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: Quality assurance of MOOCs from an institutional perspective: the OpenupEd label

855 views

Published on

Quality assurance of MOOCs from an institutional perspective: the OpenupEd label by Jon Rosewell and Karen Kear, OUUK, 18 September 2018

Published in: Education
  • Your wife will never find out! .. Just send me a message and ask to F.U.C.K. ➤➤ http://t.cn/AiuW9zn5
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Just got my check for $500, Sometimes people don't believe me when I tell them about how much you can make taking paid surveys online... So I took a video of myself actually getting paid $500 for paid surveys to finally set the record straight. I'm not going to leave this video up for long, so check it out now before I take it down! ♣♣♣ https://tinyurl.com/make2793amonth
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Have you ever heard of taking paid surveys on the internet before? We have one right now that pays $50, and takes less than 10 minutes! If you want to take it, here is your personal link ▲▲▲ https://tinyurl.com/realmoneystreams2019
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Quality frameworks for MOOCs: Quality assurance of MOOCs from an institutional perspective: the OpenupEd label

  1. 1. Quality assurance of MOOCs from an institutional perspective: The OpenupEd label Jon Rosewell & Karen Kear, OUUK Quality in Higher Education EMPOWER / EADTU Webinar Week 18-20 Sept 2018
  2. 2. Why worry about MOOC quality? Students – know what they are committing to Employers – recognition of content and skills Authors – personal reputation, 'glow' of success Universities / Institutions – brand reputation Funders – philanthropists, government, investors Quality agencies – on behalf of all above Participants don’t judge correctly – for the same MOOC: ‘The worse course I’ve taken’ (158 posts) ‘Thanks Dr. ____ for a great course’ (177 posts)
  3. 3. Are MOOCs different from e-learning? • MOOC vs Higher Education e-learning – Short, free, no entry requirements • MOOC participants – Motivations differ from degree students – Completion may not be not their goal • But a MOOC is a Course so maybe it should be judged like any other HE course?
  4. 4. OpenupEd Quality Label • Framework for quality • Formal label – External review • Self-assessment • Include in internal process www.openuped.eu/quality-label
  5. 5. OpenupEd MOOC features • Openness to learners • Digital openness • Learner-centred approach • Independent learning • Media-supported interaction • Recognition options • Quality focus • Spectrum of diversity
  6. 6. OpenupEd MOOC benchmarks • Derived from E-xcellence benchmarks • For the institution: – To be checked every 3-5 years – 21 benchmark statements, in six groups: Strategic management, Curriculum design, Course design, Course delivery, Staff support, Student support • For the course: – To be checked for each MOOC – 11 benchmark statements
  7. 7. OpenupEd MOOC benchmarks • Benchmark = statement of best practice • Benchmarking as quality enhancement tool – Identification of weaknesses and strengths – Action plan for improvement • It is not expected that every institution will achieve every benchmark or feature – Improvement is the goal
  8. 8. Course design 9 The institution provides templates or guidelines for layout and presentation of MOOCS to support consistency across the portfolio. These templates have the flexibility to accommodate a range of teaching and learning methods. 10 Course materials, including the intended learning outcomes, are regularly reviewed, up-dated and improved using feedback from stakeholders. 11 The institution specifies an open licence for MOOC components, and has a mechanism to track intellectual property rights. Course delivery 12 The MOOC platform is reliable, secure and assures appropriate levels of privacy. Provision is made for system maintenance, monitoring and review of performance. 13 The MOOC platform provides a range of online tools which are appropriate for the educational models adopted. Benchmarks – institutional level
  9. 9. 22 A clear statement of learning outcomes for both knowledge and skills is provided. 23 There is reasoned coherence between learning outcomes, course content, teaching and learning strategy (including use of media), and assessment methods. 24 Course activities aid participants to construct their own learning and to communicate it to others. 25 The course content is relevant, accurate, and current. 26 Staff who write and deliver the course have the skills and experience to do so successfully. 27 Course components have an open licence and are correctly attributed. Reuse of material is supported by the appropriate choice of formats and standards. 28 The course conforms to guidelines for layout, presentation and accessibility. Benchmarks – course level
  10. 10. Quick scan
  11. 11. Quick scan NA: Not achieved PA: Partially achieved LA: Largely achieved FA: Fully achieved
  12. 12. OL: Openness to learners DO: Digital openness LC: Learner-centred approach IL: Independent learning MI: Media-supported interaction RO: Recognition options QF: Quality focus SD: Spectrum of diversity Quick scan
  13. 13. Case study • A representative Open University MOOC… • …published on FutureLearn • Evidence for OpenupEd features and benchmarks • Captured from report/description of processes Jansen, D., Rosewell, J., & Kear, K. (2017). ‘Quality Frameworks for MOOCs.’ In: M. Jemni, Kinshuk, & M. K. Khribi (Eds.), Open Education: from OERs to MOOCs, 261–281. Springer http://oro.open.ac.uk/47595/
