zmWmQs

“A hostage to fortune” – Validating Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) for University Credit
Peter Alston and Ben Brabon
acted strongly, saying he did not believe Ben’s point was
“particularly valid” and that doing something as differently
as this meant the university needed to start considering
things that are implicitly accepted: “But you would still
use the VLE in the same way; that’s what I’m saying […]
we don’t know about numbers, no one knows if the system
will stand up to it, but that’s always the case …” (Ben).
“This is what makes it difficult for us to put an institutional
stamp on it [and this] is fundamentally a problem Ben, because
we are then a hostage to fortune with the university’s
reputation” (Andy).
Other questions started to emerge regarding the panel’s
capacity to approve the module, with Laura suggesting
that for some of the issue being raised, they would not get
involved with. But since they were tied to the delivery, it
blurred the boundaries. Laura also suggested that if they
[the panel] were happy with the content and the learning
outcomes were relevant, the panel can make recommendations
to the university since issues regarding delivery
mechanics, paying for the module and registration issues
were not within the remit of the panel.
7. Discussion
The findings from this study demonstrate that the issues
of pedagogy, delivery and support that are considered in
‘traditional’ modules (QAA, 2011) are also deliberated
in the validation of a MOOC granting university credit.
Whilst MOC1001 was indeed successfully validated
against the FHEQ, many of the issues raised such as delivery
mechanics, paying for the module and registration
issues where not within the remit of the panel.
It stands to reason that both types of modules are considered
against the same principles, since the only differences
between them are the wholly online nature of the
MOOC and the lack of any entry requirements. Apart
from these features, MOC1001 ran in the same way as
any other module at the university. It offered the tried and
tested ‘transmission’ based model for the delivery of lecture
material, offering the learner a ‘personalised learning
experience’ by allowing them to view them at a time that
suits them. The weekly discussion forums, blog posts and
critical commentary helped to form learning communities
which exhibit key features of networked learning, including
knowledge construction through dialogue; a supportive
learning environment; online socialisation; learners
providing leadership for others; and a collaborative assessment
of learning.
At the same time, the processes of quality assurance
and the conservative approach adopted by the university
framed the learning experience as one in which the
teacher remained visible. This was supported by the ‘live’
synchronous classroom sessions through Collaborate
that served to maintain the focus and direction of the
learning journey towards the intended LOs and introduce
elements of ‘containment’ associated more readily
with ‘xMOOC’ pedagogies. The result was a movement
back towards what might be described as more traditional
forms of contact with the tutor via email, akin to the
teaching and learning patterns experienced on the campus-based
version of Vampire Fictions.
However, the main stumbling block at the validation
event focused on the number of students that would
partake in the MOOC and more importantly, how many
would want to pay for credit. Although there were a number
of issues that were left unresolved, the validation of
MOC1001 was approved subject to the mechanics of delivery,
enrolment and payment issues being addressed at
a later date. This surely is a triumph for ‘open education’
and opens up a number of possibilities for learners around
the world. But just how different is the MOC1001 to the
traditional module
It is clear that given the ‘massive’ nature of the course
presents some operational issues; for a university to give
it an official stamp of approval, it needs to be supplemented
by traditional forms of pedagogy, delivery and support.
As evident in this study, the university was uncomfortable
in validating a module where there was no limit on
numbers. However, MOC1001 does not appear to follow
the models of ‘extending’ the learning or working in collaboration
with commercial providers as shown in current
implementations. It offers a new business model that reduces
the costs associated with university study (alongside
the no entry requirements) resulting in a low barrier
to entry for students wanting to take up study and achieve
university credit. The absence of a ‘partner’ to support the
delivery of the course might place some strain on university
resources, but it allows the university to keep control
over the delivery, monitor the progress of their students
and keep 100% of the profit. By entering at the lower end
of the market, offering equivalent credits at (potentially) a
fraction of the price, this type of MOOC presents an opportunity
to challenge existing provision; an inexpensive,
low risk form of provision that can help to address the
financial constraints that many universities face, as well
as helping to shift the cost of education from the learner
to the university (Lawton and Katsomitros, 2012; Carey,
2013).
Reflecting back on the delivery of MOC1001 has revealed
the limitations of both xMOOC and cMOOC
pedagogical approaches. In particular, while a cMOOC
‘connectivist’ pedagogy is favourable to nurture self-regulation
and personal learning in an open educational
environment – utilising podcasts, blogs and Web pages
to create and share content – questions surface around
fulfilling learning outcomes, quality control and retention.
While cMOOC approaches are well matched to the
learning environment of open access courses without validated
credit options, there are potential risks associated
with the effective delivery of a validated, credit-bearing
Experience Track |181