“I don’t always wrap MOOCs, but when I do…”: Improving postgraduates students’ experiences of MOOCs as OERs through facilitation and face-to-face contact
This document summarizes a study on postgraduate students' experiences taking wrapped MOOCs at a South African university. The study found that (1) having an in-person facilitator to provide context and clarify concepts was important for students, as the facilitator replaced the absent online instructor. (2) Students preferred face-to-face interactions where they could ask questions and discuss with peers. (3) Students reported applying what they learned to their own research and gaining new skills, though (4) independent learning outside of facilitated sessions proved difficult, with many students struggling with workload and dropping out. Logistical factors like session length and group size also impacted the experience.
Similar to “I don’t always wrap MOOCs, but when I do…”: Improving postgraduates students’ experiences of MOOCs as OERs through facilitation and face-to-face contact
E3. Voices from students in the UMSL EDD learning communitiesCPEDInitiative
Similar to “I don’t always wrap MOOCs, but when I do…”: Improving postgraduates students’ experiences of MOOCs as OERs through facilitation and face-to-face contact (20)
Application of Matrices in real life. Presentation on application of matrices
“I don’t always wrap MOOCs, but when I do…”: Improving postgraduates students’ experiences of MOOCs as OERs through facilitation and face-to-face contact
1. “The best part was the contact”:
Understanding postgraduate students’
experiences of wrapped MOOCs in a South
African university
Tasneem Jaffer, Shanali Govender & Cheryl Brown
1
2. M
C
0
0
assive
pen
nline
ourse
• Large course sign-ups (Mustafaraj, 2014)
• No prerequisites or admission requirements (Sandeen,
2013)
• Relatively low completion rates (Jordan, 2014; Khalil
and Ebner, 2014)
• Generally no institutional accreditation (Chauhan, 2014)
• No cost for enrollment and participation, (McAuley,
Stewart, Siemens & Cormier, 2010)
• Relatively low cost for certification (Dellarocas & Van
Alstyne, 2013)
7. Questions?
◻ Is an institution or organization hosting and supporting the
face-to-face element of the learning experience?
◻ What kind of institution is it - a regulated educational institution, or an
employer, non-governmental organisation, or a professional body?
◻ If the former, then is the MOOC incorporated into the formal academic
curriculum or the co-curricula activities of the institution?
7
8. Types of Wrapped MOOCs
◻ Type 1: Peer Wrapped
◻ Type 2: Collegial Wrap
◻ Type 3: Co-curricula Wrap
◻ Type 4: Formal, Curricula Wrap
8
10. The Office of Postgraduate Studies
◻ OPS supports PGs in completing their studies. Identified a problem: PGS
are
⬜ Diverse in their levels of preparedness for postgraduate study (Essa,
2011; Hanyane, 2015),
⬜ Diverse in their attainment of graduate attributes by the end of a
programme (Mouton, 2007; Le Grange & Newmark, 2002)
⬜ Identified MOOCs as a possible site for learning - opted to wrap
MOOCs to mitigate high attrition rates
⬜ Local facilitator with class of 15-20 students
⬜ NB facilitators designed to support students not teach
10
11. Method
◻ Qualitative, case study approach
◻ Data collection: A range of primary and secondary data, sample of 406
students, including:
⬜ 3 semi-structured student & 5 facilitator interviews = 7 hours of data
⬜ 35 online student experience surveys ; and
⬜ 62 open-ended course evaluations (secondary data)
11
12. The framework
12
◻ Data analysis: Analytical framework:
Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s (2000)
Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework
⬜ Content analysis (Stemler, 2001),
with the CoI presences providing
predetermined codes
⬜ The context and literature
provided a guide for additional
themes which emerged during
the analysis.
⬜ Established ‘learner presence’
and ‘structural factors’ as
additions to the framework
15. Findings - Teaching Presence
◻ Replaced the MOOC instructor
⬜ MOOC became unimportant - students only came to sessions
⬜ “people only came to the facilitated sessions and did little -- if
anything -- of the online work”
⬜ “we weren’t watching [the MOOC videos], please tell us what you
found important”
◻ Provided context (local and disciplinary)
⬜ Students enjoyed the “practical application in [a] South African
context”
⬜ Students were able “to relate the course to our own research and
background”
15
16. Findings - Teaching Presence
◻ Flattened classroom
⬜ Students came expecting traditional authority - they were “quite at sea
with all this equalness”
⬜ Facilitators were PG students themselves - established a comfortable
environment
⬜ Hierarchy was still necessary - learning activities, answering questions
◻ Clarify MOOC content
⬜ “The facilitator was able to clarify some concepts that I failed to
understand online by giving very good examples.”
◻ Facilitator central link to foster social and cognitive presence
⬜ E.g. facilitators creates a practical learning activity which prompts
discussion and the cognitive learning process
16
18. Findings - Social Presence
◻ Preference for face-to-face interaction
⬜ “I was able to ask questions and interact with other students
having the same queries, which is not possible with a purely
online course”
⬜ “The discussions were more real than that of online peers”
◻ Place to share postgraduate student experiences
⬜ “it may sound cheesy but I felt far less alone to know that
colleagues in science or whatever were facing similar
challenges
⬜ One facilitator referred to sessions as “group therapy”
18
20. Findings - Cognitive Presence
◻ Adapted MOOC assignments to the class for e.g writing and public
speaking MOOC
◻ Students were able to apply knowledge to their research
⬜ “I won best poster presentation at the School of Public Health's
annual research day, so thank you - I could not have done
without your help” - Public speaking student
⬜ “The course has had a huge implication for me and has now
altered the route of my thesis and where I project myself in the
long haul of life”
⬜ “I have a better grasp of how to manage a project for both my
discipline and personal life.”
20
22. Findings - Learner Presence
◻ Voluntary programme
⬜ Student intrinsically motivated
⬜ Wrapped MOOC experience requires more “self-motivation
than normal undergraduate lectures”
◻ Dropout remained high despite facilitated sessions
⬜ “heavy workload forced my withdrawal from the course”
⬜ “I stopped attending toward the end because I felt that it was
eating into my other course time”
22
24. Findings - Structural factors
◻ Structure and format
⬜ Period between MOOC content being released & facilitated sessions
was too short.
◻ Venue
⬜ Computer lab was not conducive for discussion, meeting rooms were
preferred
◻ Duration of the session
⬜ “Too short to accomplish much.”
⬜ “More time, especially the discussion needs more time allocation.”
◻ Group size
⬜ Some sessions had two people attending - not enough for discussion
24
25. Conclusion
25
◻ Facilitated sessions provided a meaningful experience to students
- addressed their cognitive need
◻ Students still struggled with independent learning, even with
facilitated support
◻ This study foregrounded the social issues of being a PG student