George Siemens hat 2008 den ersten MOOC durchgeführt, zusammen mit Stephen Downes. Parallel experimentierte David Wiley mit verschiedenen Open Content-Projekten. Jetzt bieten beide gemeinsam einen sechs-wöchigen Kurs an, der “Introduction to Open Education” heißt und am 1. Oktober 2017 auf edX, einer der drei großen MOOC-Plattformen, startet. Man darf sicher gespannt sein zu sehen, wie die Pioniere ihre cMOOC-Ideen auf einer Lernplattform wie edX umsetzen. Immerhin haben sie sichergestellt, dass alle Inhalte unter einer offenen Lizenz zur Verfügung stehen. Und auch sonst wissen sie um den Spagat, den sie mit ihrem Thema und dem Format eingehen. Im Interview gehen sie auch auf die Entwicklung des Themas „Open Education“, ihre Ziele und Zielgruppen und ihre Erwartungen ein. Mein Lieblingssatz:
„We don’t need millions of dollars of research on why people don’t complete MOOCs. It’s because they’re MOOCs.“ (David Wiley)
I’m not going to get in to the detail of whether MOOCs have been the disruptive element for learning as many opined four or five years ago, many have written much more eloquently on this than I ever could. For more just search for related terms or read this and this and this and this.
I will, however, pass a few words and a little judgement on one aspect of some of the developments I’ve been following for ‘online learning’ – accreditation.
Firstly, has anyone else noticed that the original MOOC platforms don’t refer to the courses that are offered through them as MOOCs anymore? Even the platform that pushed ‘free online learning’ at every opportunity has dropped the ‘free’ from nearly all pages and courses. Obviously the ‘free’ business model was never going last long once the platforms realised that they had massive overheads to cover (staff, hosting, support, development, etc.), and that doesn’t cover the costs incurred by partners to develop the courses either.
For me online learning, whether it’s an degree awarded from an established College or University or a ‘free’ MOOC-esque course, has always been about the value the course is able to offer the student taking it. That value is both about the actual content and subject as well as the value the new knowledge has to the individual who has taken (and presumably passed) the course.
This value could be the
personal satisfaction in gaining new or further knowledge,
learning about a new skill or subject that has semi-professional interest (a subject at the periphery of the individual’s profession, but is not essential to it) or
something that is specifically relevant to the individual’s immediate role or career progression.
Learning is but one side of the reason someone will invest time and effort into learning. The learning needs a purpose – undertake a course on Shakespeare because you’ve always like his plays and want to know more about the plays and playwright. A family member is diagnosed with dementia and you want to know and understand more about the condition, etc. This is all well and good, but people who take courses for these reasons are unlikely to buy any kind of certificate or further learning opportunity from it. They are likely to go on and take other related courses, again to further their understanding.
People who take online courses who are doing it for a professional purpose (changing job or role, career progression, professional interest, etc.) are more likely to purchase some form of certificate, but it’s still not guaranteed. I’ve taken (well, started!) a few MOOCs related to my job and interests, and finished one (the #EDCMOOC)!
For me, the future of this kind of learning is what the course can really offer those people who complete it. A certificate is not enough – being able to show I completed 75% or 95% or another arbitrary number of the steps and all test questions means next to nothing. The certificate does not give any indication to whoever I show it to about what I had to do to get those steps completed or whether the test were 5 questions or 50. Did the course have an active educator or was it facilitated by an academic (not the course creator) or student from the partner institution? Was it facilitated at all, or just a click-next learning journey with a few tests or discussion points?. No, for me, if I’m going to pay for the course ‘certificate’ it needs to show something much much more. It needs to show how valuable it is to the industry I work in. Sometimes even the institution that created course isn’t enough pull for the certificate to mean anything.
A medical MOOC certificate would mean so much more if it was accredited by the International Council of Nurses, a marketing course accredited by the Chartered Institute of Marketing, etc. Not only could / should the course offer the opportunity to earn valuable CPD points but the accredited course outcome should be something a current or future employer would look at and immediately see the value to them; that this candidate is coming to work here with a good resumé, has shown initiative by taking further learning opportunities and is showing the skills to find and evaluate the courses that will offer them the best opportunity to further themselves.
I don’t think the way forward for MOOCs is for degree-credits either but it’s a popular route, probably as it’s easier to sell to the University partners than anything else. Only time will tell.
EdX, die zweitgrößte MOOC-Plattform, bietet jetzt einige ausgewählte Kurse auch via Amazon an. Und Class Central liefert nicht nur die Nachricht und einige beweiskräftige Screenshots, sondern auch eine erste Lesehilfe: “edX testing a potential new revenue source; Amazon strengthens its move into online learning”.
