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.
University of Sheffield, March 2015
Futurelearning! Reflections on teaching
in the Futurelearn Play MOOC
Sheila Webber
Inf...
Using 3 frameworks to reflect on the
MOOC vs non-MOOC experience
• Teaching-Learning Environment (Entwistle et al,
2004)
•...
MOOC
• Massive i.e many learners (often, thousands)
• Open i.e. (freely) available to anyone (although
many MOOCs only acc...
Exploring Play MOOC, Sep-Nov 14
• 17,000 learners registered, 8,000 did at least one step,
over 1,000 completed
• Cross fa...
Contrasting example of non-MOOC
module
• 15 credit core module in MA Librarianship
• “Information Literacy” (IL): 18 stude...
The Teaching-
Learning
Environment
Entwistle et al.
(2004: 3)
These elements
still apply with
MOOCs, with
potentially grea...
The Teaching-
Learning
Environment
Entwistle et al.
(2004: 3)
A further key
influence in
specifying design
& quality is th...
Conole’s (2014) MOOC dimensions
(to be rated as low, medium and high)
• (How) Open
• (How) Massive
• Diversity (of partici...
Sharpe et al’s (2006) Dimensions of
blended learning
• Delivery: different modes (face-to-face and distance
education)
• T...
Differences MOOC/non-MOOC?
• Delivery: MOOC - could be just online; non-MOOC required blended
approach; both involved inte...
Teaching via my Second Life avatar
• Reactions to SL
– detached from reality ... escapism ... struggle to see the
appeal ....
Reflections on pedagogic development
• MOOC teaching had notable differences
in terms of my role and responsibilities: bot...
Sheila Webber
s.webber@sheffield.ac.uk
http://information-literacy.blogspot.com/
http://www.slideshare.net/sheilawebber
Tw...
References
• Conole, G. (2014). A 12-Dimensional classification schema for MOOCs.
http://e4innovation.com/?p=799
• Entwist...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Futurelearning! Reflections on teaching in the Futurelearn Play MOOC

1,988 views

Published on

A presentation given by Sheila Webber on 19 March 2015 at the University of Sheffield faculty of Social sciences conference, in the ICOSS building, Sheffield, UK. In this talk I took three frameworks for analysing the teaching-learning environment and reflected on the Exploring Play MOOC in which I was an educator and (as a contrast) the core module Information Literacy on a campus based programme.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Futurelearning! Reflections on teaching in the Futurelearn Play MOOC

  1. 1. University of Sheffield, March 2015 Futurelearning! Reflections on teaching in the Futurelearn Play MOOC Sheila Webber Information School, University of Sheffield
  2. 2. Using 3 frameworks to reflect on the MOOC vs non-MOOC experience • Teaching-Learning Environment (Entwistle et al, 2004) • Conole’s (2014) 12 MOOC dimensions • Sharpe et al.’s (2006) 8 dimensions of blended learning Sheila Webber, 2015
  3. 3. MOOC • Massive i.e many learners (often, thousands) • Open i.e. (freely) available to anyone (although many MOOCs only accessible to those who register): also open-access issue • Online • Course i.e. some aim and structure to the learning Sheila Webber, 2015
  4. 4. Exploring Play MOOC, Sep-Nov 14 • 17,000 learners registered, 8,000 did at least one step, over 1,000 completed • Cross faculty team: I led week 6 of 7 on “virtual play” • Each week has steps; with videos, articles, comment- based discussion and a quiz • Use of a few tools outside the platform, but mostly interactions inside • Learners asked to remember, reflect, carry out observations and activities
  5. 5. Contrasting example of non-MOOC module • 15 credit core module in MA Librarianship • “Information Literacy” (IL): 18 students 2014/5 • 3 hour f2f weeks 1-11 • Assignments: (1) Bibliography + reflection on IL; (2) Reflection on intervention teaching IL
  6. 6. The Teaching- Learning Environment Entwistle et al. (2004: 3) These elements still apply with MOOCs, with potentially great diversity in student characteristics and expectations Sheila Webber, 2015
  7. 7. The Teaching- Learning Environment Entwistle et al. (2004: 3) A further key influence in specifying design & quality is the MOOC platform provider Sheila Webber, 2015
  8. 8. Conole’s (2014) MOOC dimensions (to be rated as low, medium and high) • (How) Open • (How) Massive • Diversity (of participants) • Use of (varied) multimedia • Degree of (forms of) communication • Degree of collaboration • Amount of reflection • (Nature of) Learning pathway • (Form of) Quality assurance • Certification • (Link to) Formal Learning • (Degree of learner) Autonomy Sheila Webber, 2015
  9. 9. Sharpe et al’s (2006) Dimensions of blended learning • Delivery: different modes (face-to-face and distance education) • Technology: mixtures of (web based) technologies • Chronology: synchronous and a-synchronous interventions • Locus: practice-based vs. class-room based learning • Roles: multi-disciplinary or professional groupings • Pedagogy: different pedagogical approaches • Focus: acknowledging different aims • Direction: instructor-directed vs. autonomous or learner- directed learning. Sheila Webber, 2015
  10. 10. Differences MOOC/non-MOOC? • Delivery: MOOC - could be just online; non-MOOC required blended approach; both involved interactions outside “class” time • Technology: Both mixed technologies; different emphases • Chronology: MOOC a-synchronous, non-M strong emphasis (value?) on synchronous • Locus: for both, class-room based learning but with strong link to life/practice (both non-M assignments involved practice) • Roles: Wider range of people involved in MOOC design (learning technologists, film production, central MOOC team) • Pedagogy: Perhaps more difficult for those in non-M to “avoid” the teacher’s pedagogic approach (e.g. class activities, assessment requirements) • Focus: MOOC acknowledging wider range of aims? • Direction: more autonomy required of MOOC learner Sheila Webber, 2015
  11. 11. Teaching via my Second Life avatar • Reactions to SL – detached from reality ... escapism ... struggle to see the appeal ... lost ... don’t get it ... don’t see the relevance ... a sad depraved place ... – challenging ... out of my comfort zone ... – though also ... interested ... intrigued ... fascinating ... beautiful ... • Some people talked about my avatar as being cold, having odd lip movements, commented on my appearance etc. • Draws attention to the identity and position of the educator Sheila Webber, 2015
  12. 12. Reflections on pedagogic development • MOOC teaching had notable differences in terms of my role and responsibilities: both constraining & liberating • Would have liked even more discussion & observation re other educators’ pedagogy • Teaching in a new environment leads to (incremental) growth and rethinking • How can use of MOOCs be incorporated into other modes (f2f, blended, distance) Sheila Webber, 2015
  13. 13. Sheila Webber s.webber@sheffield.ac.uk http://information-literacy.blogspot.com/ http://www.slideshare.net/sheilawebber Twitter: @sheilayoshikawa Pictures by Sheila Webber, taken in Second Life
  14. 14. References • Conole, G. (2014). A 12-Dimensional classification schema for MOOCs. http://e4innovation.com/?p=799 • Entwistle, N., Nisbet, J. and Bromage, A. (2004). Teaching-learning environments and student learning in electronic engineering: paper presented at Third Workshop of the European Network on Powerful Learning Environments, in Brugge, September 30 – October 2, 2004. http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl/docs/Brugge2004.pdf • Sharpe, R. et al. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended e- learning: a review of UK literature and practice. York: HEA. Sheila Webber, 2015

×