A Guide for MOOC Course Developers and Facilitators: “The MOOC Case Book”

Following is a review of “The MOOC Case Book: Case Studies in MOOC Design, Development and Implementation” the second-place winner of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)’s Division of Distance Learning (DDL) Book Award, 2016.

“The MOOC Case Book”, Linus Learning (2015)

The “MOOC Case Book” is a collection of case studies written by (mostly) educators sharing their experiences developing, delivering, and supporting a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) from the perspective of one of eight dimensions of Khan’s e-learning framework. Khan’s Framework provides structure to the daunting task of developing a MOOC. Not only from a course design perspective but by providing strategies for the host of factors that impact the success of a MOOC. Factors associated with the Technological dimension for instance that involve the MOOC’s platform features, and the Institutional dimension that encompasses student services such as academic advising or institution policies. There’s also the dimension of Resource Support which addresses support for faculty in course design and technical online support for students. Details of Khan’s Framework are covered in chapter two; the image below provides a snapshot.

The book is geared to readers involved in developing or facilitating a MOOC. It provides guidance and knowledge; readers can learn from the experiences of chapter-authors who have ‘been-there-and-done-that’—who have invested the time and energy needed to pull a MOOC together.  Included in the studies are two written from the student perspective, providing further depth to the stories shared. Readers interested in learning how institutions and educators are using digital platforms to deliver online learning—the methods, challenges and barriers faced, will find the studies within instructive, even entertaining.

Following is an overview of Khan’s Framework and highlights of a handful of the case studies. One disclaimer, I wrote one of the case studies—chapter #3 “Pedagogy and MOOCs: Practical Applications of Khan’s E-Learning Framework”. The chapter, as the title suggests, focuses on the Pedagogical dimension of the Framework.

About Khan’s Framework
As an instructional designer I’ve often heard from faculty and design teams the drawbacks of using a model (instructional design models such as ADDIE or the Dick, Carey & Carey model) for the instructional design process. Drawbacks mentioned include words such as, ‘cumbersome’, ‘too linear’, rigid’, and ‘inhibits creativity’. Khan’s Framework is different from traditional design models; it’s holistic. Not only does it address the design phase, but goes beyond by including elements critical to a MOOC’s success and sustainability. It expands to delivering and assessing the MOOC and supporting MOOC stakeholders. These elements, delivery and sustainability in particular are critical. More so when MOOCS are developed and implemented by higher education institutions; there are a host of issues  administrators need to know and make decisions on.

Khan’s E-Learning Framework

How the Book is Structured
There are eleven sections—one dedicated to each of the eight dimensions of the Framework. There are twenty-three case studies, with a great diversity in the institutions represented—Ivy league and public institutions, as well as  small private schools. The MOOCs cover topics ranging from remedial college-prep courses, English composition, poetry, statistics, global health and more. The courses are delivered on platforms readers will recognize, Coursera and EdX, and some specific to an institution; authors share the challenges, barriers and lessons learned when working with the features inherent to each.

Application
Badrul Khan’s Framework preceded the MOOC phenomenon yet its applicability to the MOOC scenarios is impressive and telling. Chapter-authors describe the factors they dealt with in detail in light of one of the eight dimensions (chapters 3 – 25). Chapter 1 gives the reader a solid overview of the factors associated with each dimension, giving context to each case study. Table #3, “Issues for Addressing MOOC Learning Environments” is especially helpful with its list of questions specific to each dimension; course development teams will find these helpful during the design phase and after the course is launched. Below are select questions specific to the Pedagogical dimension (p. 11):

• How well does the MOOC course plan align with the course goals and outcomes?
• Does the course provide a clear description of what learners should be able to do at every stage of the course?
• How well is the instructional strategy being used to target each objective?
• How good is the content? How well do learners interact with it?
• How well does the course design contribute to an interactive and flexible learning environment?

Case Study Highlights
In respect of time I’ll highlight just a few case studies to provide a glimpse into what the book provides. Chapter 5 focuses on the Technological dimension. The author shares how digital tools, e.g. Social media and online surveys, as well as MOOC platform features were used to deliver differentiated learning for students (pp. 63 – 79). In chapter 11 the reader is given a behind-the-scenes glimpse into the development of a MOOC, “Statistics One”, offered on the Coursera platform by Princeton University. The lead author also instructor of the MOOC, analyzes the course through the lens of the Evaluation dimension. He shares the challenges of assessing student learning, specifically creating and implementing assignments, primarily a result of the features inherent to the MOOC platform (pp. 136 – 162).

