teacher feedback (ii) to increase teacher feedback on (i) and (iii). (c) If MQ MOOCs are open MQ students may enrol and request transfer to complete the for-credit unit. In this scenario, a local student who has completed a MOOC and then enrols in the unit is likely to compare alternate offerings and take the one that requires least effort, such as the requirements for face-to-face and online completion allowed for MOOC translation. How can MOOCs be used by MQ students? (d) If the MQ intention to use MOOCs relies on potential participant-to-student translations, is this facet to be embedded in the designed MOOC offerings? The completion of a MOOC assumes a remote student equivalent. Where MOOC participants wish to take the for-credit unit an online learning setting is required to outline additional tasks. Ideally, such a setting would be: (i) co-located with MOOC activities if the MOOC has been designed for parallel use by MQ students and MOOC participants; or (ii) available online and have been co-designed with the MOOC. If translation is offered at the time of releasing the MOOC it is essential that the for-credit requirements are also available for immediate use. In light of these factors and findings from Phases One and Two, the design of four MQ MOOCs take into account a tri-pathway approach to design. The three pathways account for MOOC participants (nonstudents, non-credit), participants who complete the MOOC and wish to become MQ students, and students of Macquarie who take MOOCs for credit. The three identified pathways that might be used to guide learning design decisions include: •

Participants in a MOOC that issues badges for the completion of activities and/or modules of work over a set period of time using peer review processes and automated grading and the identification of: •

• • •

Optional durations for each MOOC as these relate to: • Interpretation of MOOCs based on personal review of existing MOOCs; • Whether the current unit materials are amenable to short and consecutive course offerings; • Potential audiences and shorter/longer course suitability relative to the state of participant preparedness for university-styled courses; The identification of appropriate disciplinary follow-on units that might be taken; The identification of currently available online units in the subject area for the MOOC.

Participants as per the above with the addition of specifications of what is required for translation from participant to student via enrolment, the completion of additional unit activities and assessment. This consideration is seen as vital to design considerations because:


May 2013

46


• • • •

•

It provides a direct pathway for participant (MOOC) to student (unit) translation; It ensures that participants remain motivated to complete the MOOC and also to complete it to a high standard with the incentive that online supplements to learning (tuition) and evaluation (assessment tasks) are required to gain a credit for the unit; The extent, depth and quality of learning are implicit in the actual design of learning goals and activities that govern MOOC development; The award of badges for achieving set outcomes (both graduate capabilities and learning outcomes) must be more or less vigorous to ensure credible assessment outcomes are used, and also to ensure that students who take the MOOC and go on to complete the unit for-credit are not being asked to complete the same course activities again in order to qualify for credit;

F2F/Online course. The use of the MOOC design for current MQ unit such that the design has either more or less components however, the components that are designed for MOOC use may also be used by MQ students. This option is seen as viable for a number of reasons, including: •

• • •

The benefits to MQ student learning that combined outside participation would potentially offer in terms of exposure to diverse thinking, the level and quality of contribution made by non-enrolled participants, and the leadership development opportunities that are availed through allocated student roles in MOOC design; The contribution that MOOC re-design makes to the renewal of learning and teaching materials; The potential contribution to learning and teaching resources that a MOOC is likely to engender; The ongoing need for current students to retake courses and possibility of a virtually selfsustaining unit for revision and review by such students outside or in addition to the usual university calendar for course offerings;

This review and these design considerations were then used to inform discussions in Phase 2 and as a basis for the design processes that occurred in Phase 3.


May 2013

47


2 PART C: Phase 2 Scoping Study Consultation

Phase Two Consultation ran between September and October 2012. The first objective of Phase Two Consultation was to liaise with key offices from around the University to establish their views, requirements and parameters of operation in a MOOC environment at Macquarie. The second objective was to develop institutional knowledge by sharing collective insights between key centres. To achieve the objectives a combinative approach was used. The approach sought to both obtain and share individual key centre reporting among project stakeholders, while also running parallel face-to-face meetings to generate University-wide knowledge of and discussion about running MOOCs@MQ.


May 2013

48


2.1 The purpose of and objectives for scoping activities The activities for Phase Two were outlined in the initial proposal as follows. Phase Two determines the issues that need to be taken into consideration if MOOCs were to be implemented at Macquarie, and determines what would (and would not) be possible from the perspective of key offices from around the University. Legal, Marketing, Informatics, the Registrar’s Office as well as the Learning & Teaching Centre (LTC) will be consulted to not only determine what is currently feasible, but also what would possible in order to optimise the effectiveness of MOOCs. For instance, it may not currently be possible to enrol a student at Macquarie after they are half way through a unit, but in order to provide students with some form of accreditation for their performance in a MOOC the consultation process may result in the resourcing and time allowances that would enable this to be enacted in the future. The consultation process will be iterative, with key stakeholders from each Office being visited more than once throughout the semester so that they can respond to information fed back from other meetings. This allows stakeholders and the project team to incrementally develop a more refined and integrated model of how MOOCs could be implemented at the University. Phase Two findings will be ratified through the production of an interim ‘consultation report’ that would be disseminated to all parties involved as well as to the Steering Committee (outlined later). Note that a critical aspect of the consultation phase is that it not only develops institutional knowledge, but also key linkages if Macquarie did decide to run MOOCs in the future.

2.2 The approach taken to scoping activities and consultation Scoping activities commenced with contacting key offices and inviting both input and also recommendations for additional participants. Stakeholders were then invited to participate in two main activities: • •

To prepare an initial summary and final report on key centre perspectives; To attend two round-table discussions with other key centres.

The process began with a briefing session between the project lead/manager and each key centre, followed by the submission of the initial scoping summaries. The summaries were then shared on the project wiki and comment from all project stakeholders were invited. The first round table discussion occurred on Tue 18 Sep 2012. During this meeting, each of the key centres presented their perspectives followed by discussion and feedback. Following the first round table discussion each key centre was invited to update their report based on the feedback provided. However, not all participants felt that they were able to further develop their initial summaries (Table 1). As one participant put it: … I really don't know how much more [key centre] can contribute to this project at this time. We are very supportive of the initiative and keen to see it progress, but Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

49


our role really is more one of support for what is agreed and developed rather than to work in isolation of everything else. I think that came out in the feedback we received in the scoping discussion. … I'm not sure that there's anything more we can add as far as a report is concerned.

Several key centres took this perspective. However, the decision not to contribute was accompanied by an expression of interest in the project and continued involvement. For example, the same key centre stated: We would like to remain involved though and to participate in the discussion and to support the initiatives as it's much better for us to be involved early in the development rather than once it's all ready to go …

Lower than expected participation for some stakeholders is explored in later sections. The second round table discussion was held on Fri 19 Oct. The meeting invited: • •

Any comments and/or updates; and, Open discussion on three to five key issues based on submissions.

Feedback on individual key centre reporting was sought using a number of methods. The most successful method for obtaining feedback was face-to-face discussion during round table sessions and also related follow-up conversations.

2.3 Key centre/office reporting Key centres were invited to provide input on core functional areas that would be impacted by the introduction of MOOCs at Macquarie University. In particular, key offices were invited to comment on any unique areas of operation, such as governance issues and the Learning and Teaching Centre or equipment and Informatics. To guide contributions to the initial scoping consultation process the following areas were suggested for consideration in the reporting of areas of impact: • • • • • • • • • •

Scope of activities Lead time for activities to implementation Resource requirements Collaboration sought Issue identification Impact on student experience Implementation issues Reporting tasks and responsibility Collaboration requirements Areas of expertise

The summative findings from each of the key offices and centres are provided below.


May 2013

50


2.3.1

Learning & Teaching Centre, Centre for Open Education, and DE Online Working Party: Ian Solomonides; Helen Carter; Mitch Parsell; Sherman Young; James Hamilton; Andrew Burrell; Terrence Collins

LTC engages with six major applications of the University relative to teaching and learning (see http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/offices_and_units/ltc/): • • • • • •

Academic Development Educational Development and Design Accessibility Services Learning Systems Teaching Evaluation and Administration Research Supervisor Training

The LTC has a broadly service-leadership and quality enhancement mandate. Related to this mandate and the above there are a number of individual, office, and institutional research interests that the LTC engages in, including for example; policy and leadership, student engagement, technologies in learning and teaching, PACE, graduate capabilities, UG research, etc., etc. The areas of interest relative to MOOCs form an LTC perspective would include: Technological – what platform would the MQ MOOC be hosted on and what would the implications be for LTC internal systems and/or support services? It seems there are three hosting options: in house on third part software; external but in Australia on third party software; or on one of the current commoditised options. Given the current capabilities then the external options are most viable. When it comes to support, we find that support demands are already creeping outside available resources and the need for a ‘virtual’ help-desk is pressing. A move into MOOCs may also have significant implications for the broader administration functions associated with the management of those engaging with the MOOC, let alone their status (or not) as Macquarie students. Academic and Educational Development – what resources will be required to appropriately either skill or support academics or program teams in a massive online space? Things to consider here might range from the curriculum and learning design itself through to class pedagogies, to resources, and individual teaching or presentation skills. Under this area we might also think of standards or principles for learning and teaching online. Similarly we may not yet know what alternative models of MOOCs (or not) may be available – the fully evolved e-book for example could have a major impact on engagement with content and pedagogy. Nevertheless, the LTC is keen to support any developments in this area, and will apply available resources accordingly. Under this section we might also consider the MOOC philosophies and related pedagogies. Although not a central concern of the LTC per se, its mandate and the role of the Director means that we are often called upon to consult on issues and sometimes advocate accordingly. It is noted that there are broadly two approaches to the MOOC; the so-called cMOOC and xMOOC. Following Daniel’s (2012) analysis, LTC considers the cMOOC as being more related to connectivism and networking and the xMOOC more behaviourally orientated. Consequentially very different expectations are place on the learners. These differing approaches, and in the absence of any clear alternatives, would need to be considered and reconciled by the University as a whole and the convenors of MOOC courses. Accessibility – MOOCs and online generally offer great opportunities for open access but what are the implications for students with accessibility needs and how do we manage this? Teaching Evaluation – Perhaps the most interesting area for us here is the analytics that could be applied to large data sets created by MOOCs. With all of the above in mind LTC has concerns about the scope and scale of resources need to support both the short and longer-term development of MOOCs. We know that the Udacity/Coursera/EdX and similar instance have multi-million dollar investments. As Director I am clearly concerned that a move into MOOCs or any other major online developments will potentially require changes to resourcing,


May 2013

51


workflow and project management. These are items already on the LTC risk register, such as Inability to meet demands due to over-subscription currently rated as 4/5 for both likelihood and impact. From a personal point of view as a practitioner and researcher in higher education then I am interested in the opportunities offered by MOOCs for disruption, developments in pedagogy and associated research. It will be fascinating to see what emerges from the development of MOOCs and the very large data sets that may emerge. Similarly the idea of MOOCs democratising education and creating open content is highly attractive to me. I also think that the current model of MOOCs being presented may not necessarily be the one that we end up with. In this sense the sheer experimental and developmental nature of contemporary online education appeals greatly. Ian Solomonides, Director, Learning and Teaching Centre, October 2012 References Daniels, J. (2012) Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility. Online http://sirjohn.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/120925MOOCspaper2.pdf

2.3.2

English Language Centre: Pavle Jeric; Eamon Vale

The Macquarie University English Language Centre provides language courses designed for equipping international students with the skills required to fully engage in the University environment in a discipline of their choice. It is our firm belief that language plays a pivotal role in student success, and as such any mechanism that makes language learning more widely accessible is a worthy goal to pursue. Furthermore, building on our experience in Instructional Design, we believe that online solutions need to engage students on a range of levels, content, visuals, usability etc and need to address accessibility and fair treatment in their design. Finally, from a business decision perspective we believe that MOOCS need thorough holistic consideration from the perspective of business goals they aim to achieve and how these will be measured. Summary of ELC services affected by MOOCs Offering MOOCs@MQ ELC would impact on the following services: • Assessment procedures • Delivering custom feedback • Academic support Some of these issues are detailed below, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Key issue overview: Changing the assessment paradigm Currently assessments at the ELC are of a very traditional format. They assess the major linguistic skills (reading writing, listening and speaking) through tasks such as reading comprehension tests, essays and reports, grammar tests, oral presentations and listening comprehension tests. These assessments are also administrated in a traditional format, which from a student perspective is both predictable and due to its nature daunting. The fact that as assessors we perceive student anxiety, we also imagine that if we remove control mechanisms surrounding assessment that students will resort to unethical ways of dealing with this anxiety (cheating, plagiarism etc). The issue ahead of us is to not just convert assessments or even to redesign them with online control mechanisms, but to completely re-engineer the concept of assessment. To use metaphors, assessments need to become less of a canvas and more of a jigsaw puzzle. By removing the daunting size (i.e. a blank canvas vs small puzzle bits) we could certainly remove some of the anxiety by assessing students in more progressive but smaller chunks. Similarly, if the assessment design is more aligned with that of a portfolio where pieces are assembled one by one until they constitute a whole, the student perception of assessment becomes more aligned with that of piece of academic real-estate that they own, as opposed to an institution imposed rigid mechanism of judging performance. That sense of ownership, and the game like approach to assembly of artefacts is likely to be enough of a paradigm shift that would allow us as assessors to both be confident that our measurements of performance are yielding metrics that we can


May 2013

52


trust, as well as give us the confidence that we have done the due diligence at the design level that ensures a fair and ethical assessment Key issue overview: Operational efficiency A related issue is coming up with operationally efficient mechanisms of assessing this type of assessment. Assessing grammar, listening and reading tests is relatively easy and time wise quite efficient, primarily because it is very binary in its nature (a student either gets it right or wrong) and quantitative. Essays and reports are bit less straight forward, but with detailed rubrics do yield reasonably standard results. Portfolio assessment is not a new concept. Art, music, design and architecture schools to name a few are quite accustomed to the notion. They are however a minority, and experience, understanding and belief in validity of such assessments do not extend to all other disciplines. Furthermore, the fact that now more complex artefacts would be inserted into these portfolios that go beyond drawings and images, but artefacts that are effectively collages (e.g. a collaborative project might be assessed on the piece of writing that is produced but also on the collaboration efforts among team members, on the strength of the online discussions that were created in forums, the groups demonstrated project management skills etc). We will need to find ways of resisting the temptation to resort to mere rubrics that dissect these portfolios, assign an arbitrary value to each component and then add things up. We will also need to find effective ways of judging performance in a non-time consuming yet standardised fashion. Key issue overview: Feedback The nature of language learning lends itself to social constructivist methods of learning. Learning Management Systems are to some extent designed to support social constructivism some like Moodle more than others. That being said, when it comes to language learning, and especially when it comes to certain skills especially speaking, synchronicity is essential i.e. as MOOCS are by an large self-paced learning tools and have no dependency on other students, while language learning requires some real time collaboration. Let’s look at an example; ELC teachers often initiate a quick group writing exercise in class and then groups swap the written artefacts among themselves and provide each other feedback, and then edit and hand over to teacher who projects using a visualizer and provides extremely customised feedback. The ability to execute activities that deliver the same outcomes, and provide with such custom feedback would need to be designed and investigated. Key issue overview: supporting students Current student support is delivered by student advisors during working hours. MOOCS would open support to a global time zone independent audience. Furthermore it would increase the types and categories of issues that students might face i.e. on campus ELC students are all bound for Macquarie University while if some of its courses were opened to MOOCS, that audience might include overseas students participating only to improve their English for employment purposes etc. Mechanisms, tools and techniques to deal with these students would need to be investigated. Opportunities, options and recommendations •

Using Open Universities Australia seems an ideal platform that is ticking a lot of boxes

Questions to be considered • • •

What is the university’s rationale for MOOCS? Is it a means of converting students, almost like providing a preview of courses or is it something else? How will library resources, online catalogues be provided? How will curriculum that depends on commercially available text books be made available.


