Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

The EMMA 5D MOOC Framework

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Upcoming SlideShare
Fed Stimulus & Oer Workshop
Fed Stimulus & Oer Workshop
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 19 Ad

The EMMA 5D MOOC Framework

Download to read offline

Marcelo Maina and Lourdes Guàrdia from Universitat Oberta de Catalunya gave a presentation about the EMMA 5D MOOC Framework as part of the online events by expert pool Curriculum development & Course design within EMPOWER.

Marcelo Maina and Lourdes Guàrdia from Universitat Oberta de Catalunya gave a presentation about the EMMA 5D MOOC Framework as part of the online events by expert pool Curriculum development & Course design within EMPOWER.

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to The EMMA 5D MOOC Framework (20)

Advertisement

More from EADTU (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

The EMMA 5D MOOC Framework

  1. 1. The 5D MOOC Framework Barcelona, October 21, 2016 EMMA: A MOOC platform for cultural diversity and multilingualism Marcelo Maina (Professor at Psichology & Educational Sciences Department) Lourdes Guàrdia (Academic ICT Programe Director at UOC and Professor at Psichology & Educational Sciences Department)
  2. 2. Objective To inform about the different aspects of MOOC creation and delivery as well as to support stakeholders in decision making
  3. 3. Target To support the adoption of MOOC as a strategy, including administrative and logistic issues Teachers & professors Educational designers Senior level-stakeholders & Decisions makers Institutional Pedagogical To provide guidelines for MOOC design and facilitation Technical To implement and integrate the learning environment Technologists Developers
  4. 4. Identification of existing MOOC frameworks Selection of criteria for comparison Analysis and synthesis Identification of EMMA main attributes Alignment of EMMA attributes into frameworks synthesis Elaboration Framework elaboration 1 2 3 4 5 6
  5. 5. Identification of existing MOOC frameworks Selection of criteria for comparison Analysis and synthesis Elaboration 3 Source 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dimen sion Design (of MOOC) Media Pedagogy Space (platform) Assessment (of learning) Learner profile Time (pace, modality) Support (tech & facilitation) Knowledge type (content) Pedagogical Technological Interface design Evaluation Management Resource support Ethical Institutional General Context Instructional Resources Assessments & feedback Human (role, status, etc.) Functionalities Interactive Learning Environment Learner background and intention Technology infrastructure Evidence- based improvement Resources category Human Intellectual Equipment Platform Design decision category General Description Target Learners Pedagogical Approaches Objectives & Competences Learning contents Assessment Activities Complementar y Technologies DESIGN: Platform Course structure Contents and activities Logistics Accreditation Social components DEPLOYMEN T: Course evolution Participants engagement They found 3 main characteristics frequently found in other frameworks Openness Barriers to Persistence Models Open Massive Use of multimedia Degree of communicatio n Degree of collaboration Learning pathway Quality Assurance Amount of reflection Certification Formal learning Autonomy Diversity General topic Related dimensions identified in the literature Design Design of MOOCs, general description, course structure, openness, massive Pedagogy Pedagogy, Time (pace, modality), Pedagogical, Instructional, Pedagogical approaches, Objectives & Competences, Activities, Course evolution, Degree of communication, Degree of collaboration, Learning pathway, Amount of reflection, Formal learning, Autonomy, Diversity Platform Space, Technological, Interactive Learning Environment, Technology infrastructure, Complementary Technologies, Platform, Equipment Functionalities Interface design, Functionalities Assessment Assessment of learning, Evaluation, Assessment & Feedback, Evidence-based improvement, Assessment activities Content Knowledge Type (content), Contents, Learning contents Support Support (tech & facilitation), Management, Resource support, Human (role, status, etc.), Human, Intellectual, Logistics, Participants engagement Learner profile Learner profile, Learner background and intention, Target learners Media Media, Resources, Use of multimedia Accreditation Accreditation, Certification Institution Institutional, General, Context Others Quality assurance, Ethical, Barriers to persistence, Models, Social components 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Design (of MOOC) Media Pedagogy Space (platform) Assessment (of learning) Learner profile Time (pace, modality) Support (tech& facilitation) Knowledge type (content) Pedagogical Technologica l Interface design Evaluation Management Resource support Ethical Institutional General Context Instructional Resources Assessments & feedback Human (role, status, etc.) Functionaliti es Interactive Learning Environment Learner background and intention Technology infrastructur e Evidence- based improvemen t Resources category Human Intellectual Equipment Platform Design decision category General Description Target Learners Pedagogical Approaches Objectives & Competence s Learning contents Assessment Activities Complement ary Technologie s DESIGN: Platform Course structure Contents and activities Logistics Accreditatio n Social components DEPLOY MENT: Course evolution Participants engagement They found 3 main characteristi cs frequently found in other frameworks Openness Barriers to Persistence Models Open Massive Use of multimedia Degree of communicati on Degree of collaboratio n Learning pathway Quality Assurance Amount of reflection Certification Formal learning Autonomy Diversity