Man darf jedenfalls gespannt sein, wie sich der (globale) Weiterbildungsmarkt weiter sortiert. Nachdem Apple und iTunes U schon lange nicht mehr in den Schlagzeilen waren, ist LinkedIn Learning derzeit um so präsenter. Und jetzt Amazon, wenn auch dieses Mal “nur” als Reseller … Dhawal Shah, Class Central, 13. Februar 2017
For a few years now I’ve been spouting the same lines when it comes to planning a video for an distance learning course or MOOC: “preferably no more than 4 minutes, definitely no more than 6.” Anything more than 6 and we’d consider splitting it at a natural point in the subject, or working with the individual and their content and seeing where a natural break can be made, or other ways to shorten the video.
This has been supported by experience (from distance learning courses I’ve supported at both Bournemouth and Leicester University’s) and the MOOCs I’ve supported and developed while at Warwick, as well as articles like this.
As with everything, there is enough evidence to be found to support and to disprove it.
Yes, I agree that if you have a ‘teaching’ resource, where the academic/teacher is speaking to camera then there is an optimum length that someone will sit and be ‘talked at’, and this is where I see the 6 minute limit coming into play. These kinds of resources are often loaded to a VLE or a MOOC and as part of a set of resources for the topic or week’s subject area.
But there are other approaches to video content where I don’t see this working. What about case studies or mini-documentaries? What about a conversation, when a short 4 minute clip just isn’t enough to get in to the details? Do you still stick to the short-is-best message? In order for these to work you will often need to make it longer so the content and ‘message’ of the case study can be put across.
Let’s not forget, the video is nothing on it’s own. It must always be put into context for the student – why are you presenting the video for them to watch, what do you expect them to think about when they watch it, is there something they need to question as a result of the video (and/or linking it to other resources to build their wider knowledge about the subject area), can they critique the resource and present their findings back to the group, etc.?
Short, teaching video.
Taken from the Big Data course, this short video is a well-liked video of Associate Professor Suzy Moat talking directly to you, the student. It’s a great example of the personal approach you can still achieve from a 4 minute video, carefully planned and edited
Long, non-teaching video.
Taken from the Literature and Mental Health MOOC, again from my work at the University of Warwick, this is a 26 minute in-depth conversation between Professor Jonathan Bate and Stephen Fry. No ‘teaching’ takes place here, but a clear and engaging learning resource, in the form of a conversation, where two extremely knowledgable and passionate authors discuss poetic form:
We did try and see what we could edit from this in to a shorter clip for the core materials on the MOOC, whilst making this full version available to those who were interested enough. Then we thought ‘stuff it’, this is excellent as it is, with the ebb and flow of the conversation between them just a pleasure to watch and integral to the learning experience from this resource.
In this example, the students on the MOOC watched the video and reflected on their own interpretation of poetic form, of specific poems, of the love of poetry to relax and ‘meditate’ for their mental wellbeing. The sharing and social aspect of the video, and the strength of camaraderie they shared together on this single resource. This resource, in the first week of the MOOC, had 1,400 comments on it!
Short, non-teaching video.
We have also used a mixture of both the above – taken a long interview and provided a shortened version for the students and the fuller version on YouTube, for those interested in more detail, background, and more depth to the work. In this example we have an interview with Professor Steve Koonin, which was 11 minutes in total, and we produced a more concise 4 minute version and directed the learner to the long version if they were interested.
What happened was that the majority of students who left a comment on the video started by saying to ignore the short one (loaded to FutureLearn) and watch the full version on YouTube instead! There were five of these in total in the course, and each time students referred their colleagues to the longer ones, often saying they’d have loved to have more!
I have heard the argument before, when asking for the context of the video, that you “don’t get that on YouTube” so the students shouldn’t expect it on the VLE. Yes, but YouTube is not a structured learning environment and often, if you’re directing the students to the YouTube video you’d be telling them why. Again, the YouTube video on it’s own is nothing without the purpose of why you’ve given it to the students to watch it … !
For me the length of the video is never the issue. The video should be relevant and to the point, whether it’s an interview, conversation, or presentation, or a teaching style video that needs to get a particular theme or concept across. I will watch, and I realise this is ‘me’, two minutes or 20 minutes of a ‘learning resource’ if I am engaged and I see a purpose to it. If it becomes just waffle or filler or clearly does not have direct relevance to why I’ve been asked (there we are again – context) to watch it, then you’ve lost me and I’m on to something else.