May 2013

53


2.3.3

Informatics: Grant Sayer; Leasa Speck; and Marianne Morton

Informatics engages with all faculties and departments throughout the University. Our goal is to enable systems to communicate seamlessly with each other, using definitive data whilst being accessed from any device/computer from one username and password. In conjunction is that this is cost effective and easy to use. In our application of technology we strive for: • • • •

Superior usability Ubiquitous availability Interoperability (works with any modern system) No new legacy

The consideration of using MOOCs at Macquarie is an exciting area in the technology space and Informatics are well positioned to advise on the impact and implementation issues. Scope of Activities: Informatics, strive for excellence in creating the number one Digital Campus. MOOCS touch all aspects of the University and yet relies on technology and expertise to ensure consistent, smooth delivery of information. All technology deployed or utilised within MQU aligns with the Technology Requirements (see: https://wiki.mq.edu.au/display/infoproducts/Technology+Requirements). These requirements cover the application characteristics, integration capabilities, information security and hosting requirements. Lead Time for activities to implementation The lead-time for implementation, as discussed at the Phase Two consideration meeting, is ultimately dependent on the chosen solution. A large amount of research and case studies on MOOCs has shows the types of choices that must be made; from application software to infrastructure. Starting a project with the scope of a MOOC requires quick and flexible technology decisions that are suited to short tactical projects, producing progressive change, within an overall program of works. Resource Requirements: Delivery of information online via a MOOC imposes the following resource requirements: • •

Operational Support – a MOOC has implications for 24x7 support. This requires both the capacity of staff and also the numbers to maintain multiple work shifts of operational staff. Support needs to scale to meet the volume of demand on the MOOC platform. Scalability – a MOOC needs to deal with user volumes significantly larger than the current student management systems. This also has flow on effects to other information systems like OneID, Datamart, etc whilst also impacting the responsiveness of the underlying infrastructure.

Collaboration Informatics already collaborates with key stakeholders at MQU including SBSS, LTC, Library, Finance and Research Office. A MOOC implementation requires coordinated stakeholder management through a well-defined governance structure. Issue Identification Some of the key issues from the Informatics perspective: • • •

Security of information – dealing with exchange of information between a MOOC system and internal MQU systems such as Student Management. Quality delivery of MOOC experience – tied with the resource requirement any MOOC system must meet the pre-requisites of usability, scalability, reliability and security to ensure a quality outcome for the user and MQU. Staffing – implementing a MOOC, wherever located requires a cross-functional technical team to build and deploy a solution which can interoperate with existing IT systems. Success of an implementation for an enterprise system impacting a large audience requires a dedicated technical


May 2013

54


•

team. It also has business implications on the availability and cost of associated services like help desk, operations and education. Infrastructure – any system, especially of the potential size of a MOOC places high demands on technology infrastructure.

Impact on Student Experience • • •

Scalability – the significant increase of customer numbers placing load on not only the MOOC but also other systems. Any implementation of a MOOC at MQU must meet the volume demands from the user community. Self-paced – MOOCs use a self-paced continuous delivery model. This usage model is incongruous to the current Student Management cyclic model. Enrolment – MOOC student management occurs on a significantly larger scale than currently occurs with existing student systems. This has the potential to disrupt the overall experience for a student when they cross the boundaries from a MOOC to an existing system.

Implementation Issues There is a range of implementation issues with enabling a MOOC system: • • • •

2.3.4

Identity Management – how do we identify the remote user and the context of their interaction with the MOOC and other MQU systems? Open source versus proprietary solutions – what software solution enables the highest flexibility? Cloud vs. local – where is the capacity to run a MOOC and the implications for cost? • Integration for data storage – how is the information stored for the content delivered via the MOOC? Integration for data messaging – how easy or complicated is integration of information to achieve the goal of seamless exchange of definitive data. International: Carlos Perez

Scope: International functions that would be impacted by MOOCs include in-country operations, agents, social media and special trips (eg, scholarships and PhDs). Lead time: Three to four months lead time would be required for consultation with agents and communication with students. Resources. Most required activities are already built into current activity. However, some costs related to extra trips may be necessary. Impact on the student experience: • • • •

Markets that do not have advanced technology capabilities; Access to technology; Desire to study absent the cultural surrounds of a foreign location Many underdeveloped countries have parent-based decisions for university and there is great prestige in attendance; Carefully select which markets we target for this activity. Different student needs; Disciplining students (ie, telephone follow up); Being online is isolating and does not push students forward in the same way as peers do in F2F Can MOOCs be used in classrooms to support learning; Scaffolding; Introduction to units for less advanced countries/less developed markets

Implementation issues: • • •

Complementary alignment. Students that are able reduce time on campus by combining MOOCs/online and attendance. Academic input on courses – we have high quality courses. We need to target particular audiences but course development must have strong market input. Translation issues. Courses often require parental input and require targeted marketing information


May 2013

55


•

• • • • • •

Distinguishing between low end courses and premium courses. Low end MOOCs for introductory courses would give us a very strong advantage against other universities in the market (eg, AOGAIC represent 1,100 universities). But this requires students to pay (ie, agent’s marketing is dependent on student payment of fees) Consortium approach would be good for Australian universities Potential threats to agent distribution channel: Include very busy agents in communications; Build in consultation process. Marketing – specific channels in particular markets; eg, if we use Google in China it will be blocked; Change current process for giving credits (ie, NOT once you enrol). Create clear pathways and credit processes; China has very strong commitment to education. Australia has good opportunities in Asian markets. Eg, teaching education and funding for scholarships; We need to be highly focused and successful in specific areas before moving into new areas.

Proposed collaborations • • •

Faculties: Program/unit selections for MOOCs – they know which students do which courses; Marketing: as above; Academic/Senate: Determine pathways and credit determinations up front; How they come into MQ and what credit they get.

Implementation expertise • 2.3.5

Knowledge of and marketing to international students Legal: Gayathri Wijesuriya; Paul Luttrell

Summary of issues and requirements A massive open online course (MOOCs) is a term that has been used to describe courses made available online for free in which thousands of students can be enrolled at the same time. These courses may or may not be for an award. We understand that the University is currently debating the type of MOOC it will offer. In other words, it is considering whether the MOOC would have the same features as described above or whether a course is offered online as part of an award course offering, or a combination of these two scenarios. As an example of the latter, preliminary units of certain courses could be made available online for “free”, and if the student is interested in gaining a degree they could enroll at Macquarie University to complete the course (either online or via a more traditional structure of classroom based learning). As such, it is clear that the University is committed to offering a MOOC in some form. In an initial submission from our office we made a number of general observations about the various legal or at times, non-legal, issues that impact on any type of MOOC offering by the University. These observations are still relevant and should be considered as part of this final submission. Without any specific direction from the University on the MOOC model that it will follow, our advice must necessarily be general. We note that considerations such as support and resourcing, cost implications and brand exposure are already covered in the reports from other units. We summarise that there are three key legal concerns the University needs to address, irrespective in certain instances of whether the MOOC offering will be award or non-award, fee paying or free. These issues are: 1. Intellectual property protection and infringement; 2. Compliance with legislative requirements; and 3. Compliance with licensing obligations for the software tools and other electronic resources used for a MOOC.


May 2013

56


In addition, the University will need to consider whether persons enrolled in a MOOC are considered to be students of the University. This will be relevant for a number of issues discussed below. Intellectual Property The two issues here are: ensuring that the University, in using third party material only, does not infringe a third party’s copyright and protecting the University’s own copyright material. Non-infringement The University is required to comply with copyright laws for any third party material that is used within a MOOC. There are a number of statutory licensing schemes in Australia which the University currently uses to obtain a license for the use of third party material in courses. However, some of these licenses may not enable the University to communicate to a wider audience, such as the general public, the licence may restrict use by students and staff only. This is relevant in considering the question of whether a student enrolled in a free, online course, should or should not be considered as a student of the University. In addition, it is possible that current licences may not necessarily allow for access to material by persons located outside Australia. Consideration also needs to be given to compliance with other statutory regimes in countries in which a MOOC is offered. These factors should be taken into account when designing a MOOC and should be covered in any contracts used with third party contractors. This is a crucial issue which the University needs to consider carefully. The difference between the use of third party material in a MOOC or a course offered in a classroom setting is the higher potential of exposure for infringing use. Apart from the legal implications of a university breaching an author’s copyright, there will be reputational and brand damage. Related to this point is the need to ensure that there can be no accusations of plagiarism of course content. Protection of Macquarie University material In offering a MOOC, the University makes available its course material to any person who is able to access a MOOC online. While the University can of course claim copyright ownership of its own course content, in reality it will be difficult for the University to monitor infringement of its own material. Even if an infringing user can be identified, the University would need to consider the legal and cost implications of pursuing persons who may potentially reside in different jurisdictions. In addition to its human resources, it is fair to state that a university’s most valuable property is its intellectual property. By making that available to any person by means of a MOOC, the University, to some extent, diminishes its ability to protect the intellectual property in the course material for the MOOC. This may dilute the value of the course material to the University. It is not unreasonable to assume that the provision of course material in this way may enable education providers in, for instance, foreign jurisdictions to develop and offer courses that may be based on similar course material. In providing a MOOC, the University also allows its competitors to assess the content of the University’s course material. If the University wishes to effectively protect the originality of its own offerings, it would need to ensure that course material is updated regularly. In conclusion, we believe that the University needs to consider whether it is prepared to protect the intellectual property in its course materials (at least to the extent these are made available via a MOOC) or pursue a policy whereby it decides that it will not prevent others from using or copying the material. There may be technologies that can be used to make it difficult for third parties to copy material. Compliance with legislative requirements In addition to compliance with legislation mentioned in our initial submission such as the Copyright Act, Autonomous Sanctions Act and the Australian Consumer Law, there are other legislation with which the University needs to comply. We think it is important to mention here the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

57


It is important to note that the application of the legislation (unlike the Copyright Act and the Autonomous Sanctions Act) may depend on whether the MOOC is award or non-award, fee paying or free. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act) Under the TEQSA Act, the University is registered as an "Australian University" with the authorisation to "self-accredit" its courses. This means that the University does not need to seek approval from TEQSA for each course it offers. However it must adhere to the Threshold Standards (set by TEQSA) in the delivery of each course. At the time when the University received its registration to TEQSA, it did not offer a MOOC type course. Under s29 of the Act there is a provision to notify TEQSA if there is an event that will "significantly affect the provider’s ability to meet the "Threshold Standards". While we do not believe that the delivery of on line courses would in fact significantly affect the University's ability to meet the Threshold Standards, we note that each online course should adhere to the Threshold Standard and it may also be something in relation to which it may be prudent to seek some involvement of TEQSA from the outset. The TEQSA agency has the power to impose conditions upon registration at any time under s32. Section 32 might be used by TEQSA if it came to their attention that a course offered was not up to a requisite standard. It should be acknowledged that while this may not necessarily apply for non-award courses, this does apply for online courses leading to an award and possibly for a course that may be used as a prerequisite for enrolment in an award course. Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act) The principle objects of the ESOS Act are: to provide tuition assurance, and refunds, for overseas students for courses for which they have paid; to protect and enhance Australia's reputation for quality education and training services; and to complement Australia's migration laws by ensuring providers collect and report information relevant to the administration of the law relating to student visas (section 4A). This may not seem relevant to courses which are non-award, or where the courses lead to an award but the student is located overseas. However, it may apply if the University intends to use the MOOC to offer a pre-requisite or part of a course, with the intention that students undertake the remainder of the course in Australia. Of particular relevance will be compliance with the National Code on marketing and preenrolment engagement with the student. Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) The DDA makes it illegal in s 22 for the University to discriminate against a person on the grounds of a person’s disability by refusing to accept a person’s application for admission as a student, by denying a student’s access or limiting the student’s access to any benefit provided by the University or by developing a course or curricula that would exclude the person from participation or subject the person to any detriment. There is no definition of “student” in the DDA. As such, it is possible that it may apply to non-fee paying persons. While there are certain defences within the DDA, when providing educational courses the University must ensure that it complies, to the extent that it does not cause unjustifiable hardship, with the DDA. As such, if the University choses to consider persons who enrol in a non-award, free MOOC, as students, then it must ensure that, as is best practice, the MOOC is accessible to a person with a disability. This would also apply to the provision of additional resources. Compliance with licensing obligations The University will need to ensure that its licences for: the platforms on which the MOOC is hosted; any tools used in providing modules for the MOOC and additional educational resources to which access is provided, permit access by a large number of users, especially if those users are or are not considered to be students of Macquarie University. The licensing fees for certain current licenses may be calculated on the number of students currently enrolled. We recommend a review of any licensing relevant licence agreements. Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

58


Conclusion The University in embarking on the development of MOOCs needs to consider the issues listed in this report and the initial submission by this office. It may need to review relevant current policies and develop new policies and procedures to address the legal and regulatory challenges. We believe that most of these issues can be addressed; there may be also in some cases technological or licensing solutions which address other issues such as accessibility and copyright. 2.3.6

Library Services: Maxine Brodie

I’m pleased this project has identified that the Library needs to be involved in this consultation. However, as this has only just happened, we have not had the benefit of any earlier discussions. I am assuming that all MOOCs will be conducted online only – i.e. that there is no physical presence of the student on campus. This means that the Library will only provide electronic services and resources for this environment. No physical services, including mail out of items, would be provided. Therefore, to plan effectively for the MOOC environment, it is important that the potential participants understand the opportunities and constraints of the Library’s current electronic resource environment. Electronic resources are licenced and their use is explicitly documented in the licence. While there are a few highly restrictive licences this generally means that access can be provided to authorised users only. In practice this requires each user to have a unique, personalised ID. Generic, shared IDs cannot be used because usage breaches, e.g. excessive downloads, need to be able to be tracked to source. Most licences are negotiated for the whole sector and the annual subscription cost is apportioned to each university on the basis of the official EFTSL figures for students and FTE for staff that have been reported to DEEWR annually and published in Higher Education Statistics. Likewise, if third-party copyrighted works are converted to digital format using the provisions of the University’s hard copy statutory licence through CAL, then these must be stored in a central repository like Equella/iShare. The annual cost of this licence also depends on the official EFTSL count and access can only be provided for authorised users. So, the two key questions for provision of access to electronic, off campus access to electronic library resources for students are: 1. Is the student an authorised user with a personalised ID? 2. Are these students counted in the annual EFTSL return to government? There is no “one size fits all” answer to these two questions. It will depend on the MOOC scenario, so to begin with I am using three scenarios, derived from those outlined in the response from General Counsel, to frame our response. If there are any other scenarios being considered we will need to apply the same assessment to those. MOOC Scenarios A.

The MOOC is part of the award course offerings of the University – direct or via OUA

Key assumptions for this scenario • Students will be enrolled at MQ as they are now and they receive an MQID. The MQID is used to authenticate the student to MQ and to provide authorised off-campus access to electronic library resources • Students enrolled in this way will form part of the University annual EFTSL figures reported to DEEWR • The student pays a fee or has a HECS supported place • All third-party created content i.e. not the work of the author can be stored in Equella/iShare Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

59


•

Links to electronic resources can be embedded in iLearn or other online learning platform.

Assessment This Scenario is no different to the way we current offer fully online units, except that it is not clear whether OUA students (not enrolled in an MQ award e.g. BA OUA)are currently counted in the EFTSL official figures. One OUA study period enrolment equals 1/8th of an EFTSU. If OUA numbers were to grow significantly this may become an issue for EFTSL count. Implications for the provision of Library resources will be around cost of subscriptions and provision of support services, which generally increase as EFTSL increase. 1) The MOOC is a general interest course and not intended to lead to any certification. All content is freely available on the web or access is only protected by a generic, shared, login. Key assumptions for this scenario • Students are not enrolled at MQ and they do not receive an MQID • Students may receive a generic login to the MOOC platform Assessment No access can be provided by the Library under current electronic resource licences because these students cannot be authenticated to the MQ environment. Instead, there may be other options: • Links are provided to open access version of learning resources that are freely available on the web e.g. through Google Scholar or Macquarie University ResearchOnline • Students can be directed to pay-per-view publisher websites. We would not be subject to the HESA provisions for these students, so they could reasonable be asked to pay for access in this way. • eTextbook and other eContent providers may be willing to offer paid or free access for this specific cohort, although it is unlikely that they will do so with just a generic student login 2) The MOOC is a general interest course and not intended to lead to any certification? Access to content is controlled by a personalised login (MQID or other). Key assumptions for this scenario • Students are not enrolled at MQ but they do receive a personalised login (MQID or other) Assessment Access may be able to be provided by the Library under current electronic resource licences, provided this login can be authenticated to the MQ environment and the University agrees to regard these students as authorised users. The remaining problem is that these students would need to be counted in some way in the EFTSL load, and thus potentially increase the costs. There may also be other options: • Links are provided to open access version of learning resources that are freely available on the web e.g. through Google Scholar or Macquarie University ResearchOnline • eTextbook and other eContent providers may be more likely to offer paid or free access for this specific cohort because the login is controlled. B.

