Forging new pathways of research and innovation in open and distance learning

Recommendations

Info

A MOOC with a Difference: Creating Community for Learning in MOOCs Martha Cleveland-Innes et al. The creation of LTLO rested on sound instructional design strategies (Sheninger, 2016) and the premises found in the online community of inquiry as identified by Garrison, Anderson, & Archer (1999). For Sheninger, “instructional design (ID) is part creative arts and part science which utilizes theoretical as well as practical research in the areas of cognition, educational psychology, information technology, graphic and Web design, and problem solving. ID aims to create the best instructional environment and learning materials to bring a learner from the state of not knowing, not feeling or not being able to accomplish certain tasks to the state of knowing, feeling and being able to accomplish those tasks in a given subject area through carefully organized interactions with information, activities and assessments” (Sheninger, 2016; p.18). These carefully organized interactions were guided by the requirements of social, cognitive, and teaching presence as identified in the community of inquiry framework (Garrison et al., 1999); it is at the convergence of these three mutually reinforcing elements that a deeply personal, collaborative constructivist educational experience may be realized. Background Usually referred to as online learning, web-based teaching and learning describes a learning environment which is electronically supported: virtual classrooms, Internet-based learning management systems with multi-media digital materials and meetings spaces. These spaces are self-paced, self-directed learning opportunities and, in the case of formal, accredited education programs, led by an instructor. Online learning surfaced in the 1960s as an education delivery method through the evolution of distance education – a unique form of education delivery with specific roles for teachers and learners. These roles in distance education are unique to the delivery method and significantly different than the roles of students and teachers in face-to-face, traditional higher education. According to Allen and Seaman in the US, online learning is on a consistent increasing trajectory, and all expectations are that participation will continue to grow. Athabasca University in Canada has been providing accessible, open, distance and online learning since the 1970s. The most recent form of open, distance, online teaching and learning delivery has caused a significant stir –Massive Open Online Courses, or MOOCs. A unique form of distant and open education, MOOCs provide informal learning opportunities and access to knowledge and knowledgeable people previously out of reach for many. Some suggest that the advent of the MOOC initiative is the most significant event in higher education to occur in decades. Considered from the point of view of access to education, MOOCs are a moderate increase to access available to someone willing to study online, but may compromise education quality out of balance to the benefit to access afforded by a MOOC. The massive open online course is still under-investigated, with institutional investment and media attention preceding a more rigorous, peer-reviewed evaluation of its effectiveness as a learning medium. Gasevic et al. (2014) point out this lack of methodological or theoretical rigour in early MOOC reports, suggesting a difficulty in applying existing social learning frameworks at the scale of a MOOC. However, the notion that productive learning 28 Reaching from the roots – 9 th EDEN Research Workshop Proceedings, 2016, Oldenburg ISBN 978-615-5511-12-7
A MOOC with a Difference: Creating Community for Learning in MOOCs Martha Cleveland-Innes et al. environments, as are required in higher education, can be constructed without facilitator leadership is deemed to be erroneous (Cleveland-Innes, Briton, Gismondi, & Ives, 2015). In order to address this issue, this study tested the role of facilitator in a MOOC environment and identified unique patterns of participant interaction when facilitator roles moved from direct and on-demand to supportive and facilitative. Methods Learning to Learn Online was designed by a team of educators: researchers in online learning, professors with experience teaching online, instructional designers, and a web-analyst. Design imperatives were identified from the online learning conceptual framework called the online community of inquiry by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999) and the preliminary MOOC instructional design research by Athabasca University researchers Cleveland-Innes, Briton, Gismondi, and Ives (2015). Because research strongly suggests that instructor presence is essential to the success of online learning (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Akyol & Garrison, 2014), we designed LTLO with three levels of instructor presence. These three levels represent, individually and in combination, the three requirements of online teaching presence: design and organization, direct instruction, and facilitation. These are manifested in the roles of a lead course Instructor, one Inspirer who supported and summarized learning activities, and discourse Facilitators. The course is “led” by a professor who offers direct instruction, who will act as the figurehead of the MOOC in the role of the primary Instructor. The instructor