zmWmQs

Recommendations

Info

First time MOOC provider: reflections from a research-intensive university in the UK Neil Peter Morris, Stephen Livesey and Carol Elston viduals and teams within Schools and Faculties have more potential to deliver than proposals that are suggested to academic staff from external individuals. This is due in part to a lack of understanding about the potential benefits of MOOCs for an individual academic or their School, a lack of time to envisage or develop a course or a lack of leadership to reorganize existing priorities in order to react quickly to potential opportunities. Finally, it is worth noting the general level of interest in MOOCs from the academic community at the University of Leeds. An institution-wide survey was delivered during the summer of 2013 to gauge academic staff’s views about the potential of MOOCs to disrupt higher education. The survey received 256 responses and 55 academics across all of the University’s Faculties expressed interest in developing a MOOC now. A further 73 academics expressed interest in developing a MOOC in the next one to two years (Morris et al., unpublished data). Development of MOOCs for delivery The university has established a new team responsible for the development of MOOCs across the University. This digital learning team also has responsibility for the University’s other external digital learning channels (e.g. iTunesU) and for supporting the embedding of the blended learning strategy within Schools and Faculties. The digital learning team consists of a director, digital learning manager, learning technologist, digital content officer, project officer and student interns. The director, reporting directly to the Pro-Vice Chancellor for student education, is responsible for the digital learning and blended learning strategies, interaction with other service directors and has responsibility as the university’s FutureLearn representative. The digital learning manager is the manages the external digital learning channels and is responsible for overseeing the development of MOOCs from initial conception, through development, delivery and reporting of outcomes. The learning technologist works very closely with the academic lead responsible for the MOOC translating their vision, ideas and learning materials into an educationally appropriate online course. The digital content officer is responsible for production of all digital assets (e.g. video and audio etc.) for use in the MOOC and works closely with the learning technologist throughout the process. The digital learning team is currently making use of the valuable skills within the student community at the University through employment of student interns, working in partnership with students to develop materials for the MOOC (e.g. animations) and including students in the delivery of the MOOC under the direction of the academic lead, and will continue to do so. The digital learning team is producing bespoke content for use within the University’s MOOCs. This means that the first step in production of the MOOC is for the academics involved to produce written scripts for the whole course, based on the agreed course structure. The next step is for these scripts to form the basis of green screen video recordings capturing the academic’s spoken word and face for use within digital learning materials. Building on established principles of high quality e-learning materials (Alonso et al, 2005), these recordings are then overlaid with relevant video footage, slide presentations, animations and other interactive activities to maintain learner engagement, deepen learning and support multiple learning styles. As video presentation forms the main basis of the FutureLearn platform functionality at present, a lot of focus has gone into ensuring that these resources are maximally useful to learners. However, additional resources are also being provided to learners in the form of transcripts, audio files and additional material such as links to research papers and web resources. Significant emphasis is also placed on the opportunities for social interaction between learners and with teachers within the platform, and for these interactions to be directly related to learning resources being presented at the time. The sophistication of the social learning aspects of the Future- Learn platform in the future will offer opportunities for group based collaborative learning, an invaluable feature of any learning environment (Dawson, 2009). The University’s first MOOC was delivered in October 2013, lead by Professor Jon Lovett from the School of Geography. The MOOC explored the challenges associated with making difficulty decisions about natural resource management, and encouraged participants to use basic principles to help them make decisions with fairness and integrity. Feedback from the first MOOC The focus of this paper is on the University’s experience of developing its first MOOC, but it is insightful to offer some feedback from participants as a measure of the success of the approach taken. The two-week course was delivered on the FutureLearn platform under a beta launch and attracted over 5000 participants from over 100 countries around the world. The participants generated over 10,000 comments in discussion forums, facilitated by the academic lead, his research staff and a number of final year undergraduate students studying a similar campus-based course. The level of interaction from educators was strongly praised by course participants. Over 50% of the participants had no experience of the subject matter in the online course, but the majority visited the course at least a few times a week, spending an average of 24 minutes and visiting an average of 15 pages. The course did not have an end of course examination, so completion rate cannot easily be measured, but participant engagement was over 50% during the second week of the course. Over 90% of the participants rated the course as excellent or very good, and 97% indicated that they would recommend it to a friend or colleague. Partic- Experience Track |262