Summary of Key Issues for Library Support for these Scenarios •

•

Provision of copyright and licensing advice and monitoring for compliance: the need for this will increase as there are many complexities around this in the open environment and increased vigilance will be needed with respect to copyright in the use of support readings and lecturer-prepared materials. Extra staff time will also be required to support the identification of new forms of electronic resources and negotiations around this. Library service support: provision of online student research support via the Library’s Virtual Service Centre, development and provision of more online training, tutorials and guides, All provision of support and services would need to be online and self-service– this could still have staff impacts if 24/7 support is required


May 2013

60


• •

Multi-lingual support: The Library does not provide multi-lingual support for resources or services because the current University policy is to teach in English. There will be significant extra costs if this is required Cost implications: depending on the scenario, location of offering and student numbers there could be some significant impacts on the cost of paid subscriptions and licensing of new resources, including multilingual materials if required; and impact on staffing costs for support services.

However, it is noted that, until a specific strategy and combination of scenarios is advised, the defined issues are likely to be incomplete and will require additional input once an approach is decided. C.

Nominated MOOCs staff contacts and functions

The following staff are likely to be involved in taking action to resolve issues and to explore prospective opportunities to extend library resource offerings for MOOC students, should the University proceed. Their involvement to date and for future follow up, should it be required, is noted in the third column. Name

Role

Involvement

Maxine Brodie

University Librarian

Copyright and licencing

Fiona Burton

Associate University Negotiation of electronic resource licencing Librarian, Resources

Grazyna Tydda

Associate University Virtual services support Librarian, Services

D. Future staffing requirements Determining staffing requirements would depend on the scenario, the requirement for support resources and the level of support services that are required. E. Collaborations and Information Needs 1) Macquarie Analytics Liaison with Macquarie Analytics is required to establish which students are included in the current DEEWR/OLT return and how this would be handled in the future. 2) Informatics and Student Systems Liaison is required over type of access control to be used (if any) 3) University Ethics Liaison with University Ethics would be helpful to establish guidelines for staff that clarify the specific requirements for Ethics Committee applications. For example, the following scenario highlights how Ethics Committee clearance cannot easily be translated from one setting to another. Exemplar Scenario in a MOOC environment: Max Coltheart is planning his topic for the unit and he has some remarkable video footage of two delusional patients (mirrored=self misidentification in both cases) that was created by Nora Breen. Nora obtained permission (from the families), to use these for teaching or research, and Max has used them when teaching on the Masters of Clinical Neuropsychology. Question raised: Could you advise us on what we would need to do in order to use these videos for the various student cohorts intended for the new unit? (ie. internal Macquarie students/OUA students and the open online course - MOOC). Resolution offered: The basic rule is that anything that is put on the open web is considered to be an act of "publication". So to use these videos in a MOOC you would have to have the clearance from the subjects that they agree to this material being visible on the open web e.g. to be seen on You Tube. As far as I can tell, the clearance Max has does not currently permit you to use this material in a MOOC, so this has implications for getting an updated clearance for older material and building this into ethics approvals for the future. Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

61


2.3.7

Marketing: Kathy Vozella; Luke Williams; Jason Elias

Brand Impacts • • •

‘Openness’ will favour institutions with the strongest brand awareness and reputation - if all institutions were to offer courses free and openly the market will choose to study with the ‘best’ institutions The above point means that differentiation is key - opportunities to create demand are vital and in an open world, people will gather around centres of excellence and expertise - therefore we need to exploit our existing strengths and seek to create and define new strengths In an open paradigm, learning materials become branded content - there is a new and increased level of QA required from both an L&T perspective but also a brand consistency perspective

Opportunities • • • • •

Early adopter opportunities - we could potentially grow the impact of our brand by providing differentiated offerings while the market is still new and not yet saturated MOOCs used as a "free" taster of the Macquarie University course experience MOOC methodology used as an alternative course delivery method for current students MOOCs offered as an alternative study pattern for our courses MOOCs developed around centres of excellence as the underpinning of an online community – Connected communities

Connected communities • • •

The Connected Community is a concept for online communities that form around areas of excellence at Macquarie University and comprise students, alumni, academics and the community that gather to exchange ideas and share knowledge around a field of interest MOOCs built around these areas and led by reputable experts in the field could form the catalyst for a self sustaining online community The connected community stands to extend the reputation of the university and the associated experts involved

Further questions The below represent questions that would be valuable for us to have answers too – though we recognise that many of the specifics are still being decided. • • • •

What is the proposed structure, is it a specific unit, a hybrid or something entirely specific to a MOOC? What is the proposed structure of recognition or accreditation for participants? What is perceived to be the primary opportunity/objective for our implementation and as such, what measures of success would apply to marketing? Who is the primary target audience, who are the secondary audiences?

Other •

Marketing needs further direction as to the potential parameters of the MOOCs implementation to accurately scope the resourcing and requirements to develop further we look forward to being involved in further scoping and development


May 2013

62


2.3.8

Registrar’s Office: Jonathan Wylie

Scope of activities: Operational areas

Functions

1. Student Connect

‘Front of house’ student contact and service across all functions

2. Student Administration

Student lifecycle administration from application to completion

3. Student Business Systems

Enterprise-wide student management system & associated business process developments

4. Governance Services

Institutional, Academic & Student Governance

5. Examinations

Final University Examinations

6. Graduations

Graduation ceremonies and logistics

Impact of activities on the student experience (i) Direct impact on student experience – ug/pg, on-campus/distance • Examinations • Student governance and appeals • Student Management Systems • Student service and enquiries • Public funding mechanisms • Pathways, entry and admission • Progression • Enrolment and registration • Completion • Graduation (ii) Indirect impact on student experience - ug/pg, on-campus/distance • Policy Development • Curriculum development & approval • Compliance • Curriculum quality assurance and maintenance Implementation issues: • • • • •

2.3.9

Scalability and appropriateness for MOOCs of our current administrative business model (including enquiry management) and the enterprise student management system Management of pathways, articulation and admissions to academic programs Adequacy of our governance, quality and compliance frameworks for MOOCs Availability of government funding, other sources of student funding, management of fee collection, etc. Training and development to up-skill staff to support students in a completely new learning environment

Strategy Development & Implementation: David Wright

The following issues were identified as a result of discussions between David Wright and the project team. • • • •

It is important to consider MOOCs at Macquarie in terms of situating ourselves in the tertiary education market, but it is also important to consider the associated risks New offerings should build on what we are great at and known for (research areas, units, approaches, etc.) rather than focus on technology, and accentuate what is unique about Macquarie and Macquarie Graduates People & Planet units, and potentially even Participation units could be a focus for ‘MOOC’ification, and there was general agreement that their lower prerequisite requirements and ability to differentiate our programs could make them suitable There is a need to synergistically scope the pedagogical, business and student-experience implications of MOOCs@MQ


May 2013

63


•

• • •

There is potential for multiple entry points into MQ (MOOCs as a means of alternative entry to Macquarie Programs, multiple fee structures possible for different levels of accreditation/feedback/teacher support), as well as numerous permutations of combining internal, external and MOOC students We need to examine systems – how they can deliver and the ease of interface use, such as MQ Navigator and Student1 We need to be mindful of global implications of MOOCs for students and tertiary education, but at the same time we should not be overly distracted by the MOOC concept instead retaining a focus on what will best serve student needs across units and programs An agile strategy to analyzing pedagogical and business needs that focuses on endpoints is ideal, with a focus on understanding what each approach will accomplish.

An inclusive approach to consultation was recommended, incorporating open sharing of information and inter-department collaboration. A wider rather than narrower approach to setting boundaries for input was also seen as important for raising awareness and could potentially generate useful insights.

2.4 Summarizing key centre/office final reports Throughout scoping activities there were several discussion areas that attracted broad consensus and convergent views about MOOCs@MQ. Most generally there is consensus about offering MQ MOOCS: Yes - offer MQ MOOCs. A buoyant enthusiasm is consistently noted among stakeholders towards MQ engagement in MOOCs in the immediate and longer term. The positive perspective on MOOCs relates to MQ’s potential to draw on existing capabilities and to collaboratively work to find internal and external solutions. Beyond this broad agreement to offer MOOCs, the most significant and outstanding concern raised by all stakeholders, relative to providing feedback on the project and with respect to how MQ should engage with the space, is the need for: Strategy ahead of action. Before deciding what MOOCs should be offered and on what basis they might be offered (such as rock-star-academics, People-Planet-Participation units, tasters for early trial or pre-enrolment exposure to Macquarie, as pathways with credit to other courses, as free courses to the world at large, etc.) or where (ie, platform selections), MQ needs a clear strategy and related planning to direct one or more directions for action. In a somewhat related theme, there appears to be consensus that: MOOCs fit in a spectrum of offerings – how and why at MQ? Offering more education to more people and more diverse people is good in itself. However, MQ needs to ascertain ‘why MOOCs@MQ’ and ‘how MOOCS@MQ contribute in unique ways’ in the context of existing face-to-face, online courses, and other blended forms being considered. MOOCs must pay off. MOOCs cost money to run and aside from being an alternate expense to advertising, they must present a value formula that will benefit regular University activities. Opportunities exist for unique MQ MOOCs. MOOCs are underdeveloped as a new form for learning and teaching. The new landscape is changing fast and we have opportunities to explore and cultivate MQ-specific, high-value and student-attractive MOOCs. These do not need to be ‘the same’ as other available MOOCs. Other commonly raised key areas indicate that when it comes to MOOCs, MQ must:


May 2013

64


Make quality the priority. A variously expressed yet repeatedly emphasised need for quality in any courses that are offered. For example, quality is valued over speed of release, is preferred to any ad hoc approaches to launches, and is essential to generating MQ students from MOOC participants. Experiment as it is vital for learning. MOOCs are new which requires institutional learning to develop skill sets and expertise that come through both success and failure. Match MOOCs to stakeholders. The broad range of offerings that MQ has at present and in the future must take account of the needs of our various stakeholders. Including, for example, our prospective, current and future students, as well as alumni, broader community, industry partners and so forth.

2.5 The implications of scoping activities for implementation While more broadly represented across Phase Two data, the following quotes and points capture how discussions to date might inform an MQ approach to MOOCs. Resources required to ‘do it well’ Ian S: I have questions about the scope and scale of resources that are required to support both the short and long-term developments of MOOCs. We know that the Udacity/Coursera/edX iterations and similar instances have multimillion-dollar investments along side them. As Director of the LTC, therefore, I am clearly concerned that if we move into MOOCs or any other major online developments, this will potentially require changes to resourcing, workflow and project management. Staff and student input on MOOC initiatives Sherman Y: Our group emphasized the need for input from students and staff. This project is not going to happen without buy-in from colleagues. It is very important. Also, we highlighted that whatever we do, the student experience has to be at the forefront of what we do. Need for multi-pronged attack Moving into the MOOC-o-sphere requires engagement with new approaches to teaching, learning, technology, research, etc. Yet, it also engages with new audiences, new audience needs, and, potentially, new sets of competition in the international arena. Adopting an experimental approach to glean new insights about longer term activities might include trailing different MOOCs using different platforms, partners and courses (designs and course/lecturer selection criteria): Coursera for some courses, OUA for others, and edX where relevant. Size matters – or does it? MOOCs are distinguished from other courses by the sheer volume of participants that both avail exposure to the institution and crowd-sourcing in pedagogy. Yet, the original MOOCs (cMOOCs) and more recent interpretations of the phenomena (LOOCs – Little Open Online Courses) do not target massive MOOC participation. Instead, such offers are highly successful because


May 2013

65


they offer high quality learning experiences by a limited number of MOOC participants who are joining in with a regular class of students to complete a unit. Implying xMOOCs or cMOOCs by default. Taking stock of MOOCs to date, it is possible to consider offering a wide array of cMOOCs within our current courses. This approach would promote a structured and monitored approach to technology-enhanced learning and teaching resources. Such an approach could also be integrated in a sustainable manner, regulating MOOC participant numbers as well as the systematic introduction of high quality design elements. More, the approach enables MQ to focus on quality offerings that are available to co-located (face-to-face), remote (distance students) as well as students who might not otherwise be able to gain entry through regular application processes. 2.5.1

Issues and challenges

Scale versus starting small Sherman Y: I think it is right, start small, just start with one. Scale is the unknown. Yet many people in this table have got experience working online and doing great things. Ian S: The scale is dependent on the market ... there may be two people sign up and maybe 200,000 people sign up, we don’t know, do we right? So I think the point here is, is not trying to do it all. I think we start with a small an experiment on it, or we start by taking one or two courses and doing them well. Kathy V: We will need to consider the approach for marketing MOOCS including the extent to which it will be necessary to market individual units given the viral nature of online material, how we can market MOOCS within our traditional marketing mix (which includes online and social media) as an extension of options for students and a widening of audiences, and how we approach the branding and presentation of material Define the opportunity not our ability Judyth S: We need to be nimble. We don’t want our current limitations in infrastructure to stop us thinking laterally and creatively. Nevertheless, these limitations have to be part of the discussion and decision-making. We need to find ways ensuring that thinking around ‘where technology is at the moment’ and ‘where the capabilities of the University are at the moment’, don’t stop us thinking out of the box. Nevertheless, this is the reality and these are the constraints under which we are working.. So, I agree with everything you say and understand your anxieties and the challenges that you are trying to manage. We need to be smart and quickwitted in how we respond to the complexity of the environment in which we are working while at the same time not be tied up in bureaucracy. Ian S: I think there is an inherent tension in that, I am not going to say that you can’t resolve it, and perhaps that is where the opportunity is? We kind of want to be in that space because it is interesting and there are fantastic opportunities. We will learn whilst we are doing it but of course the danger is that if we


May 2013

66


do something that is not Dear to the quality that we would most like. So that tension has got to be resolved. 2.5.2

Costs and requirements

No specific costs were associated with the launch of MOOCs@MQ. In part this outcome is attributed to the lack of precise knowledge about the scale and nature of the launch being attempted. For example, while all participants in Phase Two were invited to provide costs, the question poses the need to clarify whether costs should be associated with future MOOC activities at Macquarie, an estimation of costs for launching the four MOOCs in this project, or broad implementation through partnership arrangements (i.e. partnering sign-up fees, on- costs, design and LTC support, etc.) In addition, a wider cost base might be assumed should MQ decide to offer MOOCs. For example: (a) the creation of dozens of video resources would be required, thus, necessitating widely available video-editing kiosks or software. (b) a broad effort to create and/or locate open content for use in replacement of textbooks, to supplement learning activities, such as using learning objects, repositories, etc., (c) to secure methodologies for proctored off-site examinations; (d) administrative resources to create and track student badging and potential translation to for-credit enrolments; etc. and, (e) the selection and training of ‘tutors’ to support academics. 2.5.3

Collaborations and expertise

The collaborations considered in Phase Two activities involve internal efforts to develop MOOCs as well as partnerships with external institutions. Section 4.4.1 has outlined how current and future project activities will consult with key centres and also potential external partners. The final reporting in Phase Four will sketch the timing of key centre involvement in MOOC developments at Macquarie and map the various requirements for key centre activities as these point to the timing of key centre involvement in a MOOC rollout. Clearly, however, such mapping is pending decisions regarding the University’s strategic direction, including technology platforms, course offerings and modalities, and other related initiatives.

2.6 Outstanding questions and next steps Outstanding questions and future consultation initiatives The following list of outstanding questions offer a starting point for future discussions about the implementation of MOOCS@MQ. It is proposed that the outstanding questions from Phase 2 of the project potentially present the opportunity to initiate wider consultation in focused areas. Such consultation might lead to consensus about implementation alternatives by drawing on the views of additional stakeholders, such as academics and students, as well continued conversations with project stakeholders. On what basis should MQ courses be selected for MOOC-ification? For example, how would you rank each of the following methods for selection: Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

67


• • •

Popularity: most popular course, most famous academics; most highly rated (student) courses; most highly rated (student) teachers; the courses in greatest demand globally, Success: the courses associated with our research strengths; the courses that generate the largest profit margins; Design suitability: current online courses with large numbers; current courses offered to diverse cohorts (ie. At MQ, MQC, SIBT and Gifted and Talented Programs); current courses that target diverse disciplines (ie. People-Planet-Participation units).

Should MQ consider both xMOOCs and cMOOCs?:

•

•

xMOOCs target massive participant numbers, require technologies beyond the scope of current activities and, potentially, where astronomically high registrations in free courses are achieved, result in high-profile media coverage. More, they involve lower quality learning experiences in oversimplified designs, which result in high drop-out rates, plagiarism, and knowledge replication rather than knowledge creation. cMOOCs are within our current scope as they only admit a limited number of non-credit (MOOC) participants for entry into existing classes, offer the same course quality to all participants, and are more easily translatable into for-credit enrolment decisions. Reasonably, cMOOCs also enable a number of prospective students from diverse backgrounds to gain entry to university on a ‘trial-byfire’ basis.

