Presented by Mirjam Hauck of The Open University at The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK on 15 June 2017. This presentation formed part of the FutureLearn Academic Network section (FLAN Day) of the 38th Computers and Learning Research Group (CALRG) conference. For full details, see http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloudscape/view/3004
Explore beautiful and ugly buildings. Mathematics helps us create beautiful d...
How to design for transition: beyond MOOCs
1. How to design for transition:
Beyond MOOCs
Mirjam Hauck
The Open University
School of Languages and Applied Linguistics
2. How to design for transition:
Beyond MOOCs
Outline
• A few thoughts on MOOCs
• EAP MOOC and SPOCs
• 4 SPOCs = 1 NAL course
• Challenges
• Our approach to meeting (some)
of them
3. What MOOCs do ...
Bates (2012):
• Throw the learners to the wolves; only the fittest
survive (Bates, 2012)
• But: successful innovation builds on the work of
those who have gone before
• So: To what extent do MOOCs really change the
nature of the game, and to what extent are they
more an extension and development of what has
gone before – and hence should aim to incorporate
previous best practices? Or will that destroy them?
4. What MOOCs do ...
Downes (2012):
• MOOCs don't change the nature of the game; they're
playing an entirely different game
• MOOCs require motivated students
• MOOCs provide an environment where people who are
more advanced reasoners, thinkers, motivators,
arguers, and educators can practice their skills in a
public way by interacting with each other.
5. What MOOCs really do ...
Tubman, Oztok, Benachour (2016):
• Confront us with unique pedagogical challenges not present in
other socio-constructivist learning environments: the scale and
diversity of participation
• Offer opportunities for “surface level interactions” (interaction
data as indicator for depth of learning in sociocultural sense)
• Platform features rather than subject matter are the biggest factor
for low level interactions, and surface level of learning.
• And: expectations for participation need to be clear to create
opportunities for written interaction that can support conceptual
changes
• Rationale: “writing composition typically demands higher order
thinking process”
6. LEAP
• A pre-undergraduate course in English for Academic Purposes
for learners at IELTS 5.5 aiming to study at an English-medium
university
• 100 hours of study: 1 MOOC (free) followed by 4 SPOCs (fee)
• Platform: FutureLearn
• Learning design based on the academic process, i.e. it
engages students in meaningful activity through a carefully
guided cycle of:
Image: head4success.com
Input Transformation Output
7. MOOC
• 6 weeks of study @ 3 - 4 hours/week
• Theme: water
• Focus on four skill areas: listening, speaking, reading and
writing, plus language development and information
literacy
• Skills and language are developed through interaction
with input texts, audios, videos and the creation of short
written output texts or short audio recordings and
engagement with peers
• All weekly productions contribute to a longer output at
the end of the MOOC: a short written report on water
challenges facing the world
8. Input, transformation,
output: example
Week 4 of MOOC
Input: language for proposing solutions
Transformation:
Listening and note making: three short videos
showing solutions to water issues
Step by step building concise notes into a
coherent paragraph
Output: Write paragraph and share
Save: for final output in week 6: short report Photo: Chris Longman
9. SPOCs
• 4 SPOCs focusing on the language functions, academic
vocabulary and skills development needed for a
particular output (assignment)
• Each based around a theme:
– arts/media,
– design/innovation,
– business,
– well-being/happiness. www.industry.org.il
• Learners can choose to study one SPOC at a time or two
together, depending on available time.
• Fee covers tutor input in groups and individualised
feedback on a draft outputs.
• End point IELTS 6 to 6.5
10. References
• Bates, T. (2012) Some critical reflections on MOOCs
http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/03/01/some-critical-reflections-on-moocs
• Downes, S. (2012) What a MOOC does
http://www.downes.ca/post/57728
• Ferguson, R. Coughlan, T. & Herodotou, C. (2016) MOOCs: What The Open University
research tells us
http://oro.open.ac.uk/46970/
• Lapadat, J. C, (2002) Written Interaction: A Key Component in Online Learning
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00158.x/full#
• Tubman, P. Oztok, M. & Benachour, P. (2016) Being social or social learning: A
sociocultural analysis of the FutureLearn MOOC platform
http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/-(aaadbaf6-b9cf-41b8-b4df-
59e86d90d2a9).html
• Quinn, C. (2012) MOOC reflections
http://blog.learnlets.com/2012/02/mooc-reflections
Project Minerva
We aim to transform the experience of making courses.
We believe that making courses should be easier and quicker, and more collaborative, imaginative and fun.
Our purpose is to inspire and support faculties in devising new approaches to designing and making courses, based on design thinking and agile principles, and using innovative pedagogies and new technology.
We believe that design thinking and 21st-century design systems and working practices will transform course design and enhance the experience and outcomes for students, while increasing creativity and satisfaction, improving efficiency and reducing waste.
Minerva is an OU strategic development programme running to 31 July 2017.
Email Minerva@open.ac.uk
Web minerva.open.ac.uk
A few thoughts on MOOCs, particularly on what has happened to learning in MOOCs on the journey
From the original cMOOCs, the connectivist MOOCs where knowledge creation and sharing and sense making happen in the network (and where participants are actually expected to have high level digital and learning skills!)
