Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

2018-07-10 ICALT 2018 in Mumbai Gap between MOOC Designers and Learners on Interaction GMQS Stracke Tan

243 views

Published on

2018-07-10 Paper presentation at ICALT 2018 in Mumbai on Gap between MOOC Designers and Learners on Interaction and GMQS findings by Christian M. Stracke and Esther Tan from OUNL

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

2018-07-10 ICALT 2018 in Mumbai Gap between MOOC Designers and Learners on Interaction GMQS Stracke Tan

  1. 1. Gap between MOOC designers' and learners' perspectives on inter- action and experiences in MOOCs: Findings from the Global MOOC Quality Survey (GMQS) Christian M. Stracke & Esther Tan
  2. 2. Open CC License for sharing & re-using slides This work is free to share under the creative commons licence: "Attribution – Noncommercial – Share Alike 3.0" You can copy, distribute and transmit the work under the following conditions: 1. Attribution – 2. Noncommercial – 3. Share Alike Licence: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike Some rights reserved, see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
  3. 3. Open University of the Netherlands Global cooperation: ECNU & KNOU Global initiative ICORE for OR & OE International WLS / LINQ Conference eLC European Institute ICDE Chair in OER Dr. Christian M. Stracke: Open Learning & Education, Innovations, Policies, Quality & Competences, Impact
  4. 4. Open University of the Netherlands The Quality of MOOCs Let’s Learn to Learn Seamless Learning Dr. Esther Tan Technology-Enhanced Learning, Innovations in & out Classroom
  5. 5. Selected Projects: Quality Management and EvaluationTechnology-Enhanced Learning at Large Scale Open Education and ResearchCompetence and Skills Modelling
  6. 6. Selected Projects: www.mooc-quality.euwww.isecure-edu.euwww.wacom-project.euwww.ecompetence.eu www.PBL-project.eu www.inspiringscience.eu www.opendiscoveryspace.euwww.inclusive-education.net www.MEDLIT.visionwww.digifem.euwww.voa3r.eu www.agriculture- competences.eu www.learn-STEM.orghttp://lelle.gtk.uni-pannon.huwww.learning-standards.euwww.aristotele-ip.eu
  7. 7. Presentation Outline 1. The Quality of MOOCs: What is the problem? 2. A Conceptual Framework towards MOOC QRF: Theoretical & Methodological Approach 3. Findings from MOOC surveys: Learners, Designers & Facilitators 4. Findings from MOOC OEQ: Learners, Designers & Facilitators
  8. 8. Goal 4: Inclusive and quality education Sustainable dev goals www.sustainabledevelopmentgoals.org
  9. 9. Goal 4: Inclusive and quality education Sustainable dev goals
  10. 10. What is Quality Education?
  11. 11. What is Quality?
  12. 12. A simple experiment ...
  13. 13. A simple experiment ...
  14. 14. Quality cannot be defined ... except through adaptation to your situation and context!
  15. 15. Any discussion on the quality of MOOCs should consider the goals of both, the MOOC learner and the provider. (Hayes, 2015) Critical questions to be addressed:  Who are the MOOC users, and why?  What makes a good MOOC from the learners’ experiences with MOOCs?  What are the best design principles and best practices as indicators of quality?  Are these quality indicators also MOOC domain specific and/ or MOOC type specific? Problem Statement
  16. 16. A Research Framework for MOOQ “When one designs any course, one has to have some learner cohort in mind.” (Macleod et al., 2015, p. 9) Main research goals: 1. Establish a research framework for the subsequent analysis of MOOC design patterns and best practices 2. Develop a Quality Reference Framework (QRF) for MOOCs Theoretical Framework
  17. 17. Global MOOC Quality Survey
  18. 18. Quality Reference Framework with criteria & checklist for MOOC design Our main goal is the collaboration with all to improve Open Education & MOOCs www.MOOC-quality.eu
  19. 19.  Subjects of Investigation: MOOC Learners, Designers, Facilitators & Providers  Mixed Methods Approach: Quantitative & qualitative data Combining the results from: 1. Global MOOC Quality Survey (GMQS) 2. Open-Ended questions (OEQ) from the GMQS 3. Semi-structured interviews 4. Many workshops at international conferences Methodological Framework
  20. 20. Instruments of Measure MOOC Learners MOOC Designers MOOC Facilitators MOOC Providers TOTAL Global MOOC Quality Survey 166 (69 qns.) 68 (89 qns.) 33 (58 qns.) - 267 Open- ended Questions 118 (4 qns.) 42 (4 qns.) 27 (4 qns.) - 185 Semi- structured interviews - 15 (15 qns.) 15 (10 qns.) 15 (13 qns.) 45