Should MQ consider offering MOOCs via diverse platforms? Which ones? why?:

MQ could offer MOOCs via external providers and partnerships (OUA, Coursera, Udacity and edX) and on a pre-approved lecturer-by-lecturer basis using other platforms (LoudCloud, Lore, Clastogo, Canvas, Wikispaces, P2P, Google Course Builder, etc). Should MQ MOOCs offer pathways to obtain credit for courses taken?:

Many current MOOC offerings do not have clear pathways to obtain credit in formal study. Yet there is concurrently an overall trend in higher education towards accrediting learning that is informal (workplace and non-university studies) and targets to increase participation in higher education. Could clear pathways to formal courses with partial credit enable MQ MOOCs to offer unique advantages to prospective students, as opposed to solely MOOC enthusiasts? Recommended next steps Phase Two activities reflect a broadly shared view that Macquarie could and should enter the MOOC higher education sphere with new offerings. Such offerings need to be in character with the University ethos for quality higher education, contribute to both scholarly and financial goals, and be balanced in by both shorter and longer-term goals. This has already commenced with the offering of Anthropology and Financial Literacy MOOCs through Open Universities Australia’s Open Study platform. Most of all, any initiative needs to be aligned with current offerings, entail a holistic internal management approach, and stand to benefit our current and future students. Such benefits would also be extended to a greater and lesser extent to participants through institutional contributions to open education initiatives. These potentials rest in the hands of the University executive.


May 2013

68


3 PART D: Phase 3 MOOC Design Overviews Phase Three ran between August and November 2012. The objective of Phase Three was to devise four MOOCs using a collaborative design approach. Each of the four designs was co-developed by an academic staff member, a Learning and Teaching Centre staff member, and the project manager. The unit designs were developed for units of study in Computing, Education, Finance and Philosophy, to represent the four faculties of the University (Arts, Business and Economics, Human Sciences, and Science). The second objective was to develop institutional knowledge by sharing collective insights between key centres. The aim of the overall design process was to generate an understanding of the issues surrounding the development and implementation of MOOCs. Such issues included those associated with assessment methods, resource access, learning activity design, platform considerations, and so forth. To achieve the aim in light of the issues addressed, attention was paid to the processes that supported collaborative design: the unique approach and preferences of the academic design partners, the alternatives and considerations of design choices, and stakeholder feedback opportunities.


May 2013

69


3.1

The purpose of and objectives for design activities

The activities for Phase Three were outlined in the initial proposal as follows. The design phase of the project involves designing four massive units (one from each Faculty) based on existing units. This enables the team and other contributing parties to cultivate a more in-depth understanding of the issues surrounding the development and implementation of MOOCs. Working collaboratively and based on the knowledge acquired during the context analysis and consultation phases, the team (including an IT and education expert from the Learning and Teaching Centre, Mauricio Marrone) will deconstruct the current offerings of these units and propose redesign possibilities in order for the subjects to work successfully in “massive” mode. The design process will be guided by Bates’ (2012) Nine Steps to Quality Online Learning model, and will result in a document describing the learning designs of each unit. Consultation, feedback and evaluation regarding the proposed learning designs will be invited from members of the Learning Technology Research Cluster, the Teaching Excellence Academy, participating departments (through the corresponding project team members), and faculties (through Associate Deans Learning and Teaching). This enables the quality of the designs to be improved at the same time as raising awareness of the initiative. The four units to be investigated are: •

EDUC261 – ICT and Education (Faculty of Human Sciences)

•

AFAS300 – Principles of Financial Literacy (Faculty of Business & Economics)

•

PHIL137 – Critical Thinking – (Faculty of Arts)

•

COMP255 – Software Engineering (Faculty of Science)

We note that different units are at different levels of preparedness, and a range of teaching and learning perspectives exist within the team. We see this as enriching the project, by offering a broader perspective of the issues at stake. This phase focuses on design only – development of these units into MOOCs at a later stage would require funding from other sources.

3.2 The approach taken to the collaborative design task The design task was approached by identifying assumptions and limitations associated with the development of MOOCs based on the results from Phase 1 and Phase 2. In addition, the team recognised the significantly different approaches inherent to existing MOOCs and academic approaches to learning and teaching, and drew upon pedagogical patterns and related evaluation tools from the educational literature. 3.2.1

Identifying the assumptions & limitations associated with the design task

The assumptions and guidelines for design in the following sections are informed by Sections 1.2.3 from Phases One and Two. The assumptions and limitations for Phase Three are: • •

Assumptions associated with the commencement of design in Phase Three in the absence of a known MQ delivery platform as these would guide design choices, as outlined in Phase 1; Assumptions associated with the justification of a ‘good’ MOOC design’. Defining ‘good’ is relative and there is little or no grounding in theory and potentially an erroneous


May 2013

70


•

•

•

conceptualisation if it is based on existing popularised pedagogies that do not encompass the possibilities of crowd-sourced learning and, worse, those design assumptions that might be drawn from US-styled MOOCs (see Phase 1 Report); Limitations arising from the applicability of proposed designs to other MQ units and also as these designs represent the spectrum of existing MOOC designs. The limitation emerges from the selection of four units for design in the absence of any known selection criteria. Such selections may otherwise have been made based on: a theory-based selection approach, academic knowledgability of online and/or MOOC course design or, a known strategic direction for MOOCs at MQ or the use of available results from Phases One and Two project data; Limitations arising from incomplete consultation in Phase Two as this did not seek input from all key stakeholders, in particular, MQ students and staff. Limited stakeholder involvement may be appropriate at this early stage of exploration however, it reduces the potential for diverse and balanced input and fails to account for how two highly important stakeholders view MOOCs at MQ; and, Limitations arising from adjusted project timing, including: commencement of activities for Phase Three given delays in completing Phases One and Two. Such as, the review of MOOCs in Phase One and a 100 percent increase in the number of participants and the completion of consultation interviews, reporting, and summary reviews of results in Phase Two; and, finally, the absence of completed draft reporting for Phases One and Two as a basis for commencing Phase Three (Project Adjustments in Phase 1 & Phase 2 Reports).

The assumptions highlight the strategic and practical complexities that MOOCs present to higher education institutions in general that have, in this case, generated significant interest from MQ stakeholders as well as the need for the project to conduct research ‘as-lived’ while decisions-for-action are being taken. More specifically, such complexities relate to the integration of MOOCs with other MQ activities by virtue of strategic alignment and the creation of pathways into other programs. Documenting how the above evolve at MQ is helpful insofar as generating a useful list of alternatives and considerations for review at MQ and presenting such condensed findings to the MOOC research community at a later date. The assumptions developed in the first week of Phase Three and in drawing on principles learned during Phases One and Two resulted in the generation of a set of questions for LTC and DE Online Working Party input. In response, it was decided to include the questions in reporting as opposed to set directions and decisions being made tp influence design choices. 3.2.2

Recognising the significantly different approaches inherent to existing MOOCs and academic approaches to learning and teaching

There are significantly different approaches inherent within existing MOOCs and many different academic approaches to learning and teaching, and, therefore, there are many different online and/or MOOC design possibilities. The implications of these variations to the design approach highlights the likelihood that each of the four academics would differ both in their knowledge of MOOCs and understanding of underlying pedagogic variations. More, MOOC design requires the identification of core components of existing courses in conjunction with an awareness of the individual lecturer’s approach to learning and teaching. Pedagogic creativity and diversity are encouraged.


May 2013

71


Project results include reporting on the range of designs elements in the four different MOOCs. These provide insights for future development activities by specifying a range, likely issues and potential support requirements for additional MQ MOOCs in the context of a diverse academic community (Final sections of this report). Capturing the principles and outcomes of an emergent design process will emphasise the multiplicity of potentially acceptable designs that are available in the wider MOOC environment and as these might be used at MQ. In particular, discussing MOOC principles during Phases One and Two has identified how MOOCs might be conceived in institutional strategy, Phase Three highlights questions that emerge from a finer-grained analysis at the level of an individual unit, including: learner characteristics, study progression and teacher-side considerations, such as those which might be anticipated in the design of any course (Phase 1 Report). 3.2.3

Participants in the design and feedback processes

Participants in the collaborative design process appear in Table 10. Feedback on the draft designs was invited from: • • •

All project stakeholders consulted during Phases One and Two; Learning and Teaching Centre staff and other University stakeholders who had expressed interest in the project; and, Members of the Learning Technology Research Cluster.

Table 10 – Collaborative design participants for the MOOC@MQ project Participant

Role

Unit

Department/Faculty

Albert Atkin

Designer

Critical Thinking

Philosophy, Arts

Deborah Richards

Designer

Software Engineering

Computing, Science

Jacqueline Kenney

Co-Designer

All

Education, Human Sciences

Matt Bower

Designer

ICT and Education

Education, Human Sciences

Mauricio Marrone

Co-Designer

All

Learning & Teaching Centre

Peter Mordaunt

Designer

Principles of Financial Literacy

Finance, Business & Economics

LTRC

Feedback

All

University-wide research cluster

The designs were communicated using the following approaches: • • • •

Email circulation of a summary presentation and written report; Workshop discussion and review between designers and co-designers; Email invitations to visit the project wiki, review draft designs and offer feedback; Presentation and discussion at a Learning Technology Research Cluster meeting

The most successful feedback method in the project was discussion at the LTRC. 3.2.4

Limitations of Phase 1 review to Phase 2 design process

There are two main limitations to the data collection from Phase 1 that reduce the quality of insights informing Phase 3 design. First, the consideration of existing MOOC courses through the Phase One review process included fields to collect data on each of the following however, the data could only be included where it was reported by the provider or could be reasonably gleaned as a participant:


May 2013

72


• • • • • •

The number of participants at any point during the course; The inclusion of learning outcomes; The extent of innovation and diverse tool uses; The number of participants that completed the course, completed the course successfully, and the number that started and dropped out of the course; Navigational simplicity and design aesthetics; and Representation of all MOOCs available given that not all are open to be reviewed during the project lifetime and, in particular, those in various disciplines and highly regarded original cMOOCs.

Second, initially and yet outside the parameters of set project outcomes, a formal review process for existing MOOCs would be helpful in addressing the final three points. However, responses to review requests were lower than hoped.

3.3 An overview of unit designs

An indicative comparison between the four designed MOOCs and existing cMOOC and xMOOC dimensions appear in Table 11. The comparison is indicative given the implications to design of platform selection considerations. Table 11 – Comparison of MQC MOOC designs and cMOOC and xMOOC dimensions cMOOC

PHL

FIN

EDU

COM

xMOOC

Content as starting point, learners extend

c/x

c/x

x

x

Teacher-centric content


c

c/x

c/x

c/x

Learners learn


c

c/x

c/x

x

Teachers tell & assess

Chaotic & emergent

c

x

c/x

x

Defined by known knowledge

Expectation to expand domain and create artefacts

c

c/x

c/x

c/x

Duplication of set content

Distributed learner created spaces

c/x

x

x

x

Centralised discussion forums

Instructor graded assessment

x

x

x

x

Automated assessment

Peer-commented tasks

x

x

x

x

Peer reviewed assessment

An overview of the four MOOC designs was presented in Part A of this report. The designs varied significantly and represented the conceptualisation of each academic’s unit as it could be freely and without limits presented in a MOOC. Variations included the duration of a unit, which ranged from one full 13-week semester to replicate a regular unit delivery to four short-courses that may be completed as parts or a full unit that is equivalent to the regular MQ delivery. Other variations included regular linear progression through topics to a progression that was self-selected across topics. As well, the designs incorporated a range of activities that rely on crowd sourcing principles through peer grading as well as automated marking tools that offer rich sources of feedback on learning, Advanced structures for grouping students into discussion pods, choice-


May 2013

73


based selections of administrative tasks, and resource creation were also identified features across the four designs. Full details of the four designs appear in the sections below.

3.4 Design Overview: Critical Thinking (PHL137), Albert Atkin, Philosophy 3.4.1

Philosophical/Pedagogical Approach

The organisation of content for the MOOCing of Critical Thinking suggested here rests on a couple of ideas and approaches to teaching that I think are important. The first is the rather tried and tested Lippman style “community of inquirers” approach to pedagogy. Learners, and especially MOOC learners as far as I can see, need themselves as part of a community of learners with common goals and mutual concerns who can learn in laboratory manner together, and moving forward to exercising their skills and growing understanding to real in the world problems. There is something very Deweyan to this. In this case, the case of MOOCs, I think it is important to foster and co-opt the growing sense of on-line community and interaction for this end. People from across the globe, with different backgrounds and concerns treating each other as equal participants with common concerns and responsibilities and taking responsibility for each other is becoming a noticeable feature of no-line communities. An especially intriguing example of this is Reddit where people form on-line groups around a common interest and function rather in the manner of standard communities. Indeed, a rapidly growing feature of this particular community is the “University of Reddit” thread (or sub-reddit) Redditers (members of the community) offer short, free, online introductions to things in which they have expertise. The overlap with the objectives of MOOC development here is obvious. The second concept behind my approach to redevelopment for PHL137 is less tried and tested than the Community of Inquirers concept. It is the increasingly studied notion of “gamification”. The concept here is that there is something inherently motivating about games which see people spend extraordinary amounts of time dedicated to mastering or accomplishing something quite mundane - a standard computer game requires 40+ play hours to complete; and this is setting aside the current “sandboxing” phenomenon in gaming where players are free to explore and roam (within constraints) and spend hundreds and hundreds of hours merely “exploring” the milieu of the game. Economists and designers have, in the last five to ten years, grown especially interested in the motivating aspect of game design and what are frequently called “game mechanics”. In the last couple of years educationalists have become interested in this phenomenon too and are exploring how one might incorporate game mechanics and the techniques that game designers use to motivate players into pedagogical settings. I too am interested in this. To be clear though, the object is not merely to have learning become a computer game. Rather, one uses the motivational aspects of games - reward, safety netting, incremental learning curves and skill embedding etc. A quick and easy example - Confidence Based Marking (CBM). In computer games, designers often have particular skills and abilities embedded in the game which players are supposed to master - for example, button combinations in “fight games” enable players to perform more powerful strikes etc. Nonetheless, players can often progress quite far by simply “mashing” keys and hoping to get lucky. However, if games allow players to complete the games or progress too far by “mashing” or “hit and hope”, players become de-motivated to learn the skills and techniques. Indeed, players than prize these aspects of gaming simply stop playing the games - they are not rewarded for their commitment to mastering the skills of the game. The educational parallel is where students can receive marks simply by giving the right answer, but no recognition of the effort involved in arriving at the answer is included. Multiple Choice Tests are a fair example of this. From a student’s point of view, there is something unfair and demotivating in the possibility that blind luck or even a semi-educated guess one can obtain the same results as effort and a well informed response to a question. Experiments at the University of London in the 1990s (see Gardner Medwin 2006) had students supplement their answers to MC tests with an assessment of their confidence in their answers. My fellow student and I might both answer “C” to a given question, but mine is a guess and I know I’m guessing - I mark my answer with “low confidence”. She has studied hard and knows that “C” is correct and marks her answer with “high confidence”. We both get a correct mark for our correct answer, but her mark is higher than mine because Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

74


she was prepared to back her answer with confidence. You might ask, what was to stop me from marking my answer as “high confidence”? But had I been wrong when marking my answer with “high confidence” I would have lost marks. Take the following mark scheme as an example:

Confidence Level

Low

Mid

High

No Reply

Mark if Correct

1

2

3

0

Penalty if wrong

0

-2

-6

0

The effect of this is that it allows lucky guessing - the equivalent of “button mashing” or “hit and hope” to get you so far. But the reward for learning is both tangible and outstrips any benefit such an approach could have. Mastery of the material is both encouraged and rewarded. This is an example of using currently available pedagogic tools as part of a gamified approach to learning and teaching. For a little more on gamification and especially its application to learning and teaching see Gee (2003), Lee & Hammer (2011), Reeves & Reed (2010), and Smith-Robins (2011). 3.4.2