The key factors associated with the Management dimension of Khan’s framework is described in chapter 13 where the chapter-author from Penn State University highlights the school’s experience delivering the MOOC “Epidemic: infectious Disease and Dynamics”, deemed by Penn State as a great success. Success defined by Penn State as adhering to a detailed project management timetable which delivered the MOOC on time and in the highest quality possible. Success also includes the fact that Penn’s MOOC achieved a higher than average completion rate (compared to average completion rates of MOOCs on Coursera) at 14%, and a rating of number one science course as ranked by Coursetalk (p. 183).

Closing
There are many applications for The MOOC Case Book; it can be a useful tool for MOOC course design teams, students of instructional design and educational technology, and for higher education institution leaders involved in MOOCs. As Curtis Bonk writes in the book’s Forward, though MOOCs are not and can never be a solution to the challenges facing education, they can expand our thinking and perspectives on the future of education that lends hope to better educational world (p. xvii).

• “BADRULKHAN.COM.” BADRULKHAN.COM. n.d. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.
• Corbeil, Joseph Rene, Maria Elena Corbeil, and Badrul H. Khan. The MOOC Case Book: Case Studies in MOOC Design, Development and Implementation. Ronkonkoma, NY: Linus Learning, 2015. Print.

 

Need-to-Know MOOC News: New Business Model for Corporate Learning, Human Graders and Self-Paced Formats

1. MOOCs Scale Up with New Model
The search for a business model may soon be over for major MOOC players such as Coursera and Udacity. Udacity was the first to create partnerships between (mostly tech) companies to cover some of their course development costs. They’ve since moved to offering micro-credentials where students pay for Nanodegrees—focused skill training with a certificate-type credential upon successful completion. Students can also opt to pay even more for personalized services with Nanodegree Plus which includes career support and mock interviews. Coursera has something similar, minus the personalized services, with its ‘Specializations‘. But recently Coursera made another significant move—targeting the corporate sector. Smart. The learning and development market in the United States is vast; according to the 2015 Training Report there was a 14.2% increase in corporate training expenditures bringing the total budget for US companies to 17.6 billion. That’s big. Coursera is aiming to get part of the pie and fill the employee learning gap with “Coursera for Business”.

Screenshot of “Coursera for Business” home page at coursera.org/enterprise

Today, we are taking yet another important step in our effort to expand the Coursera learner community. I am excited to announce Coursera for Business, our enterprise platform for workforce development at scale. We see Coursera for Business as a natural extension of our vision, and as a powerful way to help leading companies around the world address the rapidly evolving training and development needs of their employees. (Levine, 2016)

Insight:  Given the size of the corporate employee learning and development market and the need for Coursera to generate revenue, it’s a logical move. More so given a recent study by McKinsey which suggested that companies are struggling to deliver relevant, just-in-time skill-training that fits in with the drive for productivity and need for employee-directed learning. Over 40% of companies surveyed indicated their current capabilities of meeting employee skill gaps are ineffective (Bensen-Armer et al). Coursera is on to something. MOOCs are not ‘free’ to produce or sustain;  partnering with corporations is a win-win for everyone.

• Coursera for Business, Coursera Blog, Rick Levine
• Udacity’s Nanodegrees

2. MOOCs with Human Graders
When students sign up for the edX MOOC, “Introduction to Philosophy: God, Knowledge and Consciousness”, they’ll have the option to have their essays graded by a real person. This was unheard of when MOOCs first came on higher education’s radar in 2012. MOOC critics took issue with the automated and peer-review grading process—this undermined the learning process, comprised student learning according to the most vocal critics. This Fall MIT is experimenting with a new model for MOOCs with this particular course where essays are graded by a graduate assistant of MIT.

….the model is still a work in progress, and that details may change. This time around, MIT is paying one of its philosophy graduate student to serve as a course facilitator. The facilitator will effectively run the MOOC, moderating the discussion forum and grading papers. Hare declined to say how much the facilitator is paid, but added that it is a flat fee and more than what an adjunct instructor is paid to teach a residential course at MIT. (Straumsheim, 2016)

The cost for this MOOC that includes a Verified Certificate and personalized grading is $300, about $200 more than a Verified Certificate for other MOOCs in the same category (Philosophy & Ethics).

Insight: This story is yet another example how MOOCs are bringing awareness to online education, yet this recent development highlights how the MOOC label is misleading and needs to change. Lines are blurring between the many versions of online courses:  1. open and free courses, 2. online courses with a cost and no-credit (as the one in this article), 3. online courses for credit with a fee, and 4. online courses for a fee with conditional credit  (students need to apply to institution to receive MOOC credit upon completion). Students need to be clear on the conditions when signing up for an online course, just as institutions need to be clear on what they are offering.