  21. 21. MOOC Survey Constructs Constructs Learners Designers Facilitators Experience with MOOC X X X Learning Objectives X X X Duration and Structure X X Learning Resources X X X Accessibility and Inclusion X X Learning Progress X Learning Environment X X Learning Assessment X X X Learning Certification X X Design Process X Pedagogical Decisions X Learning Support  Feedback & Facilitation  Interaction & Collaboration X X X
  22. 22. Global MOOC Quality Survey (GMQS)
  23. 23. Global MOOC Quality Survey
  24. 24. Demographic Profile Age range of all survey participants (learners, designers & facilitators) by gender
  25. 25. Demographic Profile Educational level of all survey participants (learners, designers & facilitators) by gender
  26. 26. n VB B N G VG Learning experience 166 4 4 13 75 70 Learning Experience (Learners)
  27. 27. n VB B N G VG Design experience 68 1 2 13 33 19 Design Experience (Designers)
  28. 28. Interaction from Learners‘ Perspective n N/A SD D N A SA LF 146 20 5 13 48 37 23 LL 146 15 3 17 34 51 26 LR 146 9 2 8 25 61 41 GG 146 37 4 15 50 24 16 Note: LF: Interaction between learners and facilitators LL: Interaction among learners LR: Interaction between learners and learning resources GG: Interaction among teams and groups
  29. 29. n R2 M2 p LF by learners 125 .094 9.382 .000*** LL by learners 130 .101 10.818 .000*** LR by learners 136 .112 12.286 .000*** GG by learners 108 .045 4.131 .026* Bivariate Correlations between LLR4 and LLE4
  30. 30. Interaction from Designers‘ Perspective n N/A SD D N A SA LF 52 2 1 5 11 24 9 LL 52 1 1 3 11 19 17 LR 52 3 1 0 4 22 22 GG 52 8 2 10 14 13 5 Note: LF: Interaction between learners and facilitators LL: Interaction among learners LR: Interaction between learners and learning resources GG: Interaction among teams and groups
  31. 31. n R2 M2 p LF by designers 49 .003 0.109 .703 LL by designers 50 .043 1.595 .143 LR by designers 48 .046 1.537 .138 GG by designers 43 .001 0.038 .821 Bivariate Correlations between DLR4 and DDE4
  32. 32. Open-ended Questions (OEQ)
  33. 33. MOOC Open-ended Questions (OEQ) MOOC Learners Q1. What were the three main strengths of the MOOC? Q2. What were the three main weaknesses of the MOOC? Q3. What was missing in the MOOC? Q4. Looking ahead into the development of this type of learning experiences, what could be improved in future MOOCs? MOOC Designers Q1. Which were the main design decisions that you made during the development of the MOOC that later proved to be successful? Q2. Which were the three biggest difficulties that you faced when designing the MOOC? Q3. Which design decisions did not pay off as you expected? Q4. Looking ahead into the development of this type of learning design experiences, what methods and tools could be helpful to improve the design of future MOOCs?
  34. 34. No of respondents across the six domains Domain Learners Designers Social Sciences, Humanities and Law 24 9 Education and Lifelong Learning 19 12 Computing and Informatics 18 5 Science, Math and Engineering 16 5 Nature, Environment and Health 21 6 Business, Management and Economics 20 5 Total 118 42
  35. 35. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Learners) Q1. What were the three main strengths of the MOOC? 217 units of analysis 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Curriculum Design & Delivery Instructional Design & Technology Assessment & Evaluation Facilitation & Feedback Interaction & Collaboration NumberofComments Social Sciences, Humanities and Law Education and Lifelong Learning Computing and Informatics Science, Maths and Engineering Nature, Environment and Health Business, Management and Economics
  36. 36. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Learners) Q2. What were the three main weaknesses of the MOOC? 123 units of analysis 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Curriculum Design Instructional Design & Technology Assessment & Evaluation Faciliation & Feedback Interaction & Collaboration NumberofComments Social Sciences, Humanities and Law Education and Lifelong Learning Computing and Informatics Science, Maths and Engineering Nature, Environment and Health Business, Management and Economics
