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.

The MOOC Production Fellowship: Reviewing the first German MOOC funding program


Published on

Paper at the EMOOCs2016 in Graz
see also

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The MOOC Production Fellowship: Reviewing the first German MOOC funding program

  1. 1. The MOOC Production Fellowship Reviewing the first German MOOC funding program #emoocs2016, Graz Slides: Anja Lorenz, FH Lübeck
  2. 2. searches for the terms “mooc” in Germany MOOC iniciatives driven by single persons or groups #OPCO11, #OPCO12, Jörn Loviscach (2012) etc.
  3. 3. The funding program aim: stimulate MOOCs in Germany by the Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft* and the MOOC platform iversity 10 MOOCs | 25,000 € per MOOC * translated: Donors’ association for the promotion of humanities and sciences in Germany
  4. 4. searches for the terms “mooc” in Germany appliance period for the MOOC production fellowship voting period for the MOOC production fellowship
  5. 5. Supported MOOCs Changemaker MOOC – social entrepreneurship GER Mathematical thinking and working methods GER International agriculture management GER, RUS Europe in the World: Law and Policy Aspects of the EU in Global Governance ENG Details: Section chirurgica – anatomy interactive GER The future of storytelling ENG Fascination of crystals and symmetry GER Monte Carlo Methods in Finance ENG Design 101 ENG DNA – from structure to therapy ENG
  6. 6. Research Design funded MOOCsF non- funded applicantsNF online survey guided interviews final statements via email online survey 07.07.–12.08.201505.07.–05.08.2015 since 18.08.2015 since 10.08.2015 funded MOOCs: 10 replies (100%) non-funded appl.: 41 replies (≈16%)
  7. 7. Summary of the fellowship program Funded MOOCs by numbers
  8. 8. Summary of the funding program 1|2 250,000 € funding for 10 MOOCs >260 applications 224,446 learners 6,921 issued certificates3.1%
  9. 9. Summary of the funding program 2|2 109 MOOC Maker (lecturers, video team, tutors…) 95 weeks of preparation 50 weeks of follow-up work 5+3a MOOCs are still accessible 4+2a +1b MOOCs were and are repeated a on another platform b concretely planned
  10. 10. experiences of the funded projects Making MOOCs
  11. 11. Realisation: success stories (F) reached a wide audience7 probably first Russian-speaking MOOC (Agrar), “global class”, unimagible in other learning scenarios individual and personal experiences with the learners 5 MOOC too difficult → made another MOOC to understand this one; Serbian learner contributes subtitles; history of arts student was happy to met experts of rost structure (crystals) Impact on own courses/projects3 participation at the yooweedoo competition: 4x, 15 further universities joined the project team work2 good platform, positive feedback, surprisig easy tutoring of the course each 1 ended up with a personal meeting 1 festival & exhibition“blue flower”, 183 items, 80 P fr. all over the world
  12. 12. What does it need and cost to make a MOOC? Financiation & realisation
  13. 13. costs per MOOC+ x h of own work 100 €/min + 8,000€ tutoring
  14. 14. Financing of own co-payment (F) own work inside and outside of working hours10 also on holidays, via regular budgets, extra work without crediting on teaching responsibilities (lowered interest of the university administration after leadership change), 2,000h explicitly in secondary employment other funded projects 2 use of university’s resources 2 extra budgets, budgets for tutors "time donations" by external persons 1 guest speakers
  15. 15. Feedback What did the learners say? What did the own university say?
  16. 16. Feedback of participants(fraction) (F) overall good feedback6 learners were grateful4 individual and personal feedback3 a collegue from crystallography stated it was the best basics course, best course out of 15 MOOCs, cannot await the next chapter uncertainty among own students2 use for own study/relevance for exams
  17. 17. Feedback of the own institution (+)(F) strong perception and support 4 PH encourages teaching experiments, payd tutors from institution’s budget motivates the discussion on MOOCs at the own institution 2 stimulates technology enhanced learning in general university realised or plans further MOOCs2 edX, continue employment of the video team satisfied and happy team2 interest of further institutions 1 federal government department Schleswig Holstein
  18. 18. Feedback of the own institution (-) (F) no/few perception4 not until winnig of the Ars Legendi price for excellent teaching, forbid to make the MOOC during working hours no further MOOC activities3 because of management change: after high encouragement only few support 1