• Humans, the latest MOOC feature, Inside Higher Ed, Carl Straumsheim

3. Self-Paced MOOCs on the Rise
September is a big month for MOOCs and September 2016 is shaping up to be the biggest yet; at least since 2013 according to Class Central (Shah, 2016). But the big shift in MOOCs is the self-paced format which allows students to participate in MOOCs on-demand. Yet something is lost—the synergy of students working through the concepts at the same time (synchronous format) leading to discussion forums that fall flat.

Table (above) from “MOOCs no longer massive, still attract millions” (Shah, 2016)

Coursera has a workaround though, offering MOOCs within a cohort system, with courses that start back-to-back (see screenshot below) which allows students to transfer into the next class keeping their course-work intact.

Screenshot showing Courera’s new MOOC format that offers cohort-MOOCs more frequently meeting students’ needs for self-paced format

Closing Thoughts
The MOOC concept is transforming online education, yet the new formats are a far cry from the MOOC of 2012 which were Massive Open Online Courses.

References

•  2015 training industry report. (2015, November/December). Training Magazine, 20-33. Retrieved from https://trainingmag.com/trgmag-article/2o15-training-industry-report
• Bensen-Armer, R., Gast, A., & Van dam, N. (2016, May). Learning at the speed of business. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/learning-at-the-speed-of-business
• Shah, D. (2016, September 5). MOOCs no longer massive, still attract millions. Retrieved from http://venturebeat.com/2016/09/05/moocs-no-longer-massive-still-attract-millions/
• Straumsheim, C. (2016, September 2). Massachusetts Institute of Technology experiments with instructor grading in massive open online course. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/09/02/massachusetts-institute-technology-experiments-instructor-grading-massive-open

 

 

 

Need-to-Know News: Chatbots – the New Online Teaching Assistant and Credit-worthy MOOCs Go Global

1. The Chatbot Teaching Assistant
Colorado State University (CSU) plans to use ‘Intelligent Tutoring’ in two online undergraduate courses this Fall. The goal is to improve learning outcomes, increase instructors’ productivity and enable high-quality personalized education by using  chatbot technology. A chatbot is a computer program designed to simulate conversation with human users on a web-based platform. You may have engaged with chatbot without knowing; they’re embedded in banking platforms, retailers sites and others. Companies use chatbot software to respond to customer requests for basic and frequently asked questions. There are benefits—cost effectiveness for the company and improved service levels for customers by reducing wait times for answers and the frustration of automated phone systems. But can learners benefit?

A professor of an online Computer Science course at Georgia Tech thought so. He created a chatbot teaching assistant, Jill Watson. According to Goel his students didn’t even notice:

Jill came to be after Goel decided he and his teaching assistants were being spread thin. Goel’s class was a popular online course, and his teaching team receives over 10,000 online questions per semester. Jill was trained by reading questions and answers from previous semesters, and was set to only respond to new ones if it was 97 percent confident in its answer or higher. — TNW

Insight: The education sector is sensitive to robot technology as a replacement for teacher interaction as we’ve seen with automated essay grading software (Larson, 2013). Yet with the expansion of online learning and it’s potential to reach more students, technology like chatbots and grading software will be the norm. This technology is critical for achieving scale and can be effective for some instructional tasks, while not taking away from value of faculty and instructor expertise.

More on Chatbots:

• What happened when a professor built a chatbot to be his teaching assistant, The Washington Post
• CSU Online brings artificial intelligence-powered learning tools to courses, Source
• Facebook is Teaching Chatbots to Talk with Help From Facebook, Wired Magazine

2. MOOCs become Credit-Worthy, Globally
MOOCs are disrupting higher education if you consider degree-granting institutions awarding college credit for MOOCs disruptive. Over the last year  institutions around the world are moving to integrate MOOC coursework into traditional degree programs. Partnerships between MOOC providers (FutureLearn, edX and Cousera) and higher-ed institutions are allowing students to obtain college-credits easily and affordably. In the UK, Leeds and Open University are granting credit to students who complete certain MOOCs and earn a certificate through the platform. In the US the Global Freshman academy and American Public University offer similar programs.

In the United State the American Council on Education’s (ACE)  ‘Alternative Credit Project’ aims to support students complete an undergraduate degree by using MOOCs as credit.

The Alternative Credit Project features 47 partner universities that accept MOOC certificates to degree programs http://www.alternativecreditproject.com/

In India, Bennett University partners with Georgia Tech to support students working through Georgia Tech’s Online Master of Science in Computer Science (OMSCS), an entire degree program based on the MOOC-format. The total cost for the program is under $7,000 (US funds). Bennett University provides students based in India, ground support for while they are working through the MOOC degree program.

Governments are also getting involved in the MOOC movement as in South Korea where the Ministry of Education encourages universities to grant credit for MOOC study.  South Korea is a leader in online education, and is actively promoting MOOC study for credit along with its other initiatives, such as the Cyber-University program launched in 2001.