  6. 6. Identification of existing MOOC frameworks Selection of criteria for comparison Identification of EMMA main attributes Elaboration4 • Functionalities & platform • Multicultural & Multilingual • Translation & Transcription • Personalization & Aggregator • Learner experience • Learner interaction • Monitoring & Evaluation
  7. 7. Identification of existing MOOC frameworks Selection of criteria for comparison Alignment of EMMA attributes into frameworks synthesis Elaboration5
  8. 8. Identification of existing MOOC frameworks Selection of criteria for comparison Analysis and synthesis Identification of EMMA main attributes Alignment of EMMA attributes into frameworks synthesis Elaboration Framework elaboration 1 2 3 4 5 6
  9. 9. Set of questions 5 D MOOC FRAMEWOK 5stages (MOOC implementation) Examples The EMMA 5D MOOC framework is a way to describe the full cycle of MOOC creation and delivery Description
  10. 10. Establishing the overall purpose and scope DESIGN Decisions regarding the planning of the MOOC > > EMMA 5D MOOC Framework >>>> DECIDE >> DEVELOP Production of learning materials and the integration of all media content and services into the MOOC delivery platform DELIVER Ensuring that all the process goes as planned or accorded to DOCUMENT Process of documenting and reflecting on the decisions that have been taken in relation to the MOOC from start to end focusing on quality assurance and improvement
  11. 11. DOCUMENT > > >>>> >> DEVELOP DECIDE •Learner target •Course structure •Time management •Learning and assessment activities •Modality •Learner degree of interaction, communication, collaboration and engagement •Teacher role •Learning environment characteristics and functionalities •Strategies for course follow up •Course improvements •Teacher and learner support •Monitoring strategies for learner interaction •Technical support •MOOC content development •Learning environment customization •Translation and transcription •Media and multimedia integration •Organizational context •Legal issues •MOOCs logistics •Certification and accreditation •Cultural and linguistic diversity •Technology infrastructure •Management and development team Institutional Pedagogical Technical DELIVER DESIGN EMMA 5D MOOC Framework
  12. 12. DECIDE Transcription Translation (student view) • Multicultural and multilingual diversity •Is your MOOC cultural sensitive? •Does the platform support multilingual MOOCs? •Does the platform provide any translation/transcription service or application? •Does the institution provide any policy in multicultural and/or multilingual issues?
  13. 13. DESIGN Webinar: MOOC design E.g. EMMA functionality: Add peer assessment • Learning and assessment activities •What learning activities will better support the learning objectives? •Which role will the learner play? •What role do assessment activities play? •Does the MOOC platform support different assessment strategies (self and peer assessment, and formal evaluation)? •Are assessment and evaluation MOOC platform functionalities connected to the certification module? •Do the evaluation qualifications of the institution apply to MOOCs?
  14. 14. DEVELOP • Media and multimedia integration •Does the teacher have the skills for content integration? •How can I test the MOOC to ensure that all functionalities are working? •Which channels for dissemination can I consider? •Does the technical support comprise MOOC media integration and learning environment configuration?
  15. 15. DELIVER • Monitoring strategies for learner interaction •Which kind of feedback will I give the learner and when? •How to guarantee sustainable interaction among learners? • Does the platform provide comprehensive learning analytics for MOOC delivery monitoring and support intervention?
  16. 16. DOCUMENT • Course improvements •What relevant information should be collected to improve the course design, implementation and delivery? How and when? •How will the collected data be analyzed and interpreted? •How will learner satisfaction with the course be assessed? •Does the collected data provide relevant information about the institutional MOOC initiative? •Has the institution set up an integral data collection strategy for the MOOC implementation (e.g. MOOC and increasing enrolment, institution wider visibility, impact on online learning strategy or quality, etc.)?
  17. 17. Questions for you… • How this framework could support your decision to run and/or implement a MOOC? • Which should be a user-friendly way to present the framework?
  18. 18. {mmaina, lguardia } @uoc.edu info@europeanmoocs.eu #Eumoocs - @EUmoocs https://www.facebook.com/EUmoocs/ https://platform.europeanmoocs.eu/