The Structure of MOOCed Content -‐ Summary

The content of the MOOCed unit is based on current content of the PHL137 course, with some additional material and some development. I think that certain elements of the content in the current course can be simplified and even removed for a MOOC version. Both kinds of course should really be focused on skills and skill-development and I am confident that this can be achieved without the intensity/density of the internal course - again I think gamification could be key to this. I also think that the different needs and aims of MOOC learners should be recognised here. There is no need for this to become PHL137lite - but the “hothousing” of critical thinking skills from the internal course can drop away here. Rather, the aim is to break the current unit into three separate Critical Thinking Units - Critical Thinking - Arguments; Critical Thinking - Arguers; Critical Thinking - Language. Each of these units is freestanding, but can be combined. They will be organised in such a way that MOOC learners can start the three units in any order, study them simultaneously, or study only one element. Critical Thinking -‐ Arguments Although the content will be ever present, always open, we can treat the content of a given unit as though it might be studied without heavy time pressures or onerous workloads over a four week session. We will also group content into four “streams” - again, students may take these streams in whatever order they please, even simultaneously. They will, however, have to complete all streams to complete the unit. I think there are various elements that can be self contained within the various “loops”. Four content elements would be useful here. For this unit, the four streams are as follows. Stream A - Argument Spotting What is an Argument? How do you spot one in the wild? Why do you need to? Stream B - Argument Building How are arguments constructed? How do we show the way others have built their argument? Why do you need to? Stream C - Deductive Arguments - Its logical What are deductive arguments? How are they supposed to work? How can we tell if they are good or bad? Stream D - Inductive Arguments What are inductive arguments? How are they supposed to work? How can we tell if they are good or bad? Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

75


Critical Thinking -‐ Arguers Stream A - Who is an arguer? Who is involved in making an argument? How do we identify the participants? How do we target our own arguments in the right way? Stream B - Implicit Bias What is implicit bias? How does it impact on how we argue? How do we deal with implicit bias? Stream C - Skewed Thinking What is our natural state of reasoning? What skews our thinking? How does this affect our ability to process arguments? Fallacious arguments. Stream D - Being Fair but winning the argument. What makes for a good arguer? The balancing of truth and persuasion. Being a responsible reasoner. Critical Thinking -‐ Language and Thought Stream A - The Power of Words - Emotion Why do word matter to arguments? What is emotive language? What is loaded language? How do we keep emotion in check? Stream B - The Power of Words - Ambiguity What is ambiguity and vagueness? Why does is matter? How do we ensure clarity? Stream C - Common Fallacies - Misconstrual What does it mean to misconstrue an argument? The forms of misconstrual. Identifying the fallacy. Stream D - Common Fallacies - Shifting Focus What does it mean to shift the focus of the argument? The forms shifting focus. Identifying the fallacy. 3.4.3

Approach to Learning in The Redesigned Unit

As noted, the current unit would be broken down into three Critical Thinking MOOC units. Putatively, each unit has four “streams” - a concept or topic which unifies the given content in the unit. An aim for the MOOCing of this unit is to promote “openness”, “self-direction” and crucially, “non-linearity” - these courses are not like conventional university courses and it seems to me to be a mistake to try to mirror orthodox structures too closely. My hope in redesigning the unit is that MOOC learners should be able to start these three critical thinking units in any order they choose (assuming they even want to take all three), and to tackle the individual content streams within the units in any order they choose. However, to complete a stream, there is some linearity and “gateway” accomplishments - mastering the content at one point in the stream is a necessary achievement to moving on to the next stage. However, having mastered the content at a given stage in a stream, learners could decide, instead, to move on to other streams instead (indeed, internal prompts and directions might help learners to judge that it is prudent to move to another topic at this point) or even another critical thinking unit (see Figure 11 below).


May 2013

76


Arguments Topic 1

Arguers

Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4

Completion

Language

Figure 11 – The Open Route Through the Critical Thinking Unit

An additional point here is that the Unit and Macquarie already have some experience of teaching this unit to what we might think of as non-standard learners. The Gifted and Talented high school program runs this unit, partly as a recruitment tool, partly as an outreach directive to show High School students from across Greater Sydney and NSW what a University Course looks like. A feature of this is that students, take the unit as a Non-Award course, enrolled as external students. However, should they choose to come and study for a degree at Macquarie University they are given three credit points for the unit upon enrolment. I like this feature, have met students who have enrolled here since taking the course who have benefited from this feature, and in some ways admit that it encouraged them to think harder about an MQ degree in the first place. I think there is room for keeping this element as a final, optional paid for feature of taking the three units (see Error! Reference source not found.Figure 12). Finally, to give some example of the way in which people might work through these courses, and to suggest at least partially some of the flexibility I think it possible to foster in a well designed MOOC unit, imagine the three following scenarios: Case A: Jenna is interested in things such as Implicit Bias, Confirmation bias, the natural ability (or not) of humans to reason - she has always had an interest in psychology. She doesn’t much want to take a whole critical thinking course though - she isn’t interested in the logical structure of arguments for instance. She decides that, by the look of it, she could just take Critical Thinking - Arguers and get everything she wants. Indeed, she even has a spare two weeks coming up and thinks it would be fun to do it then. When she enrols, she finds four streams of content open to her immediately:- A: Who is an arguer? B: Implicit Bias C: Skewed Thinking D: Being fair but Winning the Argument. She starts off with the Implicit Bias stream and having completed two parts of it decides to look at Skewed thinking - she thinks this would help to support what she is learning in the advanced stages of Implicit Bias. And she continues in this manner, moving from stream to stream, until she completes the unit. Case B: Ali wants to take a complete Critical Thinking Course. He also wants to see if its the kind of thing he’d like to study at University in the future. The brief questionnaire that he takes when he enrols tells him that he is most comfortable learning in a linear way, and that his interests suggest he start with Critical Thinking - Arguments. Ali follows this advice and works his way through the streams completing each one before moving on to the next. When he has completed all of the streams in all of the units, Ali decides to take an optional test that is submitted to Macquarie for marking to standard degree rubrics by an assigned tutor/lecturer. Passing this test allows Ali to claim three credit points for the unit if he matriculates into a Macquarie degree. This is something he is now more confident he will do and can succeed at. He is also given a hard copy, signed certificate of accomplishment for passing the final test.


May 2013

77


Figure 12 – Visualisation of the Units and Matriculation

Case C: Zeinab, like Ali wants to take a whole course but she has a degree and simply wants to expand her skill base. Her questionnaire suggests she starts with Critical Thinking - Language. She clearly has an interest in how rhetoric and how words are used. Zeinab, however, is much less “methodical” than Ali, she enjoys moving across the different streams and units, building her understanding laterally, supporting what she understands about Critical Thinking in a much more holistic way. Zeinab completes all three units, but doesn’t take the optional final assessment for the transferable three credit points. She’s happy with her online certificate of completion and newly acquired Critical Thinking skills. The point I am making in a rather contrived manner her is simply that a MOOC version of this unit is flexible, open, with multiply realisable learning outcomes. It is learner directed. Indeed, at its simplest I would like to see a MOOCed Critical Thinking Course be a realisation of the idea that complexity in learning comes not simply from the accumulation of ideas and concepts, but from their synthesis and assimilation. 3.4.4

The Delivery of Content

I can describe the detail of each stream in greater depth if need be, and certainly tie it quite directly to content and information delivery. I think three obvious sources present themselves. Video/New Media - I think that the obvious way is for each stream to be connected to standard MOOC video bites. [AN ASIDE: Two observations about this - (1) these videos need to be neat and punchy - 5-6 minutes wherever possible. (2) Talking heads are boring. Mini-Lectures are boring. It has to be possible to make this media more dynamic and conventionally engaging - think “popular science” documentaries. Brian Cox doesn’t simply talk at you, and the concepts he talks about are very complex cosmological ones]. Text/Old Media - MOOC learners should have supporting textual information to hand. It is still the most frequently used source of information and learning. One way is to provide some short written support for each Video. Another is to make it possible to download an e-book. Keith Devlin has a Kindle Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

78


Book available for his MOOCers (at the cost of $9.50) - he is even getting positive Amazon reviews for this from Coursera participants. Yet another is to arrange for a conventional text-book, with a publisher, to support this material. Devlin’s kindle-book was originally just this. Supporting Activity - A good lecturer knows where students need additional learning support with materials but we can’t supply that with tutors in this case. A good example is the Monty Hall result - there is an online “game” which simulates the results of “sticking” or “changing”. Students fail to see that changing makes a difference. Tutors in courses iron this problem out. The simulator allows them to explore exactly that result for themselves. [For more on the Monty Hall problem, see, for example, http://montyhallproblem.com/ . And for a simulator, see [ http://www.grandillusions.com/simulator/montysim.htm ]] These kinds of self-directed activities really help to enforce difficult concepts. Assessments I think we could do various things here that divide assessment into various areas: Assessment at the level of micro-content - each topic within a stream; Assessment at the mezzo-level - each actual stream within a unit; Assessment at the macro-level - assessment for the overall MOOC unit; Assessment at the Macrolevel or, if you like, Synopsis level - assessment which ties all three MOOC units together and allows for something like matriculatable points etc. I should say more about each of these: Micro-Level - These are the kinds of small Multiple Choice tests that were discussed with JK and MM. To support the non-linear element of the units, these would still have the three elements mentioned by JK - the “self test” HOTS MC model. And the ten in a row. And, as suggested at the outset, Confidence Based Marking might be a useful kind of “nudge” tool in this context. In terms of current assessments for the unit, these are most like the early Online Tests. Mezzo-Level - I think it would be possible here to use the kind of Interactive Web-Mediated Formats developed by the OU in the noughties. (see for example, “Online Instantaneous and Targeted Feedback for Remote Users” by Ross et al.) These kinds of assessment have the advantage of being a step beyond MC (so indicating an increase in weight to Learners) and still providing instantaneous feedback, guidance, and individualised “direction”. I can say more about this. Macro-Level - These would be short projects that require peer marking/ranking in the manner we discussed during the blue sky session. Not quite at the level of final assessments in the current course where rather large essays are required. Simpler self-directed tasks that bring together the work of the various streams across the unit. Synopsis-Level - This assessment would mirror the final assessment in PHL137 and would be optional. It would bring the content of the three units together and be something marked by a lecturer or tutor and constitute the means by students could get matriculatable credit for their unit and a hard-copy signed certificate of completion. Participation - The current unit has a participation component/mark. I think this is actually something that could be quite usefully retained although its realisation would have to be different. One notion would be that some form of reward would be had for forum contribution - “up voting” or even a Reddit style “Karma System” might allow us to generate a threshold level which MOOCers would need to reach in order to obtain some of their participation marks. A further participation element mark would come from contributing to the Macro-Level Peer-Marking, (or even Condorcet Ranking) of other assessments. A final suggested mark would be a rather gamified notion of clues. Simple questions would be placed in the streamed content in each topic - answering the questions in a form box would reveal a code or “secret word” which, when submitted at the end of the unit automatically grants the students a proportion of their participation mark. It is like clue finding. 3.4.5

Bibliography

Gee, John Paul (2003). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy (New York: Palgrave)


May 2013

79


Gardner-Medwin, A.R. (2006). “Confidence Based Marking: Towards deeper learning and better exams”. In Innovative Assessment in Higher Education. (Eds) Cordelia Bryan and Karen Legg. 2006. (London: Routledge) Lee, J.J. & Hammer, J. (2011). “Gamification in Education: What, How Why Bother? ” Academic Exchange Quarterly. 15(2). Reeves B. & Reed J.L. (2010). Total Engagement: Using Games and Virtual Worlds To Change The Way People Work and Businesses Compete. (Cambridge M.A: Harvard Business Press). Smith-Robins, S. (2011). “ ‘This Game Sucks’: How To Improve the Gamification of Education” EDUCAUSE Review Magazine. Volume 46: 1.

3.5 Design Overview: ICT & Education (EDU261), Matt Bower, Education 3.5.1

Overarching notes

Cognitive process in which students engage throughout the unit is conceptualized in terms of Anderson & Krathwohl’s (2001) Taxonomy of Learning, Teaching and Assessing. • •

•

Knowledge and Understanding: The lectures for each week will be atomised into sub-topic recordings (perhaps 5-10 minutes). Will be followed by short quizzes to assess retention (say 5 questions each). Approximately 3 subtopic questions each week. Application & Analysis: In weeks where it is appropriate participants will be applying the knowledge and skills through the pedagogical use of ICTs. In other weeks students will be asked to perform some analysis task (for instance based on a resource and discussed on a forum). These will be allocated a (peer) mark out of 3 for completion. Other tutorial / discussion questions relevant to each week Creation and Evaluation: There will be two major design tasks (one with LAMS and one with Moodle). Students peer review each other’s designs & justifications according to a rubric.

Issues There are a variety of issues that require consideration in the design and implementation of EDUC261 in MOOC mode: • • • • • • • • • •

How should submissions for peer review and assessment be collect and organised (Submission field? Eportfolio? Wiki? Ebook? Student choice?) Should we allow multiple choice questions to be attempted many times? Will there be a bank of questions? Will the stems and questions be in randomised order? What strategies are required to manage the masses and paying students in the same space? What are the best ways to take advantage of the crowd for peer support on Creation tasks? To what extent will the rubrics for design / assessment tasks need to be revisted to focus more on design? (For instance, will notes to clarify rubric and grading be required). How can a final exam be invigilated for non-University people who wish to receive credit for the unit? Should all required readings be only selected from open access materials, or are there ways for the general populous without library membership to access journal articles? Tutorial activities are specified on the website and people can self pace through (will additional instructions and support be required?) How should collaboration best be facilitated? Potential approaches include a forum, twitter feed, and specialised uses of these e.g. a troubleshooting or assignment specific forum. Whether to keep domestic content as part of the course will depend to some extent on whether a national (OUA) or international (Coursera) platform is used.

Assessment schedule: • Knowledge & Understanding - flipped learning (MCQs): 10% • Application & Analysis (Completion of ongoing tasks): 15% (10% for doing, 5% peer validating) • Creation & Evaluation (Two design tasks): 25% + 25% • Exam (Higher Order & Integrative Thinking): 25% Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

80


3.5.2

Proposed Timetable

Table 12 – Proposed timetable for EDUC261 in MOOC mode Week 1

Topic Introduction to Unit Introduction to Technology Based Learning (Topic 1 & Topic 2)

Recordings

2

Pedagogies of Online Learning (Topic 3)

3

Technological Affordances and Multimedia Learning Principles (Topic 4)

4

The Representation of Content using Technologies (Topic 5)

5

Designing for Learning using Technology (Topic 6)

Unpacking design, evaluating designs (how to effectively assess) LAMS sequence due at end of week

6-‐10 MOOC students select five topics Enrolled students cover all (two per week in class).

Designing for Learning using Web 2.0 (Topic 7)

Designing for Learning Using Wikis (Topic 8) Blogs and E-‐portfolios in Education (Topic 9)

Introduction to Learning Management System authoring (Moodle) Considering Web 2.0 potentials Creating and managing wikis Creating an effective eportfolio

Designing for learning using LAMS (Topic 10) Designing for learning using Moodle (Topic 11) Designing for learning using Social Networking (Topic 12) Enhancing learning using mobile technologies (Topic 13) Virtual Worlds in Education (Topic 14) Learning using Games (Topic 15) Designing for learning using Augmented Reality (Topic 16) Social Implications of Educational Technology (Topic 18) Assessment using technology (Topic 17) Reflective Practice and Research Based Learning (Topic 19) Subject review and Call to Action (Topic 20)

Critically reflecting on the use of LAMS

Analysing the use of LMS in learning Completing a social networking learning activity Considering mobile learning possibilities and mobile learning activity

11

12

13

Activities Intro to unit & technologies (LMS, wiki) Introductory LAMS sequence Introduction to contemporary technologies Introduction to shared resources Critiquing learning objects Evaluating LAMS sequences Advanced online searching & copyright Lesson LAMS and the LAMS Activity Planner (supporting different pedagogies) Authoring LAMS sequences Pedagogical implications of LAMS tools NSW syllabuses/BOS & technology Wiki task due Concepts of Quality Teaching Further authoring in LAMS Workshopping and providing constructive feedback on each other’s LAMS sequences (Crowd-‐sourcing support)

Completing a VW experience Designing a VW experience Experiencing and analysing a learning game Gamification of a learning activity Exploring AR and creating an AR activity Evaluation workshop Moodle module due Critiquing social impact of technology (debate)

How to assess learning Reflecting on ICTs in education (developing a research orientation)

Examination (one question in one hour)


May 2013

81


3.5.3

Overview of Topic Coverage

Section 1 -‐ Foundations Topic 1 – Technology as an educational imperative • • • • • •

Technology in Education arguments from US, UK and Australia 21st Century Learning Skills National Educational Standards for Students and Teachers (US) Technology as mindtools Personal and economic success - the ability to thrive in a rapidly evolving and hypercomplex environment The reward of innovative learning and teaching

Topic 2 – Effective technology integration and the TPACK Model • • • •

The core elements that (pre-service) teachers need to know about TPACK What TPACK looks like (examples) Evidence emerging about TPACK Accounts from experts about the benefits of TPACK

Topic 3 – Pedagogies of online learning • •

• • •

Discussion of “pedagogy” and the importance of designing learning experiences with a pedagogically informed underpinning Types of Pedagogical Perspectives: o Behaviourism o Constructivism o Socio-constructivism o Meaningful learning o Authentic learning o Connectivism o Rhizomatic learning [One or two examples of each of the above to show what it might look like] Framework of classifying tasks by degree of production and negotiation. Discussion of how different approaches may be suitable for different purposes and stages of the learning cycle.