  19. 19. Online survey, n=41 (16.4%) Non-funded applicants
  20. 20. Did you nevertheless realize your MOOC?
  21. 21. costs of the MOOC + 1,600 h of own full MOOC curriculum
  22. 22. How did you finance your MOOC? (n=13) additional work and free time budgets for tutors, within regular teaching other project or federal funding, sabbatical semester
  23. 23. How to support MOOC makers? Funding and measures
  24. 24. Would you participate again in a similar competition today? (n=49; F+NF)
  25. 25. Should institutional and university administrators, political and/or NGO actors (e.g. foundations) promote and support MOOCs in general (more than they did until now)? (n=49;
  26. 26. Should MOOCs be funded? (F+NF) Why? (fraction) open up universities6 more promotion of OER in general4 gather experience4 it is a learning format of the future 1 Why not? (fraction) risk of budget cuts 2 expensive production that cannot be realized out of regular budget 2 no public taskP 2
  27. 27. What kind of support is needed? 1|2 (F+NF) crediting MOOCs as teaching hours 13 financial funding12 overall production support12 implement or improve IT services for MOOCs 11 recognition as academic effort5
  28. 28. What kind of support is needed? 2|2 (F+NF) flagships, best practice 2 cooperation 2 legal protection 2 training for MOOC video production 2 development of sustainable concepts 1 international evaluation 1 information campaigsn for decission-makers at universities 1 political commitment for OER 1
  29. 29. Conclusion? Conclusion
  30. 30. … out of the interviews (F) gratefulness for the opportunity to realize a MOOC4 sentimental value more than financial funding, brave, viral effects estimated unsure if "massive Open" is the ideal solution2 missing prior knowledge, unknown participants stimulates also the reflection of their own teaching 2 valuable eyperience2 unsure concerning the responsibility for own students 1 ensure tutoring MOOCs are media as books are → they are as good as teachers 1
  31. 31. Johnson et al. 2015
  32. 32. Thank you! #emoocs2016, Graz Slides: Anja Lorenz Fachhochschule Lübeck Anja Lorenz @anjalorenz
  33. 33. References Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas. Retrieved from ducation-edition/ page 2
  34. 34. Further Data Attachement
  35. 35. Conditions and funding The funding program
  36. 36. Conditions offered for free meet academic standards at least one assistant, associate or full professor at a university or college in the applicants team
  37. 37. Funding 25,000 € to realize the MOOC conceptual support by workshops technical support for the iversity platform
  38. 38. Call for tenders2013 3rd April application deadline → 260 submissions 1st –23rd May voting stage for early feedback 20th /21st June final jury decission
  39. 39. searches for the terms “mooc” and “iversity”
  40. 40. Further realized MOOCs (named voluntaryly, NF) several MOOCs for the Virtual Linguistics Campus Controlling – A Critical Success Factor in a Globalised World Game AI Algorithms and data structures Ear Training for Sound People Pete the project manager – learning project management Molecular Basis of Nutrition-related Diseases Intercultural Competence/ Intercultural Campus Vehicle Dynamics Charlemagne – Pater Europae! "Web Engineering" (3 parts)
  41. 41. 224,446 Learners by comparison 52,006 Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich + 49,772 University of Cologne + 46,613 Goethe University of Frankfurt/Main + 42,592 University of Münster + 33,540 Humboldt University of Berlin = 224,523 students source: wikipedia
  42. 42. Why making MOOCs? Motivation
  43. 43. Why did you apply? (F+NF) personal interest for MOOCs59% potential of high outreach41% education-idealistic motivation support (financial, didactical, technical) 14% best way: do it on your own general interests for online teaching12% follow-up for actual courses/projects10% yoweedoo, anatomy working in the MOOC team 6% offer something special for students 2% university marketing 2%
  44. 44. Motivation for repetition (F) Sustainability40% combined regular courses/projects30% Architecture 101, yooweedoo, MatheMOOC, anatomy reach at first run 10% improvements by repetition10% reuse in other courses 10%
  45. 45. Marketing How do you promote a MOOC?
  46. 46. Marketing (F) iversity 10 40,000 students were enough (Design 101) own networks6 social media 5 press releases4 email marketing2 webpage 2 other platform | print ads | contest Tickets for Bayreuth Festival (MatheMOOC) may not use internal channels each 1