To the xMOOCs with their more traditional, behaviorist-cognitive pedagogy (with some socio-constructivism thrown into the equation).
The challenges we are facing as we are trying to draw on cMOOC pedagogy.
Bates (2012) reacting to Quinn’s (2012) comparison of the Siemens/Downes Change 2011 MOOC with the Stanford AI MOOC as representative of he CMOOC/xMOOC divide/dialogue
The issue is: to what extent are instructors or course designers responsible for facilitating learning, other than providing content. My problem with both [The Siemens/Downes MOOC and the Stanford AI MOOC] is that they basically throw the learners to the wolves […].
Only the fittest or the most determined survive – or at least reach the end of the MOOC.
Although every learner has to take responsibility for their own learning, surely we should be doing what we can to make that learning […] as effective as possible through good design based on empirical evidence of how best students learn … in open and online contexts.
… we’ll show you in a minute how we have tried to do this in our MOOC and SPOCs which are the backdrop for our presentation.
Bates (2012) carries on by pointing out – quite rightly in our opinion – that most successful innovation builds on the work of those who have gone before, so – in his view - the question we need to ask is:
To what extent do MOOCs really change the nature of the game, and to what extent are they more an extension and development of what has gone before – and hence should aim to incorporate previous best practices? Or will that destroy them?
Downes (2012) is reluctant to compare MOOCs with what went before:
“I'm generally pretty reluctant to suggest how MOOCs improve on the previous model, because what we're trying to do with MOOCs is really something very different from what was attempted before. The best practices that previously existed, insofar as they were best practices at all, were best practices for doing something else.”
MOOCs don't change the nature of the game; they're playing a different game entirely.
MOOCs provide an environment where people who are more …… (read from screen)
In a recent study researchers at Lancaster University remind us of the unique challenges MOOC environments pose for pedagogy which are not present in other socio-constructivist learning environments: namely the scale and diversity of participation.
They examine interaction data from several FL MOOCs starting from the premise that interaction data is an indicator for depth of learning in A sociocultural sense.
Most conversations reflect surface level interactions.
Platform features rather than the subject matter are the biggest factor for low level interactions, and surface level learning.
And they move on to making a few suggestions with regard to platform affordances and pedagogy that may help deal with this.
They draw on Lapadat who argues that good learning experiences can be achieved in interactive forums through written participation:
“[A]s writing composition typically demands higher order thinking process, there is great potential for conceptual change”
She concludes that expectations for participation need to be clear to create opportunities for written interaction that can support conceptual changes.
Now this brings us to the need for effective use of learning design also highlighted in the MOOC priority areas summarised in the “MOOCs: What The Open University research tells us” report:
“Use learning design as a way to set out and describe the intent in the learning materials….”
[from here make link to our approach!]
So, I’m going to talk briefly about our current Minerva funded project and explain the rationale behind our learning design.
We are writing a 100 hour pre-undergraduate course in EAP. It starts with a free MOOC and leads on to 4 individual SPOCs of the same length and design.
At our learning design workshop we came up with the idea of building and recycling learners’ language and skills by taking them through a series of simulations of the academic process, what we call the input – transformation – output process.
This involves starting a learning session with input material – which could be, for example, a language focus or a reading or a listening on the theme of the MOOC. Students are then required to interact with this material, e.g. read and paraphrase or listen and summarise and create an output, e.g. a short paragraph or a couple of power point slide to share with other students. This output contributes to a much bigger output at the end of the MOOC. In this way language is recycled and skills developed. The process is made explicit and students are engaged at a meta-cognitive level, developing awareness of the academic process. We have a weekly cycle and an overarching course cycle.
The next couple of slides will show you how this works within the MOOC.
*International English Language Testing System = CEFR B2
So, this slide shows you the overall shape of the MOOC. We have a chosen theme and an equal focus on the four skill areas. We felt the theme would have broad appeal to a range of disciplines across the social sciences, sciences, business and arts.
As we have said, the skills and language are developed through the interaction of the input-transformation-output process, which involves interaction with peers.
One example of one week’s input, transformation, output.
Specific input in this week includes language for proposing solutions.
This language is introduced by being fed into the opening discussion activity, which is a response to the problems already outlined in week 3.
Further language is captured from the discussion activity and noted and consolidated in the listening activity.
This language is recycled throughout the week’s study.
During the transformation students are taken step by step through the note making process from the videos (including much of the language that is being taught.
So students work through and consolidate the following skills: identifying main points, using noun groups to make notes, categorising the notes, building notes into a paragraph for a particular purpose, using a reference to show where information comes from.
Final output for the week – write own paragraph and share. Save for final output in week 6.
Engagement with the process should lead to deep learning.
The SPOCs are the fee-paying part of our course. They mirror the shape of the MOOC and the design, but each one is based around a different theme with a different academic output. The fee covers tutor input.
We hope that by having modelled the process in the first MOOC, learners will be attuned to and persuaded of the value of the learning process. It is cyclical, it recycles, it is explicit, it engages students in active learning with their peers and it encourages deep learning through engagement with realistic tasks.
Arts output is a presentation
Design output is a multimedia report
Business output is a summary
Well-being output is an essay.
*International English Language Testing System = CEFR B2