Topic 4 – Technology affordances and their effects • • • • •

Introduction explaining the need for a consistent framework for describing and analyzing technologies that remains somewhat impervious to changes in tools over time Brief introduction to affordances (Gibson versus Norman and other commentary) and provision of a working definition for the text. Explanation of the difference between modalities and media Brief overview of information processing theory that provides an explanation of how humans assimilate and accommodate multimodal information. Explanation of how different technologies (modalities) can be put together in more or less effective ways and to different effects o Multimedia effect o Modality effect o Contiguity effect o Redundancy effect o [Examples of each of the above]

Topic 5 – Types of Knowledge and Cognitive Processes Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

82


•

• • • •

Brief discussion of the different types of subject areas (Mathematics, English, Science, History, Computing etc and how they have different cognitive and representational demands. For instance equations in Mathematics, focus on literature and writing in English, modeling of phenomena in Science, critical reflection on sources in History. Examples of how some technologies may more (or less) cater to these (but with no detailed examination of task design yet). Discussion of the importance of considering disciplinarity when constructing learning experiences Discussion of the need for an overarching framework for analyzing curriculum, and how Anderson and Krathwohl’s framework provides this. Example of how A& Krathwohl can be used to analyse curriculum designed by a teacher, and its links to outcomes and assessment Explanation/example of how A&K can be used to aid selection of technologies based on the knowledge type and modality being represented

Topic 6 – Designing for Learning • • •

Introduction to the concept of learning design (moving beyond instructional design) Unpacking of literature surrounding ‘design’ generally, and a call to promote design thinking in education Description of Learning by Design and that simultaneously we are designing learning experiences for students using technology, we want to place technologies in the hand o students so that they achieve enhanced learning outcomes by designing, and that we as educators are learning about technologies through our design processes.

Section 2 – Designing for Learning Using Emerging Technologies Topic 7 – Designing for learning using Web 2.0 • • • •

Introduction to Web 2.0 Overview of Web2.0 tools Web 2.0 Learning Design Framework Example of the Web 2.0 Learning Design Framework in action

Topic 8 – Designing for learning using wikis • • •

Overview of wikis including a brief history, features, popular tools, and references to literature on how to best use. Description of wiki uses including forming collaborative knowledge bases, group projects, collaborative writing, in-class synchronous activities. Examples of wiki uses including a critical analysis of how the technology has been used to achieve certain pedagogies.

Topic 9 – Blogs and Eportfolios in Education • • • •

Overview of blogs including a brief history, features, popular tools, and references to literature on how to best use. Address the question: when would you use a blog as opposed to a wiki? Description of blog uses including individual portfolios, reflective journaling, teacher blogs, class blogs, and scholarly literature relating to the effective use of each Examples of wiki uses including a critical analysis of how the technology has been used to achieve certain pedagogies.

Topic 10 – Designing for learning using LAMS • •

Overview of the history of LAMS, its purpose and relationship to learning design (both narrow and broad) Overview of features of LAMS


May 2013

83


• • •

Scholarly literature relating to how to use LAMS effectively Critical analysis of two or three LAMS designs Discussion of community elements, LAMS online, links to resources

Topic 11 – Designing for learning using Moodle • • • • •

Overview of the history of Moodle, its current adoption in education Features of Moodle (including how it can be integrated with LAMS) Critical analysis of two or three Moodle designs The ability to integrate extensions for Moodle as an interesting example of open education Moodle Community website and forums, Moodle servers online

Topic 12 – Designing for learning using Social Networking • • • •

Infiltration of Social Networking into our society (statistics about usage of social networking) Ways in which social networking can be used to represent content and facilitate Connectivist learning Research on social networking in the classroom and the principles for use A case study on the importance of the teacher in facilitating effective learning in Socially Networked environments

Topic 13 – Enhancing learning using mobile technologies • • •

Increase in mobile learning and how it enables situated and connected learning Outline of the range of possible apps and the sorts of learning they facilitate Examples of uses (two or three case studies)

Topic 14 – Virtual Worlds in Education • • • •

Introduction to virtual worlds, types of platforms (open sim, second life, etc and their various strengths and weaknesses) reasons that virtual worlds might be used (situated learning, role plays etc) literature outlining effective use of virtual worlds Examples of virtual worlds in education (two or three case studies)

Topic 15 – Games Based Learning • • • • •

Definition of Games Based Learning and distinction between GBL and gamification What makes a game? Principles of games design GBL scholarly literature Tools to facilitate GBL task designs Examples of effective use of GBL (two or three case studies)

Topic 16 – Designing for learning using Augmented Reality Overview of Augmented Reality and its elements (image, object, and location based triggers, schematic of how it works) • Different platforms and tools • Literature on AR and its effective use in education • Examples of effective AR usage in learning and teaching (two or three case studies) Section 3 – Meta-‐themes in technology enabled learning •

Topic 17 – Assessment using Technology Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

84


• • •

•

Importance of assessment in education and general comments about how technology can support both formative and summative assessment SOLO taxonomy as a means of representing different levels Examples of different ways technology can support assessment of different knowledge types: o MCQ and principles for good design of questions and importance of feedback, discussion of difficulty of reliably assessing HOT o Procedural knowledge assessment using video o Conceptual assessment using images and drawings o Journals and concept maps (vs mindmaps) to assess metacognitive thinking Discussion of issues such as reliability and validity (plagiarism and how to address it).

Topic 18 – Social Implications of Educational Technology • • • • • • • • •

Open Education and how technology can have a global impact on our society (Capetown declaration, Khan Academy, MOOCs) Education for disadvantaged students Third world and developing nations Accessibility (e.g. deaf, blind, dyslexic) Cyberbullying Online identity How much is too much (need for healthy living and interpersonal skill development) Environmental implications The inequity and opportunity gap and how we can respond

Topic 19 – Reflective Practice and Research Based Learning • • •

Reflective practice and its importance for teachers (brief discussion of Schon, Schulman) Introduction to Research Based Learning, its rationale, and what it can offer teachers Examples of how teachers can adopt a research based learning approach.

Topic 20 – Call to Action • • • • • •

3.5.4

Revisiting the critical need to develop our students’ digital literacies and ability to thrive in a technology infused world. How designing for learning using technology can enhance learning through more effective content representation and mediation of communication. Professional learning resources – some online sites to support skill development (but also the importance of a pedagogically informed approach to design) Professional learning communities that support exchange of ideas (include sites that promote communities of practice, conferences, Twitter) Life long learning, the importance of self-directed learning, the myriad of new possibilities, taking small steps, the excitement of continual change. May you live in interesting times! May you care for your students. May we all grow and learn together. Overview of MOOC activities

This section outlines the activities that students will complete in this MOOC, week by week. Note that: • • •

All videos will be between 5 and 10 minutes in length All quizzes will be between 5 and 10 questions Each week will have its own support forum

Week 1 – Introduction to Technology Enabled Learning (Topic 1 & Topic 2) •

Video presentation & quiz – Technology as an educational imperative


May 2013

85


• • • • •

Video presentation & quiz – Effective technology integration and the TPACK Video orientation – general overview of unit, website, notes about copyright etc Forum activity – introducing yourself (feelings about tech, reason for doing course) LAMS activity – introductory activity to learn about technology through technology Peer workshop activity – critically evaluate a LAMS sequence from the LAMS Community and provide feedback to others about their reviews

Week 2 – Pedagogies of Online Learning (Topic 3) • • • • •

Video presentation & quiz – The pedagogies of online learning part I Video presentation & quiz – The pedagogies of online learning part II LAMS activity – Signing up to the LessonLAMS website and reviewing some pedagogical patterns from the LAMS Activity Planner Peer rated forum activity – which pedagogical approach do you feel is most conducive to learning and why? Wiki task – creating a collaborative knowledge base of educational technologies

Week 3 – Technological Affordances and Multimedia Learning Principles (Topic 4) • • • •

Video presentation & quiz – Technology affordances Video presentation & quiz – Multimedia learning effects LAMS Activity – Authoring LAMS sequences (see LAMS Foundation website for support) Peer rated forum activity – what are the most useful affordances of some different LAMS tools and how do you think they are best used to achieve maximum pedagogical effect?

Week 4 – The Representation of Content using Technologies (Topic 5) • • • •

Video presentation & quiz – A framework for analyzing types of content Video presentation & quiz – examples of content representation using technology Peer rated forum activity – dissecting and working from syllabus documents: critiquing syllabus designs (sharing relevant syllabuses from around the globe, unpacking their structure, how well they support curriculum design and tech integration) Peer workshop of LAMS sequences – provide initial feedback and suggestions on people’s LAMS Sequences

Week 5 – Designing for Learning using Technology (Topic 6) • • • • •

Video presentation & quiz – Introduction to learning design Video presentation & quiz – designing for learning using technology Peer rated forum activity – “What makes for brilliant design?” Submit LAMS sequences by the end of the week Peer assessment of each other’s LAMS sequences (three each) according to rubric and evaluation guidelines

Week 6 to 10 [Students choose 5 from the following 10 topics] [Note that in the first week every student does the following as setup for Task 2: LMS activity – signing up for an LMS account (e.g. Moodle) and working through online authoring resources] Designing for Learning using Web 2.0 (Topic 7) • • •

Video presentation & quiz – Introduction to Web 2.0 & Design Framework Video presentation & quiz – Examples of designing for learning using Web 2.0 Peer rated forum activity – Pick a web 2.0 technology and demonstrate how it can be creatively incorporated into a learning design


May 2013

86


Designing for Learning Using Wikis (Topic 8) • • •

Video presentation & quiz – Introduction to designing for learning using wikis Video presentation & quiz – Examples of designing for learning using wikis Peer rated forum activity – create a wiki activity and explain how it has been designed to support learning

Blogs and E-portfolios in Education (Topic 9) • • •

Video presentation & quiz – Introduction to blogs and e-portfolios in education Video presentation & quiz – Examples of blogs and e-portfolios in education Peer rated forum activity – create a blog/eportfolio task along with a marking rubric and justification for the design decisions that have been made for each

Designing for learning using LAMS (Topic 10) • • • •

[Students should only nominate to do this topic if they did not nominate do the LAMS assessment task.] Video presentation & quiz – Introduction to designing for learning using LAMS Video presentation & quiz – Examples of designing for learning using LAMS Peer rated forum activity – for students who didn’t complete the assessment create a wiki activity and explain how it has been designed to support learning

Designing for learning using LMSs (Topic 11) [Students should only nominate to do this topic if they did not nominate do the LMS assessment task.] • • •

Video presentation & quiz – Introduction to designing for learning using LMSs (focus on Moodle) Video presentation & quiz – Examples of designing for learning using Moodle Peer rated forum activity – create a Moodle course and explain how it has been designed to support learning

Designing for learning using Social Networking (Topic 12) • • •

Video presentation & quiz – Introduction to designing for learning using SN Video presentation & quiz – Examples of designing for learning using SN Peer rated forum activity – create a Social Networking lesson and explain how it has been designed to support learning

Enhancing learning using mobile technologies (Topic 13) • • •

Video presentation & quiz – Introduction to enhancing learning using mobile devices Video presentation & quiz – Examples of designing for learning using mobile devices Peer rated forum activity – create a lesson that uses mobile devices and explain how it has been designed to support learning

Virtual Worlds in Education (Topic 14) • • •

Video presentation & quiz – Introduction to virtual worlds in education Video presentation & quiz – Examples of designing using virtual worlds in education Peer rated forum activity – create a Virtual Worlds lesson and explain how it has been designed to support learning


May 2013

87


Learning using Games (Topic 15) • • •

Video presentation & quiz – Introduction to learning using games Video presentation & quiz – Examples of learning using games Peer rated forum activity – create a lesson that uses technology based games and explain how it has been designed to support learning

Designing for learning using Augmented Reality (Topic 16) • • •

Video presentation & quiz – Introduction to designing for learning using AR Video presentation & quiz – Examples of designing for learning using AR Peer rated forum activity – create a lesson that uses Augmented Reality and explain how it has been designed to support learning

Week 11 – Social Implications of Educational Technology (Topic 18) • • •

•

Video presentation & quiz – Social implications of educational technology I Video presentation & quiz – Social implications of educational technology II Peer rated forum activity – Think tank: pick a global issue relating to educational technology (e.g., effectively supporting third world nations, accessibility, cyberbullying, identity, environmental implications, child development inequity) and outline a strategic approach that you think best addresses that issue. Peer assessment of each other’s Moodle Courses (three each) according to rubric and evaluation guidelines

Week 12 – Assessment using technology (Topic 17) and Reflective Practice and Research Based Learning (Topic 19) • • • •

Video presentation & quiz – Assessment using technology Video presentation & quiz – Reflective practice and research based learning LAMS Activity – Research based education Peer rated forum activity – Create an activity using LAMS that could be used to research a question of educational interest and justify the design you have adopted

Week 13 – Subject review and Call to Action (Topic 20) •

Video presentation & quiz – Call to action and unit review Forum activity – how do you feel about technology and what do you see as the role of technology in education?

3.6 Design Overview: Principles of Financial Literacy (AFAS300), Peter Mordaunt, Finance Introduction to MOOC Principles of Financial Literacy is an interactive program to help you develop your knowledge of personal finance, such as budgeting, investing and protecting your finances. Unit offering AFAS300 is a full Macquarie course that can be undertaken as a MOOC by participants (free and open) and by students (enrolled Macquarie students). The intention is that any participant can complete the course for interest and obtain badges. However, any Macquarie student who enrolls in this unit must complete the MOOC as well as the additional requirements for the unit to obtain a credit.


May 2013

88


Participation expectations The expected weekly workload ranges between 7.5 to 10 hours for students and 2 to 4 hours for MOOC participants. A typical week for students/participants is shown in Table 13. Table 13 – Typical weekly study pattern for students in the AFAS300 MOOC

Activities

Students (Unit)

Participants (MOOC)

20-40 minutes

20-40 minutes

3 hours

Optional

Attempting self-test quizzes

20 minutes

20 minutes

Completing individual and group tasks

2 to 3 hours

1 to 1.5 hours

30 minutes (plus 1 hour preparation)

15 to 20 minutes

1 to 2 hours

30 mins to 1 hour

7.5 to 10 hours

2.5 to 4 hours

Watching videos (4 around 5-10 mins each) Reviewing readings

Doing test quiz Performing a community administration task Total

Optional delivery lengths 1. A 13-week course 2. Three five-week courses, based on topic numbers: (Financial basics – topics 1-6; Financial Investing – topics 7 to 12; and Financial Protecting - topics 13 to 15). Vision for unit Macquarie offers set people-planet-participation units that are compulsory and designed to teach global citizenship and or values? They might be compulsory for students, open to Gifted and Talented school students, and open to the community at large. Recommended fit with other units We suggest that similar units might be offered in a suite, including: • •

Business ethics Social marketing and sustainability

Learning outcomes and graduate capabilities The learning outcomes for students and participants: • Develop personal financial goals and adjust as circumstances change. • Construct and maintain a working budget as a “living document”. • Compare and contrast common investment and debt instruments. • Discuss the role of superannuation, its benefits and choices that can be made. • Understand the main types of insurances and their importance in managing risk. • Describe the features and implications of common financial contracts. • Compare and contrast different "employment" structures. Course learning targets the following participant capabilities: • • • •

Discipline, Specific Knowledge and Skills Problem Solving and Research Capability Creative and Innovative Capable of Professional and Personal Judgement and Initiative

Summary of MOOC topics • Week 1 – Introduction to AFAS300 Principals of Financial Literacy • Week 1 – Introduction to Financial Goals and Goals setting (Topic 1) Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

89


• • • • • • • • • • • •

Week 2 – Setting and maintaining a budget (Topic 2) Week 3 – Introduction to Investing (Topics 3, 4, & 5) Week 4 – Tax and the effect on the individual investor (Topic 6) Week 5 – Fixed interest as an investment (Topic 7) Week 6 – Shares as an investment (Topic 8) Week 7 – Direct property as an investment (Topic 9) Week 8 – Managed funds as an investment (Topic 10) Week 9 – Superannuation (Topic 11) Week 10 – Debt (Topic 12) Week 11 – Financial Scams (Topic 13) Week 12 – Estate Matters (Topic 14) Week 13 – Insurances (Topic 15)

Tool summary • Video • Optional self-test multiple-choice quizzes with feedback (grade and explanation as well as a clickable link to the learning resource that clarifies the principle where an incorrect answer is given. The student will then be issued with an additional question on that same learning principle.) • Multiple-choice quizzes with feedback (grade and explanation provided. Participants are issued with gold badge for 9-10 out of 10, a silver badge for 7-8 out of 10, and a bronze badge for scoring 5-6 out of 10) • Interactive tasks – using a combination of discussion forum, peer review and spreadsheets • Tool for peer review on assignments • Open resources (reading and learning objects) Peer review • Each student reviews five peer papers (any extras to be allocated on a volunteer basis using community badges for allocated and volunteer marking) • A set of criteria are used (rated 1 to 5 on each) • Two qualitative comments (what this student did best; how this could be improved) • Assignment 1: Students 1 to 5 peer review 6 to 10, 11 to 15 mark 16 to 20 and 16 to 20 mark 1 to 5 • Assignment 2: Rotate pattern above. • Assignment: Rotate again. Badging • Community badge for extra points (ie, elect to click on ‘Give me an administration task’) • Multiple-choice quizzes Assessment for students v badging for participants MOOC participants and Macquarie students will complete the same tasks. However: • •

University students must complete two additional multiple-choice test, using: different questions based on set readings, time-limited completion and in larger quantities. University students must complete an individual rather than the group, collaborative essays that MOOC participants complete. In addition, Macquarie students must use theories, provider more in-depth analysis and will receive teacher-completed feedback.

