Aect 2013 in search of quality mooc presentation

919 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
919
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
311
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Aect 2013 in search of quality mooc presentation

  1. 1. In Search of Quality: An analysis of MOOC course structure & design Charles Hodges & Patrick Lowenthal slides @ patricklowenthal.com
  2. 2. MOOCs & Education What’s the first thing you think of when you think of MOOCs??? slides @ patricklowenthal.com
  3. 3. General Feeling???
  4. 4. News Headlines
  5. 5. What is a MOOC? •  Large, open, online course •  Vary in size and openness •  Typically non-credit •  Low completion rates (see Rosen, 2012) •  Many faculty remain skeptical students are learning
  6. 6. Background of MOOCs •  Past 18 months, MOOCs dominate discussions of changes in education (e.g. EDUCAUSE, 2012; Markoff, 2011, Rushkoff, 2013) •  2012 was described as the year of the MOOC (Watters, 2012) slides @ patricklowenthal.com
  7. 7. Online Course Quality •  Despite continual growth, faculty, are skeptical of online learning (Allen & Seaman, 2013; Gabriel, 2011; Lytle, 2012) •  Questions of quality, integrity •  Intent to save $$ vs. improve learning slides @ patricklowenthal.com
  8. 8. Online Course Quality Popular strategies to assess & improve online course quality •  •  •  •  Sloan-C pillars of quality Quality Matters iNACOL standards Cal. State – Chico Rubric slides @ patricklowenthal.com
  9. 9. Driving Question Are MOOCs high quality online courses deserving college credit? slides @ patricklowenthal.com
  10. 10. Method ❏  Six MOOCs ❏  2 from: Coursera, EdX, & Udacity ❏  Identified STEM courses ❏  Randomly selected ❏  3 experienced QM reviewers slides @ patricklowenthal.com
  11. 11. Preliminary Results Course Percent Pass Coursera 1 82% No Coursera 2 51% No EdX 1 83% No EdX 2 68% No Udacity 1 43% No Udacity 2 44% No
  12. 12. Preliminary Results Standards Always Met 1.2 Introduced to the purpose and structure of the course. 1.7 Appropriate self-introduction by the instructor. 3.1 Assessments measure learning objectives and consistent with course activities 3.5 Multiple opportunities to measure learning progress 4.3 All materials are appropriately cited. 4.4 Instructional materials are current. 4.5 Instructional materials present a variety of perspectives. 5.2 Activities provide opportunities for interaction that support active learning. 6.2 Course tools / media support engagement & guide student to become active learners. 6.3 Navigation is logical, consistent, and efficient. 6.4 Students can access the technologies in the course. 6.5 Technologies are current. 8.1 Employs accessible technologies and guidance on how to obtain accommodation. 8.2 Contains equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content. 8.3 Design facilitates readability and minimizes distractions. 8.4 Design accommodates assistive technologies.
  13. 13. Preliminary Results Standards Never Met 2.2 Module learning objectives describe outcomes that are measurable & consistent with the course-level objectives. 7.2 Instructions articulate institution’s accessibility policies & services. 7.3 Instructions articulate institution’s academic support services and how students can access the services. 7.4 Instructions articulate institution’s student support services and how students can access the services. slides @ patricklowenthal.com
  14. 14. Without Standard Seven Results Course Percent Pass Coursera 1 91% Yes Coursera 2 48% No EdX 1 92% Yes EdX 2 52% No Udacity 1 49% No Udacity 2 72% No
  15. 15. Discussion •  MOOC’s can be high “quality” (based on QM standards) •  MOOC’s aren’t inherently bad •  Self-paced MOOCs use different strategies •  MOOCs rely heavily on recorded lectures & quizzes •  Many in this study could easily be updated to meet QM standards •  QM rubric relies heavily on clear and measurable objectives slides @ patricklowenthal.com
  16. 16. Implications •  MOOCs are an opportunity to rethink how we design / teach online courses •  MOOCs spark technological innovation •  Limitations of Quality Matter’s standards / rubric slides @ patricklowenthal.com
  17. 17. Limitations • Small sample • Selected only MOOCx--no MOOCc • Used QM rubric for courses; they have one for professional development slides @ patricklowenthal.com
  18. 18. Questions / Comments So what do you think? ??? slides @ patricklowenthal.com

×