  37. 37. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Learners) Three main strengths and weaknesses of the MOOC Strengths Weaknesses Curriculum Design & Delivery • Good choice & quality of content • Good teachers, presenters & tutors • LO aligns with content • Weak choice & quality of content • Short duration Instructional Design & Technology • Good integration of IT & media • Support self-regulation & individual learning paths • Poor use of IT technological tools • Resources lack variety & quality Interaction & Collaboration • Encourage local group discussion & activities • Foster interaction with field experts • Lack interaction: learner-tutor • No support for community building
  38. 38. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Designers) Q1. Which were the main design decisions that you made during the development of the MOOC that later proved to be successful? 59 units of analysis 1 3 3 42 1 1 3 3 6 5 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Assessibility& Inclusion Assessment & Evaluation Interaction & Collaboration Certification& Accreditation Curriculum Design& Delivery Expertise & Manpower Feedback & Facilitation Instructional Design& Technology No.ofComments Social Sciences, Humanities and Law Education and Lifelong Learning Computer and Informatics Science, Maths and Engineering Nature, Environment and Health Business, Management and Economics
  39. 39. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Designers) Q2. Which were the three biggest difficulties that you faced when designing the MOOC? 74 units of analysis 3 3 1 3 3 2 8 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 5 4 4 2 5 3 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Assessment & Evaluation Curriculum Design& Delivery Expertise & Manpower Feedback & Facilitation Institutional Support & Funding Instructional Design& Technology Interaction & Collaboration Open Access, Copyrights & Licensing No.ofComments Social Sciences, Humanities and Law Education and Lifelong Learning Computer and Informatics Science, Maths and Engineering Nature, Environment and Health Business, Management and Economics
  40. 40. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Designers) Successful Decisions Biggest Challenges Curriculum Design & Delivery • Content delivery format • Content structure & LOs • Weak choice & quality of content • Short duration Instructional Design & Technology • Choice of learning activities • Integration of IT & media • Platform, software & production decisions Interaction & Collaboration Expertise & Manpower • Creating community of learners • Foster interaction between learner & tutor/ facilitator • Gap in content & instructional design knowledge • Coordination & collaboration, e.g., different experts & teaching staff Three main successful decisions and three biggest challenges
  41. 41. Overview of QRF (work-in-progress) Dimension 1: Phases Analysis, Design, Implementation, Realization, Evaluation Dimension 2: Perspectives Pedagogical, Technological, and Strategic Dimension 3: Roles Designer, Facilitator, and Provider
  42. 42. Kind Invitation: MOOQ Conference on 13th of July 2018 in Athens, Greece The Quality Reference Framework (QRF) to be discussed & improved in interactive sessions: Registration is open and free! www.conference.MOOC-quality.eu
  43. 43. First References for GMQS Stracke, C. M., et al. (2018). Gap between MOOC designers' and MOOC learners' perspectives on interaction and experiences in MOOCs: Findings from the Global MOOC Quality Survey. In M. Chang, N.-S. Chen, R. Huang, Kinshuk, K. Moudgalya, S. Murthy, & D. G. Sampson (Eds.), Proceedings 18th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 1-5). IEEE: Computer Society. DOI 10.1109/ICALT.2018.0000 Stracke, C. M., & Tan, E. (2018). The Quality of Open Online Learning and Education: Towards a Quality Reference Framework for MOOCs. In J. Kay, & R. Luckin (Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age. Making the Learning Sciences Count: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018 (pp. 1029-1032). London: ISLS. Stracke, C. M. et al. (2017). The Quality of Open Online Education: Towards a Reference Framework for MOOCs. In Proceedings of 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1712-1715). IEEE Xplore. DOI: 10.1109/EDUCON.2017.7943080 To be continued …
  44. 44. christian.stracke@ou.nl esther.tan@ou.nl @ChrMStracke @Taneste www.opening-up.education Let us cooperate!
  45. 45. Thank you! Your questions? To be continued…

×