Weekly design pattern • Introductory video (3 to 7 minutes) • Self assessment quiz (5 questions) • Material will include some combination of : o websites, o videos, o readings • Video with activity instruction Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

90


• • • Note: • • • • 3.6.1

Exemplar activity (using pro-forma) Activity (e.g. goal-setting - see below) Discussion forum: peer review of posted tasks to critically reflect on applications of the principles from the introductory video and evaluates how and why goals and goal setting vary according to individual context. All videos will be between 5 and 10 minutes in length All short quizzes will be between 5 and 10 multiple choice questions All end of week quizzes will be between 20 and 25 questions All assignments to be peer assessed Sample week for iLearn

Week 1 – Introduction to Financial Goals and Goals setting (Topic 1) • Video presentation & short quiz – Introduction to financial goals • Video presentation & short quiz – The who, when and why of financial goals • Video presentation & short quiz – Types of financial goals and how to set them • Video presentation – How to fill in the goal sheets provided • Review and student assignment - set 3 short, 3 medium and 3 long term goals Quiz content Yet to be finalised. URLs for reading, websites, learning objects and videos Yet to be finalised. Student assignment Interactive collaborative spreadsheet or survey (Googledocs) using a questionnaire format in which students can (a) enter their answers to the following questions and (b) access group results. Students cannot be identified or access personal information about peers (the ID of the participant must be recorded for our purposes). The questions for the collaborative questionnaire are: • What is something you want to achieve within the next 6-12 months (iphone, tyres on car, new car) • By when do you want to achieve this goal? • How are you going to achieve that? • What changes to your current expenditure are necessary to achieve this goal? • Who else does the change in expenditure involve and do they share the goal • Write down what, how and when you will achieve that goal? • How is the achievement of that goal likely to be affected by the quality of the planning? Discussion forum question: To complete this task, students need to access the results area of the above responses. Based on your review of peer responses to the goal-setting activity (provide link to results area) and keeping in mind the principles for goal-setting covered in the introductory video evaluate how and why goals and goal setting vary according to individual context? 3.6.2

Week-‐to-‐Week Schedule

Week 1 – Introduction to AFAS300 Principals of Financial Literacy Video presentation, introducing the convenor, explaining aims of the course, its structure, what is expected of students, how the assessments will work and the projected outcomes for students.


May 2013

91


Week 1 – Introduction to Financial Goals and Goals setting (Topic 1) • Video presentation & short quiz – Introduction to financial goals • Video presentation & short quiz – The who, when and why of financial goals • Video presentation & short quiz – Types of financial goals and how to set them • Video presentation – How to fill in the goal sheets provided Review and student assignment - set 3 short, 3 medium and 3 long term goals Week 2 – Setting and maintaining a budget (Topic 2) • Video presentation & short quiz – Introduction to budgeting • Video presentation & short quiz – How to do a budget • Video presentation & short quiz – Maintaining and sticking to a budget • Video presentation – How to fill in budget spreadsheets supplied • Review and student assignment - set a budget Week 3 – Introduction to Investing (Topics 3, 4, & 5) • Video presentation & quiz – Sustainability and the individual’s spending patterns • Video presentation & quiz – Sustainability outcomes from modifying spending patterns • Video presentation & short quiz – basic principles of investing • Video presentation & short quiz – maths of simple and compounding interest • Review and student assignment – quiz covering all week 3 topics Week 4 – Tax and the effect on the individual investor (Topic 6) • Video presentation & short quiz – how the PAYG system works • Video presentation & short quiz – income tax and investing • Video presentation & short quiz – how capital gains tax works • Video presentation & short quiz – capital gains tax and investing • Review and student assignment – quiz covering all week 4 topics Week 5 – Fixed interest as an investment (Topic 7) • Video presentation & short quiz – review and application of the maths • Video presentation & short quiz – government debt instruments • Video presentation & short quiz – corporate debentures • Video presentation & short quiz – corporate bonds • Review and student assignment – quiz covering all week 5 topics Week 6 – Shares as an investment (Topic 8) • Video presentation & short quiz – introduction to shares • Video presentation & short quiz – dividend imputation • Video presentation & short quiz – margin loans • Video presentation & short quiz – dividends, margin loans and tax brought together. • Review and student assignment – quiz covering all week 6 topics Week 7 – Direct property as an investment (Topic 9) • Video presentation & short quiz – titles and ownership • Video presentation & short quiz – buying - auction, private treaty • Video presentation & short quiz – comparison of units, houses and land • Video presentation & short quiz – negative gearing • Review and student assignment – quiz covering all week 7 topics Week 8 – Managed funds as an investment (Topic 10) • Video presentation & short quiz – what are managed funds? • Video presentation & short quiz – the managers of managed funds • Video presentation & short quiz – risks of managed funds • Video presentation & short quiz –gearing and managed funds • Review and student assignment – quiz covering all week 8 topics


May 2013

92


Week 9 – Superannuation (Topic 11) • Video presentation & short quiz – what is superannuation and who are the overseers? • Video presentation & short quiz – concessional and non-concessional contributions • Video presentation & short quiz – the investment of superannuation funds • Video presentation & short quiz – Self Managed Superannuation Funds (SMSF) • Review and student assignment – quiz covering all week 9 topics Week 10 – Debt (Topic 12) • Video presentation & short quiz – the perils of debt, how to use debt • Video presentation & short quiz – types of debt • Video presentation & short quiz – how credit cards work • Video presentation & short quiz – mortgages and offset accounts • Review and student assignment – quiz covering all week 10 topics Week 11 – Financial Scams (Topic 13) • Video presentation & short quiz – defining a financial scam • Video presentation & short quiz – some examples of famous financial scams • Video presentation & short quiz – how financial scams work • Video presentation & short quiz – the 9 identifiers for spotting a financial scams • Review and student assignment – quiz covering all week 11 topics Week 12 – Estate Matters (Topic 14) • Video presentation & short quiz – importance of having a will • Video presentation & short quiz – role of the various parties to a will • Video presentation & short quiz – general power of attorney • Video presentation & short quiz – enduring power of attorney and /or guardianship • Review and student assignment – quiz covering all week 12 topics Week 13 – Insurances (Topic 15) • Video presentation & short quiz – life insurance • Video presentation & short quiz – TPD and trauma insurance • Video presentation & short quiz – health insurance • Video presentation & short quiz – general insurance. • Review and student assignment – quiz covering all week 13 topics

3.7 Design Overview: Software Engineering (COMP255), Deborah Richards, Computing 3.7.1

Unit Description

This unit focuses on the principles and practices underpinning the engineering of quality software. The unit assumes some experience with programming, but does not include any programming but considers all of the activities that must be managed to develop and deliver software. The unit considers the whole system development life cycle, including analysis and design methods applied in the design process, from system requirements to construction, testing and deployment. Problem formulation and solving are emphasised. Students learn how to analyse a problem domain and to develop models that formalise requirements and design using object-oriented methods, theory and the Unified Modelling Language (UML). Understanding of supporting topics such as alternative process models and process improvement, project planning and management, reuse, security, reliability, will also be studied. Understanding L&T in COMP255 The unit covers many different topics at an introductory level. It is about the big picture and “programming in the large” rather than low level “how to write code” or “how to write Java/php/C# etc”. It about how to design and deliver quality software following quality processes. Thus principles and Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

93


understanding of concepts is important. This makes it hard for undergraduate students (particularly programming oriented ones) to understand why the unit is necessary and what the principles really mean and how to apply them. So examples and discussion are very important. Also motivating the students to understand why they are learning certain content is the key challenge of the teacher. The actual concepts and content can be acquired via self-study and reading. Discussion and application to real problems is the best way to consolidate understanding of the concepts. Introduction to MOOC Due to the nature of COMP255 the following basic structure is recommended: 1. Motivating video clip (can be a YouTube clip, prerecorded short lecture, movie of a disaster/problem/domain, etc) 2. Read content from textbook/ebook 3. Online 1-2 hour class involving class discussion of basic concepts, small group work to solve problem, reporting back to class and class discussion. Voting on solutions. Participation/Attendance recorded. 4. Use of software tools for appropriate tasks such as creating model in the Unified Modelling Language, Requirements Specification, Project Management, Testing, Configuration Management as relevant to the previous weeks lecture/textbook content. 5. Peerwise – weekly submission. Put in one question, answer 20. 6. Assignment every 3 weeks, peer reviewed and moderated. 7. Mid term test – quiz, submission of diagrams reviewed by mentors/peers. 8. Final exam – quiz Replicating the interaction that happens during the mixed tutorial is the biggest challenge for this MOOC. The second biggest issue is that there is no one right solution to the exercise problems given to the students (may make it difficult to validate the progress amongst peers). Unit offering COMP255 is a full Macquarie course that can be undertaken as a MOOC by participants (free and open) and by students (enrolled Macquarie students). The intention is that any participant can complete the course for interest and obtain badges. However, any Macquarie student who enrolls in this unit must complete the MOOC as well as the additional requirements for the unit. Optional delivery lengths 1. A 13-week course Or 2. Three modules. Can be done in any order: • Software System Development Lifecyle (5 weeks) • Software Modelling (3 weeks) • Software Management (5 weeks) 3.7.2

Summary of MOOC topics

Each week is broken into three Topics (few exceptions) Module 1: Software Development Life Cycle • • • • •

Week 1 Introduction to software engineering and software processes, Agile Methods, sociotechnical systems Week 2 Requirements Engineering – Requirements Elicitation, Requirements Specification, Requirements Validation Week 3 System Design and Architecture Week 4 Design, Testing, Implementation Week 5 Usability Engineering – Myths and Principles, Human Factors, Evaluation Methods

MOOC 2 - Object Oriented Modelling Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

94


• • •

Week 1 OO Concepts, introduce case studies, introduce use case diagrams Week 2 Review use case diagrams, class diagrams, sequence diagrams Week 3 State diagrams, package/deployment diagrams, model consistency checking

MOOC 3 - Managing Software • • • • • 3.7.3

Week 1 Project Management – Risk and Resource Mgt, Planning – budgeting and scheduling, Monitoring and Management Week 2 Quality Management, Software Evolution, Configuration Management Week 3 Process Improvement, Reuse, Component Based SE Week 4 Dependability and Security Introduction, Dependabiltiy, Security Week 5 Trends and Hot Topics Learning and Teaching Strategy

COMP255 is taught via short motivational videos, online tutorial classes, weekly reading material (focused around the chosen textbook), weekly Peerwise quizzes and four assignments looking at different case studies to which the concepts in the previous three weeks can be applied. Online classes are small group classes which give you the opportunity to interact with your peers and a mentor who has a sound knowledge of the subject. Mixed classes will require working in small groups and sometimes involve reporting back to the class. The classes will focus on reinforcing understanding of the concepts and practical application to problems set. It is important that you participate in the activities and make some notes from them to assist you with revision of the material. Assignments will play a key role in providing formative evaluation so that students can guage their level of understanding. Assignments will be related to the lecture, online classes, reading material and require students to bring together what they have been learning. Assignment will test your understanding of the course content and your application of the concepts to a number of scenarios or problems statements. Exams will assess your grasp of the unit concepts. Each week you should: • • • • •

Read assigned reading material, add to your notes and prepare questions for discussion in the online class. Attend your online classes and seek feedback from the class and mentor on your work Contribute to Peerwise and test your knowledge Do the practical tasks as required for that week. (not required each week) Work on the next assignment to the level that the content has been covered.

Tool summary • Video • Peerwise for weekly contribution to and participation in multiple-choice quizzes. • Online weekly classes Interactive tasks – using a combination of discussion forum, peer review and spreadsheets • Tool for MCQ tests, submission of midterm test, mark recording and feedback. • Tool for peer review on assignments • Open resources (reading and learning objects) • Project Management software • Unified Modelling Software • Version Control Software • Testing Software


May 2013

95


3.7.4

Badging (Assessment Tasks)

Task

Weight

Due Date

Brief Description

Class Participation

12%

Weekly – starts week 2

MidTerm Test

15%

End of Week 6

PeerWise Quiz

12%

Weekly – starts week 2

Final Exam

25%

Exam Period

4 Assignments

40%

Every 3 weeks

3.7.5

Weekly class participation MidTerm Test Participating in PeerWise Quizzes Final Exam Peer reviewed, moderated, involving solutions to a given real world problem

Class Participation

Due Date: Weekly - Starting week 2. Weight: 12%. Duration/Work Load: 2 hours Feedback: In classes. Your attendance at weekly online classes is expected and will be worth a mark of 1 each week. The system will record when you sign in/out. Online classes will involve a range of activities, some individual, some in pairs, some in groups. Be prepared to present your ideas. You will need to register for one of the available online classes. You should put in your preferences for 3 classes in case your first preference is taken. You must be available to join the class at the allocated time. MidTerm Test Due Date: End of Week 6/7. Weight: 15%. This test will assess your UML skills and knowledge of concepts covered to date in the unit PeerWise Quiz Due Date: Weekly – starting week 2. Weight: 12%. Each week you will be expected to contribute one (1) or more multiple choice questions (MCQs) in Peerwise with correct answer and explanations and answer/rate ten (10) or more questions. Your question should relate to content in the previous week. Inappropriate questions will be removed and will receive no mark. Offensive questions will receive a mark of minus two (-2). The final exam will include MCQs. It is anticipated that Peerwise will provide a valuable resource for studying for the exam. Assignments Due Date: Weeks 4, 7, 10 and 13. Weight: 40% - 10% each. Duration/Work Load: 15 hours each Feedback: Online via peer/mentor comments, in online class, via available solution Each assignment will include a different case study and require a set of tasks to be completed. A model solution will be provided. There is not one possible correct solution. You will be asked to reflect on how your solution differs to the model solution and conduct some self assessment. Once you have submitted your own self-assessment, your solution will be released for peer assessment. You will need to assess 3 other solutions. Final Exam Due Date: Exam Period. Weight: 25%. Final 90 minute exam – Multiple Choice Questions 3.7.6

Recommended fit with other units

It is expected that students would have some basic programming skills that would help them understand what software is. Since no programming is done in the unit, it does not matter what language students Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

96


have seen before. The unit would sit well alongside other Computing units that focus on programming, networking, databases, etc to help students understand that software does not sit in a vacuum but needs to be designed and managed in line with the user’s needs and society’s constraints. 3.7.7

Sample week for iLearn

Week 1 – Introduction to Software Engineering and Software Development Life Cycle (Topic 1) and Socio-Technical System (Topic 2) • • • • • • • •

Topic 1 - To Engineer is Human - Why Study Software Engineering? URL Topic 1 - Textbook/Content Slides File Topic 2 - Socio-Technical Systems - youtube clip URL Topic 2 - Socio-Technical Systems - Sommerville Chapter 10 File Priming Questions before Discussion Class Assignment Discussion Class for Week 1 File Your Group's Chat Room Your Group's Final Answer Wiki

3.8 Concluding comments on MOOC designs A wide variety of design approaches have been adopted by these participating academics, each of whom are experts in their fields and as teachers. Each incorporates unique insights regarding how units can be transformed for an open world and how MOOCs can be conceptualised. We see this as valuable contribution and statement about the diversity of approaches that can be adopted within the MOOC paradigm, demonstrating that a one-size-fits all approach is neither necessary nor optimal. Each of the academics involved in this design process expressed an excitement and readiness to develop these designs into a reality. The process of engaging with the potentials of MOOCs and how that could transform their educational impact was perceived to be an energising and enriching learning experience. These designs now rest in the hands of the Macquarie Community, for illustrative and learning purposes. They have been conceptualised for development purposes, and with sufficient resourcing could be transformed into a reality. We hope that the designs, along with the contextual review and scoping study, progress Macquarie University along the path towards more open and flexible learning.


