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.

1. University of Sheffield, March 2015
Futurelearning! Reflections on teaching
in the Futurelearn Play MOOC
Sheila Webber
Information School,
University of Sheffield

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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