Lastly, let me cover the subject of lecture capture – I recognise the video approaches above are far higher quality of resource and enterprise that went in to creating them, but the above does not mean there isn’t a place for lecture capture in online and campus based courses because there is.
If a two-hour lecture isn’t stimulating when you sit and watch it at home, then odds are it isn’t for those sitting in the lecture hall itself either. That’s not a fault of lecture capture or the technology; it’s more something the lecturer needs to address. No one would blame students in the lecture that was being filmed for letting their minds wander and for working on something else at some point, so surely it’s fine for those at home to do this too. Those watching the recording have the added benefit of pausing the stream for a break, email, message, etc. and can come back when they’re focussed again. Those watching the archive can re-watch the same section again and again if they like until they’ve understood the section that they couldn’t understand before, or couldn’t hear, or missed due to any other kind of distraction.
There is a place for all these types of video resources, whatever their length. Just so long as it’s relevant. Always relevant.
Ahh, questions around the purpose, quality, value, etc. in and around MOOCs have started again, and justly so.
Disclaimer: Like many I have opinions, but not answers.
The recently raised questions, started by Fred Riley on the ALT mailing list, have produced a good set of resources for those of us who are starting to ask these questions, needing a more comprehensive or value-added answer.
Fred’s original query was:
Does anyone on this list know of any recent research and/or articles on the teaching quality of MOOCs? I’m thinking of things such as:
student retention, with MOOC drop-out rates being notoriously high (I plead guilty to that myself :( )
student surveys and qualitative feedback
how many students in a MOOC platform (eg FutureLearn) go on to take further courses in that platform
I’m sure that there are many other indicators of quality – those are just off the top of my head. I’m not in the MOOC game myself as yet, other than as a punter, but I’m looking to get into the development side of things.
In some instances, especially around the data of students/learners taking further courses (across MOOC platform providers as well as within) is difficult, but I hope we can get to a stage where this kind of data is available and open to interrogation (if only for the individual partner to query their own courses).
Here are some of the resources shared, in response to Fred’s original query:
A report summarising the experience of the University of Edinburgh of offering our first 6 massive open online courses (MOOCs) in partnership with Coursera. University of Edinburgh
If you have any further links or resources that would help Fred and the ALT mailing list, please reply to the thread on the mailing list. If you don’t have access then please leave the link or your comment below for everyone to have the opportunity to read.
Yes, OK. Fred’s question also raises the question around the ‘quality’ of a MOOC, the validity in the data of learner retention or ‘steps completed’ as triggers for saying a MOOC is of a certain quality, or the student was ‘successful’ on the course, but these are for another post. Fred answered this quite clearly on the ALT mailing list that, for him “retention is IMO and indicator of quality as perceived by the student – the better retention, the more students are engaged with the course and its materials. If they don’t like a course, they’ll drop out.”
NB: I’ve helped run several runs of the Warwick/FutureLearn ‘Shakespeare and his World’ MOOC and use this as an example I use where the statistics provided for the 10 week course don’t necessarily match the actual experience. Case in point is the number of learners who complete the course, in that they take all the tests and mark at least one step as complete in each of the 10 weeks. We know from the learners themselves, from their comments, feedback, tweets, etc., that they take what they want from the course – one learner may only like Shakespeare’s comedy’s, another likes on his tragedy’s, so they will omit the plays/weeks they don’t like. They should still be viewed as a successful learner, and I’;m sure they think that of themselves, as in their own mind (and in ours!) they got what they wanted from the course, yet did not actually ‘complete’ it.
If there is one question for 2016 and MOOCs, it’s whether there is any way to really truly, honestly, understand the ‘value’ of a MOOC?
What are your thoughts on this – moderation and/or facilitation of MOOCs?
Considering the time, effort, and cost of developing these free courses (more information is available here or here or here, among other sources), what are your thoughts on how we manage the course, the comments and discussion during the run, and the subsequent comments and discussion during re-runs?
Do you have support, from technical and/or academic backgrounds monitoring the course to keep comments on track and answer pertinent questions? Are these paid positions or part of their role? Do you actively check the comments? If so, what for, why, and what do you do?
Do you design-in an element of real-time collaboration on the course (facilitation of discussion, round-up videos, Google Hangouts, etc.), and if so are these sustainable over multiple runs of the course? If you’ve done these before, but then designed them out of the course for re-runs, why?
All comments and feedback welcome – I’m trying to understand how we move MOOCs forward and maintain institutional ‘control’ where there is little (financial) reward.
One aspect of working on MOOCs is that there is no clear way to measure it’s success. Do you use the stats and logs that indicate clicks and time-on-page, or look at the nature of the conversations and/or comments made?