Editor's Notes

  • I’m going to present in this part of the workshop the 5D MOOC framework. It presents the lessons learned from the Pilots experience and from the MOOC deployments, highlighting the best characteristics of the project that can be used by other actors in the future.
    Let’s see how the framework was performed.
  • What’s the objective of the 5D EMMA Framework?
    We decided to take an easy acronym like 5Ds and call it "EMMA 5Ds MOOC Framework". Its purpose is to “inform” about the different aspects of MOOC creation and delivery. Organized by 5 stages (each one starting with a D: Decide, Design, Develop, Deliver, Document), it includes main MOOC issues that must be addressed when deciding to run MOOCs. We think that considering all these stages contributes to highlighting the relevance and wide scope of EMMA (because we would like to highlight that it is not “one more platform”). 
     
  • Taking into account the rich experience on EMMA, the framework addresses different targets and perspectives: institutional, pedagogical and technical
    The framework can be used as a tool from three complementary perspectives among them:
    Institutional, the institutional perspective helps senior level stakeholders and decision-makers to support the adoption of MOOCs as a strategy, addressing administrative and logistic issues.
    Pedagogical, the pedagogical perspective supports teachers, professors and educational designers in providing guidelines for MOOC design and facilitation.
    Technical, an the technical one is orienting technologists and developers to implement and integrate the learning environment.

  • But how we proceed for the framework elaboration? The first step consisted on a literature review on existing MOOC frameworks or MOOC classifications schemes. As a result of this process we identified fifteen relevant documents for analysis. Based on our experience in EMMA and the purpose of the objective related to the framework we established a set of categories for the analysis of the documents and sources:  
    Artefact: framework, model, guideline, etc.
    Dimensions: components or elements present in the artefact.
    Objective: purpose of the artefact.
    Target: teacher, faculty, student, dean, principal, etc.
    Nature: instrumental and/or conceptual; context dependent or generic.
    Type: rubric, table, descriptive document, graphic, flowchart, etc.
    Relevance (for EMMA): the extent to which the framework could be linked to EMMA.
    Comments: additional observations.


  • Table 1. The third step consisted on the analysis of the selected literature according to the identified categories. As a result of this process, we elaborated a table listing the relevant features of each category. The Table shows an example of analysis for one source. Analysis of literature example
    Table 2. After that, we searched for common but also unique charcteristics of each category and proceed to merge those referring to similar aspects. Regarding the “Dimensions” category, we compared all dimensions identified within each of the 8 studied artefacts and integrated them into one.
    Table 3. This process led us to identify 12 general topics to group the dimensions from literature: Design; Pedagogy; Platform; Functionalities; Assessment; Content; Support; Learner profile; Media; Accreditation; Institution; and Others. This third Table shows the related dimensions per topic.
  • In parallel to the literature review process, we identified the most relevant attributes of the EMMA experience based on the most relevant project Deliverables (19) highlighting EMMA original contributions :
     
    Functionalities & platform
    Multicultural & Multilingual
    Translation & Transcription
    Personalization & Aggregator
    Learner experience - Surveys
    Learner interaction – Interactive learning environment is in the heart of the learning experience (Fournier & Kop, 2015). In the context of current model interactions between individual learners and collective learning process.
    Monitoring & Evaluation – Monitoring and evaluation is important part of the MOOC model by providing possibilities to improve the MOOC designs and teaching practices for more deep learning experieces.

  • How EMMA attributes match into framework synthesis identified from literature. You can see in another colour the new attributes added in this table.
     


  • So, this is the full process followed. And the final results goes to propose the EMMA Framework
  • From this process, the reflection done addressed us to determine the 5 D, a set of question for each stage and examples.
  • But what’s the main goal of each step?
  • Some examples related to each stage…
  • The intention behind the framework is that people could use it as a tool (support to thinking, evaluating, decision making) in a useful way. That's why, in addition to the framework itself, we have included for each stage of the framework a set of key aspects together with a list of guiding questions organised according to the three framework perspectives; it also provides examples from the EMMA experience or other MOOC initiatives.

    And what kind of questions we propose for each stage and perspective? Just to give you one example of one of the dimensions of DECIDE. Let’s see:
  • 1st question: Do you think that the framework presented can help you in your decision making process? We tried to define an easy process, but should be interesting to know your opinion about the proposal.
    2nd question: And what do you think that the framework should be presented? As a matrix? Using an application for decision making?

×