  47. 47. Marketing success Did they reach the target group?
  48. 48. Reaching the audience (F) Academics majority were academics3 very special target group3 alternative to very expensive courses (Finance) no concrete integration of own students 2
  49. 49. Reaching the audience (F) “beyond” also amateurs5 beyond academics very extended audience4 international participants 3 all ages represented 2 14–80 disappointed at the few medicine students | missing basic knowledge of amateurs each 1 non-German-speaking learners in German MOOC 1 were either not active
  50. 50. Collaboration How was the collaboration?
  51. 51. Review of the collaboration (P) with the Stifterverband very good9 unbureaucratic7 easy accounting and reporting Workshops6 helpful contact to other MOOC makers good support4 interested but notintrusive few contact4 stayed in the background, not much contact needed
  52. 52. Review of the collaboration (F) with iversity positive7 good support for experiments feature requests4 MOOCs needed to be adapted for technical reasons → very different experiences concerning service quality
  53. 53. Degree of interaction How active were the learners?
  54. 54. Degree of learners’ activity (F) high mismatch of active vs. registered learners7 i. e. English-speaking registered learners in German MOOCs, partly long time from registartion to start a very active core 3 vs. few interaction2 no consideration 3 vs. heavy integration of Social Media2 specialist questions and interaction, answering questions and healped each other 2 vs. interaction took off slow2 forum features were not sufficient2 interaction with several cultures 1 daytimes without electricity, buy data volume at the start of the month local groups 1
  55. 55. To which challenges were you faced? Difficulties
  56. 56. Realization: that doesn’t work that well 1|2 (F) platform problems8 features, measure of performance, forum, data security MOOC format as challege for contents6 enter maths, niveau of the learners production effort5 only manageble in a good team
  57. 57. Realization: that doesn’t work that well 2|2 (F) Copyright 3 uncertainty, copyright from the publisher for 3 years, buying images only few interaction 3 rate of registrations and participants, only few exams critical sustainability 1 efford for update assessments 1 filter effects of exams, identification
  58. 58. Further feedback What do the learners say?
  59. 59. Feedback of learners individual option (F) complaints that it is not an English MOOC 1 owns students take it positive 1 no evaluation proceeded 1 no negative critics 1 partly too high requirents 1 sporadic critics 1 comparison difficult 1 few feedback 1 appreciation of the learning offers 1
  60. 60. Further Statemenst (F) very dependant on team and platform2 winnig data from collaboration as interesting approach 1 use reach Idea: involve students into production 1 MOOCs would not reach financial stability 1 side projects 1 without regard of work not realizable 1 technische Details erschweren didaktische Freiheit 1 improving video learning 1 realized much as amateur 1 contradicting the education task 1 entertainment vs. education
  61. 61. Repetition of the MOOCs Which experiences did they made?
  62. 62. Sustainability What has become of the MOOC?
  63. 63. What has become of the MOOC after the first run? no resources, changed business model of iversity own website, institution made contracts with edX additionally: using the content for other courses/projects on YouTube CC-Licence
  64. 64. Platform and adoption for repetition (F) iversity5 1–4times small editing5 earse mistakes, additional content other Platform planned 3 no videos’ remake 2 new task option 2 integrated martphone as tool, Impro-task Community involved stronger 1 financing for cheaters cheaper no updates 1
  65. 65. Success of repetition (F) fewer as for the first run 4 about same numbers of learners 2 certificate track had no influence 1
  66. 66. Non-Fundet applicants What becomes with these concepts?
  67. 67. Which platform did you use for your MOOC? How many participants had subscribed to your MOOC? How many people had been in your team? (n=13) Ø ca. 6,800 TN 1 to 50–30,000 Ø 4,4 Personen im Team 1–15
  68. 68. Why did you do not do the MOOC? (n=28) Blended Learning
  69. 69. Funding How to support MOOC makers?
  70. 70. Reasons for/against reapplication (F+NF) 3x pro gather important experience5 realize topic4 stimulate the format 2 3x contra no chance to win6 dissatisfaction with the compatition5 too high efforts4