“Digging Deeper into Learners’ Experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of MOOCs, Notetaking, and contexts surrounding content consumption.”
Unsurprisingly the authors highlights the lack of literature around MOOCs that look into the metrics of MOOCs that are not captured on the MOOC platform (EdX, Coursera, FutureLearn, etc.), notably the social engagements, note-taking, and content consumption. Something I’d not considered before is the “availability of large-scale data sets appears to have shaped the research questions that are being asked about MOOCs.” It’s something I’ve wrestled with … are we asking the right questions about a course ‘success’, and do we have the right data to start with? I think not, on both counts. I would love to know more from learners on a MOOC, but the response rate on post-course surveys are typically low, typically completed by the ones who finished the course and enjoyed it. It’s the learners who signed up and didn’t visit the course, those who did visit the first step but then left, and those who dipped in and out that I really want to hear from. They have as much to say about the course, it’s content, it’s delivery, and it’s ‘merit’ as those who completed.
The paper concludes, rather disappointingly, by saying that “researchers need to dig deeper, and use an array of methodological tools to do so. Separately or together, each research method can lead to pragmatic suggestions to improve open teaching and learning through social, pedagogical, or technological approaches.” I shouldn’t be too surprised with the conclusion as there isn’t a good metric to define a MOOC or online courses’ success – it depends on what you define as the success (numbers of learners enrolled, numbers of learners completing, passed assessments, duration of study, post-course questionnaire, course reach, etc.)
Veletsianos, G., Collier, A., & Schneider, E. (2015). Digging Deeper into Learners’ Experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of MOOCs, Notetaking, and contexts surrounding content consumption. British Journal of Educational Technology 46 (3), 570-587
Im Gegensatz zu Coursera und Udacity ist edX, die dritte große MOOC-Plattform, eine Nonprofit-Organisation. Und Harvard und MIT als Gründer fühlen sich auch der Forschung verpflichtet. Also gibt es jetzt diesen zweiten Untersuchungsbericht. Dabei hat man sich 68 Online-Kurse, deren Teilnehmer und ihre Aktivitäten näher angeschaut. Vieles kreist noch um die Demografie der Lerner, ihre Motive und ihre Nutzungsgewohnheiten. Die didaktische Seite, also die Gestaltung der Kurse und damit verbundene Lernaktivitäten oder gar Lernerfolge, standen nicht auf der Agenda. Hier die wichtigsten Ergebnisse des Reports (Andrew Dean Ho u.a.: HarvardX and MITx: Two Years of Open Online Courses. Fall 2012-Summer 2014, HarvardX Working Paper No. 10, 30. März 2015):
- “Finding 1: Growth is steady in overall and multiple-course participation in HarvardX and MITx.”
- “Finding 2: Participation initially declines in repeated courses, then stabilizes”
- “Finding 3: Surveys suggest that a slight majority intends to certify. Many are teachers.”
- “Finding 4: Participation and certification differ by curricular area.”
- “Finding 5: Course networks reveal the centrality of large CS courses and the potential of sequenced
- “Finding 6: Certification rates are high among those who pay $25-$250 to “ID-verify” their
certificates.” Harvard Gazette, 1. April 2015
Johannes Heinlein ist Vizepräsident für Strategische Partnerschaften bei edX. edX, daran sei kurz erinnert, ist eine Nonprofit-Organisation, im Mai 2012 von MIT und Harvard University gegründet und heute eine der weltweit größten MOOC-Plattformen. Im Interview versucht Johannes Heinlein, die Gefahr einer Monokultur in der Bildung einzuordnen, aber vor allem beklagt er die zögerliche Haltung der deutschen Hochschulen, wenn es um das Thema MOOCs geht. Stifterverband, YouTube, 26. März 2015
Diese Woche hat MOOC-Veteran George Siemens einen neuen Open Course gestartet, über “Data, Analytics, and Learning” und auf der MOOC-Plattform von edX. Den Teilnehmern werden zwei Optionen angeboten: “Our goal was to enable learners to select either a formal structured pathway and a self-directed “learner in control” pathway.” Diese Verbindung von cMOOC und xMOOC in einem Kurs nennen die Organisatoren “dual layer”. Über 6.000 Teilnehmer haben sich in der ersten Woche eingefunden.
Die Anmerkungen von George Siemens sind ausführlich und lehrreich. Auch weil er und seine Mitstreiter sich mit den Erwartungen und Anforderungen einiger MOOC-Veteranen konfrontiert sehen. George Siemens, elearnspace, 28. Oktober 2014