First time MOOC provider: reflections from a research-intensive university in the UK Neil Peter Morris, Stephen Livesey and Carol Elston ipants were particularly complimentary about the additional course support materials: in particular, 86% liked the course orientation materials, 72% liked the study skills advice, 87% liked the accompanying written transcripts and 74% liked the subtitles on video content. Post-course survey data indicated that the majority of participants enjoyed viewing learning resources in video format (79%) and taking interactive quizzes (82%). However, the participants were not as social in their learning habits as may be expected from online learners: only 51% liked discussing things online with other learners. This may be due in part to the functionality available on the platform at the time of the course delivery; there was only a basic discussion tool which didn’t not support searching, filtering or tagging features, meaning that discussion threads quickly became excessively long and unwieldy. This has been addressed in recent upgrades to the platform. References Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D. and Viñes, J. M. (2005), An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36: 217–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00454.x Bartholet, J. (2013) Students Say Online Courses Enrich On-Campus Learning. Scientific American. Retrieved from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfmid=students-say-online-courses-enrich-on-campus-learning Dawson, S. (2009). ‘Seeing’ the learning community: an exploration of the development of a resource for monitoring online student networking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 736-752. Mehaffy, G.L. (2012). Challenge and change. EDUCAUSE Review, September/October 2012, 25-41. Retrieved from http://net.educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1252.pdf University of Leeds (2012) Open Educational Resources Policy. Retrieved from http://wiki.creativecommons.org/University_of_Leeds_ Open_Educational_Resources_guidance Conclusions The time elapsed from agreeing a University strategy for MOOCs to delivering our first MOOC on the Future- Learn platform was nine months, which is very rapid for the Higher Education sector. For many academics, the pace of change in respect of digital technologies and their impact on higher education is too fast. However, universities have no alternative but to remain at the forefront in the use of new technologies to support learning, particularly given the intense competition from private providers and other institutions. Many undergraduate students are already supplementing their on-campus experience by enrolling on MOOCs offered by other universities (Bartholet, 2013), and this trend is likely to increase further, and may soon be seen by students as a lack of provision in universities where MOOCs are not offered. Although it is not yet clear whether there is a sustainable business model for direct income from individual learners in the emergent MOOC market (Mehaffy, 2012), there are tantalizing examples of how businesses may be looking to commission higher education institutions to provide MOOCs for professional development and training for employees, which is likely to generate a very clear revenue stream. This paper has described a journey to develop and deliver openly accessible online courses to learners around the globe, for the benefit of individuals with the potential to learn and improve their individual situation. Experience Track |263
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings of the European MOOC St
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Understanding Per
Page 5 and 6:
Understanding Persistence in MOOCs
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Analysing student participation in
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Signals of Success and Self-directe
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Analyzing completion rates in the F
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Challenges for conceptualising EU M
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Scaffolding Self-learning in MOOCs
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Towards an Outcome-based Discovery
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Dropout Prediction in MOOCs using L
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Self-Regulated Learning in MOOCs: D
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Extending the MOOCversity A Multi-l
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Encouraging Forum Participation in
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
MOOC Learning in Spontaneous Study
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Dropout: MOOC Participants’ Persp
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Reflections on Enrollment Numbers a
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
The SIRET Training Platform: Facing
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
MOOCs in fragile contexts Barbara M
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Cultural Translation in Massive Ope
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
A typology and dimensions of a desc
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Characterizing video use in the cat
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
How Students Learn using MOOCs: An
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
A Platform that Integrates Quizzes
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Designing Video for Massive Open On
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Proceedings Experience Track Procee
Page 171 and 172:
Opening up higher education through
Page 173 and 174:
Designing your first MOOC from scra
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
“A hostage to fortune” - Valida
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
and others discussed COER13 issues
Page 187 and 188:
tion process, in addition to the mu
Page 189 and 190:
TORQUEs: Riding the MOOC wave to be
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Engineering MOOCs for Future Engine
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
The Discrete Optimization MOOC An E
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Recasting a Traditional Course into
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Evaluation and field trials of MOOC
Page 211 and 212: Evaluation and field trials of MOOC
Page 213 and 214: Evaluation and field trials of MOOC
Page 215 and 216: Learning Electronics through a Remo
Page 217 and 218: Learning Electronics through a Remo
Page 219 and 220: abiertaUGR: modelling online learni
Page 221 and 222: abiertaUGR: modelling online learni
Page 223 and 224: University of London International
Page 229 and 230: The EPFL MOOC Factory Patrick Jerma
Page 235 and 236: Open Online Courses in the context
Page 237 and 238: Open Online Courses in the context
Page 241 and 242: Friendly Handmade Explanation Video
Page 243 and 244: Friendly Handmade Explanation Video
Page 245 and 246: Designing for the Unknown Learner H
Page 247 and 248: Designing for the Unknown Learner H
Page 249 and 250: MOOC Experience in the University o
Page 251 and 252: MOOC Experience in the University o
Page 253 and 254: Mathematics Courses: Fostering indi
Page 259 and 260: First time MOOC provider: reflectio
Page 261: First time MOOC provider: reflectio
Page 265 and 266: An Academic Online Resource at Téc
Page 267 and 268: An Academic Online Resource at Téc
Page 269 and 270: Opening up higher education through
Page 271 and 272: SPOCs for Remedial Education: Exper
Page 277 and 278: Experiments with connectivism from
Page 283 and 284: Towards a quality model for UNED MO
Page 289 and 290: Project-based MOOCs. A Field Report
Page 291 and 292: Project-based MOOCs. A Field Report
Page 293: Reviewers of Experience Track: Carl
show all

zmWmQs

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?