provides a consistent “flat” presence through the use of pre-recorded video / pre-set text segments. The second layer of instructor presence (the Inspirer) uses a combination of guiding participants through the design and organization of the course, reviewing direct instructions, and facilitating participant experience as necessary. The Inspirer is an Instructional Designer. The third level of instructor presence, the Facilitators, are a dynamic presence, responding to learner emails, discussion board posts, submissions and activities, etc. These facilitators are AU Masters students. Following the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999), one of the key elements of LTLO’s design was to create smaller, more focused learner support networks within the MOOC by dividing the students into a number of homeroom forums for facilitated, general discussions. Students were divided into homerooms alphabetically by first name, with no attempt to group by characteristics, abilities, or interests. As part of their learning, students were also prompted to contribute to additional population-wide, lessonrelated activity forums throughout the course, with all facilitators participating in each activity forum. In the first offering, ten such homeroom forums were created, each with its own facilitator, along with separate forums for each activity, for a total of 39 forums. The facilitators received Reaching from the roots – 9 th EDEN Research Workshop Proceedings, 2016, Oldenburg 29 ISBN 978-615-5511-12-7
Page 1 and 2: 9 th EDEN Research Workshop Forging
Page 3 and 4: Introduction Distance education is
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS ADVANCED DISTANCE
Page 7 and 8: LEARNING ANALYTICS Scaling Learning
Page 9 and 10: Forging new pathways of research an
Page 11 and 12: Towards a Framework for Virtual Int
Page 19 and 20: Towards Designing an Oxford Experie
Page 27 and 28: Emergent Evaluation: An Initial Exp
Page 35: Forging new pathways of research an
Page 39 and 40: A MOOC with a Difference: Creating
Page 41 and 42: A MOOC with a Difference: Creating
Page 43 and 44: Use of MOOCs in Traditional Classro
Page 53 and 54: Head Start Online: A MOOC for those
Page 63 and 64: Carrots and Sticks: Workload and Pe
Page 75 and 76: Online Learning in Community Colleg
Page 85 and 86: The Usability Evaluation of UniCamp
Page 87 and 88:
The Usability Evaluation of UniCamp
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Forging new pathways of research an
Page 97 and 98:
Connecting in the Online Environmen
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Contextualising Learner Experience:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Investigating the Effectiveness of
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
WhatsApp: “Going where the Conver
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
A Study of the Use of Ubiquitous Mo
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Differentiated Technology-Based Int
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Using Digital Technologies for Incl
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Video in Higher Education: Examinin
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Policy Review of Open Badges for Op
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Open Educational Resources (OER): G
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Monitoring Progress on Open Educati
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
A Programmatic Approach to Blended
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Teaching Science through Technology
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Contributions to Teaching Practice
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
The Irish Online Learning Landscape
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
The State of Distance Education in
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Scaling Learning Analytics: The Pra
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Integration of Learning Analytics i
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Learning Reprioritised: Supporting
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Personal Learning Environments: Mov
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Learning Analytics in Distance Educ
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Credit, Trust and Open Education Ka
Page 329 and 330:
Credit, Trust and Open Education Ka
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Supporting the Capacity Development
Page 335 and 336:
Supporting the Capacity Development
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
The Role of Learning Design and Lea
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Changing Landscape of the Lifelong
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
eLene4work - Developing a Framework
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Collection of "Synergy" Synopses 35
Page 363 and 364:
I-LINC The stakeholders’ platform
Page 365 and 366:
EuroDuaLE European cooperative fram
Page 367 and 368:
t-MAIL Teacher Mobile Application f
Page 369 and 370:
eLene4work Learning to learn for ne
Page 371 and 372:
ARMAZEG Developing Tools for Lifelo
Page 373 and 374:
LeHo Learning at Home and the Hospi
Page 375 and 376:
SeaL Seamless Learning in Lake Cons
show all

Forging new pathways of research and innovation in open and distance learning

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?