May 2013

97


4 References Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Bonk, C. K., E. (2012). Adding some TEC-VARIETY: 100+ Activities for Motivating and Retaining Learners Online. Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education : Community as curriculum. Innovate –Journal of Online Education, 4(5). Cormier, Dave (2010). MOOCs, Knowledge and the Digital Economy – a research project. Accessed from: http://davecormier.com/edblog/2010/12/20/moocs-knowledge-and-the-digitaleconomy-aresearch-project/. Accessed on: 20 August 2012. Daniel, S. J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility. Accessed

from:

www.tonybates.ca/wp-content/uploads/

Making-Sense-of-MOOCs.pdf.

Accessed on 4 July 2012. Davidson, K. (2012). Let's Talk about MOOC (online) Education--And Also About Massively Outdated Traditional

Education

(MOTEs).

Accessed

from:

http://hastac.org/blogs/cathy-

davidson/2012/07/20/lets-talk-about-mooc-online-education-and-also-about-massively-outda. Accessed on 4 July 2012. Downes, S. (2011). Free Learning: Essays on Open Educational Resources and Copyright. National Research Council, Canada. Accessed from: http:// www.downes.ca/me/mybooks.htm. Accessed on: 14 July 2012. Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and Connected Knowledge Essays on meaning and learning networks (pp. 616). Retrieved from http:// www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=58207 EDUCAUSE (2011). Seven things you should know about MOOCs. Accessed on: 25 May, 2012. Accessed from: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7078.pdf. European Commission (1995). Teaching and learning: Towards the learning society. European Commission white paper. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Accessed from: http://europa.eu/ documentation/official-docs/white-papers/index_en.htm#block_13. European Commission (2000). Communication from the commission to the council and the European Parliament: The elearning action plan - Designing tomorrow’s education. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Accessed from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/archive /elearning/annex_en.pdf.


May 2013

98


European Union/OECD (EU/OECD) (2009). Assessing the effects of ICT in education. Indicators, criteria and benchmarks for international comparisons. F. Scheuermann and F. Pedró (Eds.). European Commission Joint Research Centre. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Facer, K., & Sandford, R. (2010). The next 25 years: future scenarios and future directions for education and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (1): 74-93. DOI: 10.1111/j.13652729.2009.00337.x. Fournier, H. & Kop, R. (2011). Factors affecting the design and development of a Personal Learning Environment: Research on super-users. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 2(4): 12-22. Hill, P. (2012). Four Barriers That MOOCs Must Overcome To Build a Sustainable Model. Accessed from:

http://mfeldstein.com/four-barriers-that-moocs-must-overcome-to-become-sustainable-

model/. Accessed on 10 September 2012. Holton, D. (2012). What’s the ‘problem’ with MOOCs?. EdTechDev Developing Educational Technology. Accessed

from:

http://edtechdev.wordpress.

com/2012/05/04/whats-the-problem-with-

moocs/Accessed on: 4 September 2012. Hybridpedagogy

(2012).

MOOCs:

Accessed

from:

https://docs.google.com/

document/d/1u1KUIi4l_iyxdkSNPlRiV3C84SYjXxfQbf80-iE2RiU/edit?pli=1#). Accessed on: 1 September 2012. JISC (2012). Dave Kernohan, M. W., Jonathan Worth, Lou McGill and Dave White - MOOCs JISC Webinar notes and a few thoughts. Accessed from: http://blogs.kingston.ac.uk /adc/2012/07/18/moocs-jisc-webinar-notes-and-a-few- thoughts/. Accessed on: 29 August, 2012. Kenney, J.L. & Bower, M. (2012). Massive Open Online Courses. Paper presented at the Expanding Horizons, Y3A-T1, Macquarie University. Accessed from: http://staff.mq.edu.au/ teaching/ workshops_programs /expanding_horizons/abstracts/#mooc. Accessed on: 1 October, 2012. Kernohan, D., Worth, M. W., McGill, L. & White D. (2012). MOOCs – JISC Webinar notes and a few thoughts. Accessed from: http:// blogs.kingston.ac.uk/adc/2012/07/18/moocs-jisc-webinarnotes-and-a-few- thoughts/. Accessed on: 1 October, 2012. King, G. & Sen, M. (2012). The troubled future of Colleges and Universities. Accessed from: gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/troubledfuture.pdf‎. Accessed on: 1 September 2012. Kolowich,

S.

(2012).

MOOCs’

Little

Brother.

Inside

Higher

Ed.

Accessed

from:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/06/u-maine-campus-experiments-small-scalehigh-touch-open-courses. Accessed on: 7 September 2012. Kop, R. (2010). The Design and Development of a Personal Learning Environment: Researching the Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

99


Learning Experience. European Distance and E-learning Network Annual Conference 2010. Accessed from: http://www.academia.edu/672401/The_design_and_development _of_a_personal_learning_environment_Researching_the_learning_experience. Accessed on: 6 September 2012. Kop, R. (2011). The Challenges to Connectivist Learning on Open Online Networks: Learning Experiences during a Massive Open Online Course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Accessed from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article /view/882/1823). Accessed on: 6 September 2012. Lane,

L.M.

(2012).

3

Types

of

MOOC

(currently)

in

trend.

Accessed

from:

http://lisahistory.net/wordpress/2012/08/three-kinds-of-moocs/. Accessed on: 1 September 2012. Laurillard, D. (Writer) & D. Laurillard (Director). (2013). Learning design for online courses: a webinar with

Diana

Laurillard,

ALT

Learning

design

for

online

courses.

Accessed

from:

http://repository.alt.ac.uk/2244/: ALT UK. Accessed on: 10 March 2013. Lukes, D. (2012). What is and what is not a MOOC: A picture of family resemblance). Access from: http://lisahistory.net/wordpress/2012/08/three-kinds-of-moocs/. Accessed on: 26 August 2012. Martinez, S. (2010). Why education reform will work this time. Generation YES Blog. Accessed from: http://blog.genyes.org/index.php/2010/02/20/ seymour-papert-on-generation-yes-kid-power/. Accessed on: 1 September 2012. McAuley, A., Siemens, G. & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC Model for Digital Practice Massive Open Online Courses. Digital Ways of Knowing and Learning (pp. 64). Canada: University of Prince Edward Island. Nickel, S., Stensaker, Bjorn, Marheim Larsen, Ingvild, de Boer, Harry, File, John. (2006). The extent and impact of higher education governance reform across Europe (C. f. H. E. P. Studies, Trans.). In E. C. Education and Culture DG (Ed.), Governance Reform (pp. 69). Enschede, The Netherlands: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente. Open Education (2012). Open Education. Accessed from: http://www.openeducation.us/ Accessed on: 20 July 2012. Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) (2004). Problem solving for tomorrow's world. Accessed from:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/12/34009000.pdf. Accessed on: 2

November 2011. Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) (2005). Definition and selection of key competencies - executive summary. Accessed from: http://www.deseco.admin.ch/bfs/deseco/en/ index/02.html. Accessed on: 2 November 2011. Jacqueline Kenney & Matt Bower

May 2013

100


Partnership for 21st century skills (2008). 21st Century Skills Education and Competitiveness Guide. Accessed from:

http://www.21stcenturyskills

.org/documents/21st_century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf. Phillips, R., McNaught, C., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Evaluating e-learning: Guiding research and practice. New York, USA: Routledge. Puentedura, R. (2012). Six minutes with Ruben Puentedura. 2012 NMC Horizon Project Retreat. Youtube: New Media Consortium. Roscoria, T. (20120) Massively Open Online Courses Are 'Here to Stay'. Centre for Digital Education. Accessed from: http://www.centerdigitaled.com/policy/MOOCs-Here-to-Stay.html. Accessed on: 20 July 2012. Sharples, M., P. McAndrew, M. Weller, R. Ferguson, E. FitzGerald, T. Hirst, Y. Mor,, & M. Gaved, D. W. (2012). Innovating Pedagogy (pp. 38). Milton Keynes, United Kingdom: The Open University. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Connectivism. Accessed from: http://www.connectivism.ca/. Accessed on: 20 August 2012. Siemens, G. (2012). Joining Centre for Distance Education. Retrieved from https://landing. athabascau.ca/blog/read/ 147958/joining-centre-for-distance-education Siemens, G. (Ed.). (2006). Knowing Knowledge. Siemens, G. (Writer) & D. A. I. d. Santos (Director). (2012). George Siemens' interview on MOOCs and Open Education Pretoria, South Africa. Skilledup (2012). About us. Accessed from: http://www.skilledup.com/learn/. Accessed on: 20 July 2012. Skilledup

(2012).

Introducing

hybrid

classes.

Accessed

from:

http://product.

skillshare.com/2012/08/introducing-hybrid-classes/. Accessed on: 28 August 2012. Stommel, J. (2012). The march of the MOOCs: Monstrous open online courses. Accessed from: http://www.hybridpedagogy.com/Journal/files/MOOC_ MOOC.html. Accessed on: 25 July 2012. Thrun, S. (2012). Wonderland. Accessed from: http://www.academicmatters.ca/2012/05/the-massiveopen-online-professor/. Accessed on: 27 July 2012. UNESCO (2012). UNESCO World Congress releases 2012 Paris OER Declaration. Accessed from: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/

news-and-in-

focusarticles/all-news/news/unesco_world_oer_congress_releases_2012_ paris_oer_declaration/. Accessed on 20 October 2012.


May 2013

101


University Grants Committee (2010). Aspirations for the Higher Education System in Hong Kong. Report of the University

Grants

Committee,

December.

Accessed

from:

www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=8277&langno=1. Vaidhyanathan, S. (2012). What’s the matter with MOOCs? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Accessed from: http://chronicle.com/blogs/ innovations/whats-the-matter-with-moocs/33289. Accessed on: 18 July, 2012. Virtual

School

MOOC

(2012).

Virtual

School

MOOC.

Accessed

from:

http://virtualschoolmooc.wikispaces.com/. Accessed on: 18 July, 2012. Wiley, D. (2012). Introduction to openness in education. Accessed from: http://openeducation.us/. Accessed on: 28 July 2012. Yakob, F. (2009). Be nice or leave: a guide to being social when all media is social. Admap Magazine, WARC, May/505.


May 2013

102


Appendix 1: MOOC Online Review Tool Q1. Please enter your details: Name: Email address: Occupation: Q2. Title of the course you are reviewing (if this is a Khan Academy resource, please state the resource name):

Q3. Course/content offered by:

Q4. Course details Name of Lecturer/Convener: Department and Faculty: Disciplinary areas (as listed): Course description (as given on site) Start date: Duration (weeks). If open, state ‘open’: Week of course in which review was taken: Number of participants and/or total no. of pages in discussion forums: URL forcourse info:

Q5. Macro (curriculum) design: Study guide or unit outline (might be listed as 'syllabus') giving a unit overview, L&T strategies, expectations, etc): Learning outcomes/objectives: Assessment details: Content to be covered: Other:


May 2013

103


Q6. Select one or more statements to indicate student awards upon completion. If awards have performance requirements, please include the details under 'Other' below. Participants who satisfactorily complete course components are able to:

Q7. What are the different course elements / types of activities in this course? For instance multimedia lectures, discussion forums, wiki contributions, etc. Please detail elements and activities below. If the element / activity is initiated and/or designed by a participant (student), please state 'student' after element/activity in column one.

Pedagogic strategies (drop-down menu options for column three: Transmissive (tell); Dialogic (reflect); Constructive (do); Co-constructive (do with others) Frequency (drop-down menu options for column four: Early; Mid; End; Early/Mid; Mid/End; Early/End; Early/Mid/End; Weekly; Fortnightly; Ongoing; Per Module Q8. How do students learn from the e-learning components in this course? How do the uses of tools foster learning processes, if at all. For example, the process of completing a concept map online would help students to develop a structure for their knowledge, to identify important concepts, to show how concepts are related, to develop an integrated understanding of a topic/subject, etc.

Q9. Are there any assessment tasks / required tasks for this MOOC? If so, please outline details below.


May 2013

104


Task

Technology used (tool name)

Grading method

Timing

Grade issued

Feedback given

Peer review (1 person); Peer review (2 people); Peer review (3-5 people); Peer review and teacher review; Teacher review; Auto marking

Early; Mid; End; Early/Mid; Mid/End; Early/End; Early/Mid/End; Weekly; Fortnightly; Ongoing; Per Module

Peer grade; Teacher grade; Peer/Teacher grade; Automarking grade

Peer comment; Teacher comment; Peer/Teacher comment; Auto-marking comment

Q10. What is your overall reaction to this course? Please include comments and observations about any aspect of the course.

Q11. From your experience of university courses, how does the (MOOC) innovation using elearning compare with a traditional classroom-based course delivery?

Q12. What are students learning from the new type of course (ie, using a MOOC)? Please offer your criticisms and acknowledgements of learning opportunities in the MOOC environment.

Q13. Please include any other comments, observations and recommendations:


May 2013

105


Appendix 2: Unit Review Tool for Collaborative MOOC Design Process Vision and conceptualization of unit as MOOC Unit Details: , Academic Designer: Co-‐Designers:

Approach to Re-‐Design Approach Overall vision for MOOC course: How to approach design task: Agreed session outcomes Timing of activities • Select potential content and activities for consideration • Draft design • Finalise design Considerations:

Academic Designer

Co-‐Designer 1

Co-‐Designer 2

Task and purpose Select potential content and activities from unit for consideration in MOOC design Discussion of core design principles for learning Identify important design principles for the unit Draft of designs for unit Finalise content, unit duration and number of potential MOOCs from each unit; Summary report of design principles for each unit and brief containing all learning activities, resources and materials Discussion/review at Learning Technology Research Cluster (LTRC) Review by peers, head of school, etc

Responsibility

People involved

Deadline (set)

Deadline (actual)

Comment


May 2013

106


Course Overview Component Unit title: (now and potentially as a MOOC) Unit Duration: Total number of weeks plus break periods and formal examination periods) Unit Objectives: 1. List all from unit outline. 2. Graduate capabilities: 1. List all from unit outline (and place in brackets the relevant learning objective number and/or assessment task it relates to) 2. Credit points for unit: Pre-‐requisite units: Co-‐requisites: Cohort type (UG/PG); stage (Y1, 2 or 3) and majors/faculties in unit Other program units offered online or by MOOC (actual and potential): Credit options (is it viable or desirable to assess online; are there activities that require face-‐ to-‐face?):

Review Notes (Academic) MOOC Options

Co-‐Designer Discussion

Course content: Assessment Component Enter each assessment task and add the value in brackets (5%): Tutorial submission (5%): Class participation (5%): MidTerm test (6%): Peerwise Quiz (4%): Final examination (50%): Assignment 1 (4%):

Review Notes (Academic)

MOOC Options



May 2013

107


Course content: Learning materials Component Resources (text): Tutorial problems and solutions: Assignment briefs: Peerwise:


MOOC Options


Course content: Staffing Component Teaching videos: Assignment feedback: Facilitation:


MOOC Options



MOOC Options


Course content: Group interactions Component

Course content: Summary of Overall Patterns Across Weekly Tasks Which elements are repeatable over weeks, topics or modules? (ie, what are the patterns for L&T activities) Component


MOOC Options



May 2013

108


Course content: Week-‐by-‐Week Inventory Detail all materials, resources, tasks and related issues (eg, access, sustained interaction needed in discussion groups)

Course content: Week 1 Component


MOOC Options



MOOC Options


Course content: Week 2 Component Continue for each week.


May 2013

109