  14. 14. Both the UKOU and FutureLearn have clear strategies and processes for MOOC production which are seen as essential to ensuring quality [#3, #5, QF]. These include commissioning processes on both sides so that course proposals are scrutinised at an early stage, one output of which is a course description [#18, #22, OL, IL]. This ensures that the course will meet the needs of learners [LC], as well as contribute to a MOOC portfolio that meets the strategic goals of both the HEI and platform [#1, #8, OL]. The UKOU delivers MOOCs on FutureLearn (with certificates) and on OpenLearn (with badges) [RO], which also includes access material [#8, OL, SD] and tasters for core non-MOOC curriculum [#7]. Both the UKOU and FutureLearn take very clear positions on aspects such as openness [#11, #27, DO], accessibility and inclusion [#4, #28, OL], and these values therefore permeate normal work, helping to ensure that material is produced that conforms to accepted standards without needing rework at a late stage. Course design is mainly the responsibility of the HEI, but is supported by guidance documents from FutureLearn [#9]. A strong steer is provided by the affordances of the platform, which is directed to a particular pedagogical model [#13, #23, LC, IL, MI]. This model appears to be successful, although it may limits the freedom of course authors to take alternative approaches. At a practical level, this can be seen in the way that FutureLearn currently only hosts a restricted set of resource types and activities [#13, #23], requiring the author or HEI to make alternative arrangements for some resources; the result is that not all FutureLearn courses are entirely self- contained [#5]. Course design is mainly the responsibility of the HEI, but is supported by guidance documents from FutureLearn [#9]. A strong steer is provided by the affordances of the platform, which is directed to a particular pedagogical model [#13, #23, LC, IL, MI]. This model appears to be successful, although it may limits the freedom of course authors to take alternative approaches. At a practical level, this can be seen in the way that FutureLearn currently only hosts a restricted set of resource types and activities [#13, #23], requiring the author or HEI to make alternative arrangements for some resources; the result is that not all FutureLearn courses are entirely self-contained [#5]. The UKOU process for course design follows the model used in development of their standard non-MOOC provision [#6, QF], although with fewer staff and at an accelerated pace. The early learning design workshop ensures that there is coherence between content, teaching and learning strategy and assessment [#23, LC, IL]. This workshop, together with guidelines from FutureLearn and the affordances of the platform itself (with its clear design in ‘steps’ and the emphasis on social learning [#20, #24, LC, SD]), also ensures that there is interactivity (student-to-student and student-to-content) to encourage active engagement [#29, LC, IL, MI]. Team writing and critical reading of drafts help to assure that content is relevant, accurate and current [#25, QF]. The process of course approval, which includes choice of authors, helps to ensure that staff have the required skills to develop material suitable Case study: OU + FutureLearn Tagged for OpenupEd features Tagged for OpenupEd benchmarks
  15. 15. Both the UKOU and FutureLearn have clear strategies and processes for MOOC production which are seen as essential to ensuring quality [#3, #5, QF]. These include commissioning processes on both sides so that course proposals are scrutinised at an early stage, one output of which is a course description [#18, #22, OL, IL]. This ensures that the course will meet the needs of learners [LC], as well as contribute to a MOOC portfolio that meets the strategic goals of both the HEI and platform [#1, #8, OL]. The UKOU delivers MOOCs on FutureLearn (with certificates) and on OpenLearn (with badges) [RO], which also includes access material [#8, OL, SD] and tasters for core non-MOOC curriculum [#7]. Both the UKOU and FutureLearn take very clear positions on aspects such as openness [#11, #27, DO], accessibility and inclusion [#4, #28, OL], and these values therefore permeate normal work, helping to ensure that material is produced that conforms to accepted standards without needing rework at a late stage. Case study: OU + FutureLearnInstitution level benchmark #11: The institution specifies an open licence for MOOC components, and has a mechanism to track intellectual property rights. Course level benchmark #27: Course components have an open licence and are correctly attributed. Reuse of material is supported by the appropriate choice of formats and standards. Features DO: Digital openness
  16. 16. Both the UKOU and FutureLearn have clear strategies and processes for MOOC production which are seen as essential to ensuring quality [#3, #5, QF]. These include commissioning processes on both sides so that course proposals are scrutinised at an early stage, one output of which is a course description [#18, #22, OL, IL]. This ensures that the course will meet the needs of learners [LC], as well as contribute to a MOOC portfolio that meets the strategic goals of both the HEI and platform [#1, #8, OL]. The UKOU delivers MOOCs on FutureLearn (with certificates) and on OpenLearn (with badges) [RO], which also includes access material [#8, OL, SD] and tasters for core non-MOOC curriculum [#7]. Both the UKOU and FutureLearn take very clear positions on aspects such as openness [#11, #27, DO], accessibility and inclusion [#4, #28, OL], and these values therefore permeate normal work, helping to ensure that material is produced that conforms to accepted standards without needing rework at a late stage. Case study: OU + FutureLearnInstitution level benchmark #4: The institution has a service relationship to MOOC participants that addresses ethical and legal dimensions including accessibility and data protection. Course level benchmark #28: The course conforms to guidelines for layout, presentation and accessibility. Features OL: Openness to learners
  17. 17. Case study: OU + FutureLearn • Quality emerges from joint efforts of OU (HEI) & FutureLearn (platform provider) • Holistic approach: – Institutional and course level – Process as well as product • Structures and processes embed a concern for quality throughout development, delivery and evaluation • There is no ‘Quality Assurance’ stage!
  18. 18. Questions? www.openuped.eu/quality-label Email: Jon.Rosewell@open.ac.uk Karen.Kear@open.ac.uk Thank you!

×