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.

Quality frameworks for MOOCs: Checking MOOC quality afterwards: the case of accessibility

174 views

Published on

Checking MOOC quality afterwards: the case of accessibility by Francisco Iniesto, OUUK, 18 September 2018

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Quality frameworks for MOOCs: Checking MOOC quality afterwards: the case of accessibility

  1. 1. Checking MOOC quality afterwards: the case of accessibility Francisco Iniesto The Open University Webinar: Quality frameworks for MOOCs 18 September 2018
  2. 2. Study A: The perspectives of providers Study C: MOOC accessibility audit Study B: The perspectives of learners 26 Interviews with MOOC providers and those with a range of expertise in the MOOC community 15 interviews with disabled learners Pre and post MOOC survey data from 14 Open University MOOCs at FutureLearn 1. Accessibility heuristic evaluation 2. UX walkthroughs and design in learning 3. Quality of the design 4. Universal design for Learning (UDL) Being tested on FutureLearn, edX, Coursera and Canvas. Contextualisation An Investigation into the accessibility of MOOCs (Iniesto et al., 2018)
  3. 3. The MOOC accessibility audit
  4. 4. Quality evaluation Accessibility vs quality? “The increase of quality in MOOCs is going to help a better accessibility to all learners, disregarding of disabilities. 1. Mulder and Jansen (2015) conclude, when exploring if MOOCs can be an instrument in opening up education, that MOOCs cannot remove all barriers to learning but can contribute to ensuring quality education to all. 2. In the same line of argumentation, Schuwer et al. (2015) point out the lack of MOOCs to offer formal pathways to recognise academic qualifications and the inequality of access that provides. 3. Stracke et al. (2018) reflect on the need to provide MOOCs with better quality to address new target groups, to be used in multicultural and multilingual environments.“
  5. 5. Quality evaluation Background: 1. Quality Frameworks for MOOCs (Jansen et al., 2016) 2. OpenupEd label (Rosewell & Jansen, 2014), based around the E-xcellence 3. ECO eLearning (Osuna et al., 2016), Score 2020 (Score2020, 2016) and BizMOOC (BizMOOC, 2017) projects The checklist had to be updated in with the following aspects: 1. The language used had to be changed and oriented to evaluate a MOOC that was already produced and being run. 2. Select the criteria that are applicable considering a MOOC that is online and is being evaluated after its production.
  6. 6. The MOOC accessibility audit 1. All the checklist share the same structure for every single criterion: • What to test for: information to help the evaluator to know what the criterion is evaluating. • Testing method: information to help the evaluator to proceed to test the criterion. • Comments: space for the evaluator to add free comments. 2. All the checklist share the same rating method: • NA (Not achieved): The feature to test is missing. • PA (Partially achieved): The feature to test is available but not integrated. • LA (Largely achieved): The feature to test is available and partially integrated. • FA (Fully achieved): The feature to test is available and fully integrated. • If the criterion is not relevant, “Not Applicable” is added to the comments
  7. 7. Quality evaluation Criteria Reason to be removed Accessibility Redundancy with the rest of the checklists of the audit Visibility Focused internally on the organisation Support to staff Focused internally on the organisation Criteria Decision taken Massive To remain in the checklist Course To remain in the checklist Target group Partially removed from the checklist Learning Objectives / Outcomes To remain in the checklist as learning objectives Content / Assets Partially removed from the checklist as educational resources Feedback mechanism To remain in the checklist Platform To remain in the checklist Support for MOOC participants To remain in the checklist as support for MOOC learners Study unit European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) updated into number of hours Group of criteria to be removed Group of criteria that needed an extra explanation
  8. 8. Quality evaluation Group of criteria Criteria Number Total The MOOC criteria Massive 1 13 Open 5 Online 1 Course – study unit 1 Full course 5 Quality of the design Target group 2 28 Workload 2 Overall goal 1 Learning objectives 5 Learning activities 5 Educational resources 5 Feedback mechanism 6 Assessment 4 Technical platform and support for learners Platform 2 9 Support for MOOC learners 7 50 1.2.1 Open - enrolment 1.2.2 Open - access 1.2.3 Open - location 1.2.4 Open - prior knowledge 1.2.5 Open - free
  9. 9. Current work ✓ 1st run of the accessibility audit through FutureLearn, Coursera, edX and Canvas ✓ Analyse findings ✓ Optimisation of the audit ✓ Overlap between the four parts of the audit, unification of criteria
  10. 10. References • BizMOOC. Report 5.3.Quality Assurance Report 2 (2017) • Iniesto, F., McAndrew, P., Minocha, S., & Coughlan, T. (2017). An investigation into the perspectives of providers and learners on MOOC accessibility. In: TEEM'17: international conference technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculurality • Jansen, D., Rosewell, J., & Kear, K. (2016). Quality Frameworks for MOOCs. In M. Jemni, Kinshuk & M.K. Khribi (Eds.), Open Education: from OERs to MOOCs. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology (LNET). pp. 261-281 Aug 18, 2016. Berlin: Springer. • Osuna Acedo, S., Frau-Meigs, D., Camarero Cano, L., Bossu, A., Pedrosa, R. & Jansen, D. (2016). Intercreativity and interculturality in the virtual learning environments of the ECO MOOC project. In M. Jemni, Kinshuk & M.K. Khribi (Eds.), Open Education: From OERs to MOOCs. Berlin: Springer. • Mulder, F., & Jansen. D. (2015). MOOCs for Opening Up Education and the OpenupEd initiative. In: C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, T. H. Reynolds (Eds.). The MOOCs and Open Education Around the World. New York: Routledge Tayler & Francis Group. • Rosewell, J., & Jansen, D. (2014). The OpenupEd quality label: benchmarks for MOOCs. INNOQUAL: The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 88–100. • Schuwer, R., Gil-Jaurena, I., Hakan Aydin, C., Costello, E, Dalsgaard, C., & Brown, M., et al. (2015). Opportunities and threats of the MOOC movement for higher education: the European perspective. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Special Issue on European MOOCs. 16 (6), 20–38. ISSN 1492-3831. • Stracke, C. M., Tan, E., Texeira, A. M., Pinto, M., Kameas, A., Vassiliadis, B., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2018). Gap between MOOC designers’ and MOOC learners’ perspectives on interaction and experiences in MOOCs: Findings from the Global MOOC Quality Survey. Proceedings 18th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 1-5). IEEE: Computer Society.
  11. 11. Checking MOOC quality afterwards: the case of accessibility Francisco Iniesto The Open University Francisco.Iniesto@open.ac.uk

×