Insight:  Despite what MOOC critics have suggested over the last three years—that MOOCs are not disruptive, they are. The reach of MOOCs, or variations of the MOOC format, is far and wide—bringing education to learners who can not, for a variety of reasons, attend a brick-and-mortar institution. Institutions and governments are seeing the value of the MOOC format; it’s a win-win.

More:

• Students can earn credit from K-MOOC lectures, The Korea Times
• Georgia Tech’s Online Masters in Computer Science to enter India, The Economic Times
• MOOCs: Leeds and Open University offering course credit towards degrees for first time, The Independent
• MOOCs for Credit, Class-Central

For more need-to-know news, you can follow Online Learning Insights on Twitter @OnlineLearningI

 

MOOCs Desperately Seeking Quality

MOOCs, despite what the critics say have transformed higher education. They have spawned new vehicles for online learning, reaching new groups of learners who want and need an alternate form of traditional education. Thanks to the MOOC format learners now have numerous pathways to furthering their education. Granted, not all MOOC programs meet the definition of open, but as programs expand as we’ve seen with certificate-granting MOOCs, MOOCs for college credit, professional development MOOCs, and others, there is a pressing need for benchmarks of quality.

This need is more apparent after the recent publication of two reports: Babson’s thirteenth annual “Online Report Card” and “In search of quality: Using Quality Matters to analyze the quality of Massive, Open, Online Courses (MOOCs)”, (Allen, Seaman, Poulin & Straut, 2016; Lowenthal & Hodges, 2015).

The Babson report devotes (only) two of its sixty-plus pages to MOOCs, yet what’s most telling is the fact that the report is in its final year of publication. Though there are a variety of contributing factors, a compelling one as described in the report’s introduction, “distance education is clearly becoming mainstream” (pg. 3). In other words online education is growing up. ‘Online learning’ is simply becoming ‘learning’. The report outlines the number of organizations dedicated to online education, who report on and address issues specific to online learning. Many do address quality standards as it relates to developing and delivering online programs, as is the case with Quality Matters rubric, Online Learning Consortium’s (OLC) Five Pillars, and California State University Chico’s rubric for online instruction, yet all fall short in specifying standards for MOOCs.

This void is a concern given the number of students engaged in learning using the MOOC format which is significant. Estimates are in the range of millions—one source states there were 35 million enrollment in 2015 (“MOOC Enrolment”, 2016). Given these numbers the question is—how will MOOC learning be advanced and improved if MOOC quality isn’t addressed by organizations involved in online education? Researchers Lowenthal and Hodges bring some of these issues forward in their paper, “In search of Quality”.  They apply the Quality Matters™ rubric to six MOOCs, offered by three providers, Coursera, edX and Udacity:

The six identified MOOCs were analyzed using the Quality Matters Rubric Standards with Assigned Point Values, which involves a type of content analysis by three different reviewers using a standard coding scheme. [Quality Matters] QM has a rubric for Continuing and Professional Development that would be appropriate to use on MOOCs (Adair et al., 2014). However, we intentionally chose to use QM’s higher education rubric rather than the continuing and professional development focused rubric because of the increased initiatives about offering college credit for MOOC completion. In other words, a MOOC should score as well as a traditional online course if it is going to be worth college credit.  (Lowenthal & Hodges, 2015)

Not surprisingly, after the QM peer-review assessment all six MOOCs failed to meet QM’s passing grade of 85%. The QM rubric consists of a set of standards grouped into eight dimensions (below); in the study, most MOOCs failed in two dimensions, #5 and #7.

1. Course overview and introduction
2. Learning objectives
3. Assessment and measurement
4. Instructional materials
5. Learner interaction and engagement
6. Course technology
7. Learner support
8. Accessibility (Quality Matters, 2014)

The apparent failure of the MOOCs in this study may give fodder to MOOC critics, yet I suggest that failure stems not from the MOOCs, but from:  1) applying a tool (QM rubric) to a MOOC, which inherently serves a variety of learning purposes and needs, e.g. not just for credit, but for professional development, personal interest, etc. and 2) assessing a MOOC on dimensions such as ‘learner interaction and engagement‘ and ‘learner support‘ doesn’t make sense in context of a MOOC, specifically at the level the QM standards articulate. Considering the massive component of MOOCs, it’s almost a given that facilitating structured, mandatory engagement and active learning is next to impossible. Furthermore since MOOC students are able to choose the level of engagement based upon their learning needs, including this as a standard doesn’t fit with the intent of the course.

The study acknowledges many of these points, and serves as a vehicle for discussion about applying quality standards to courses that align with the MOOC format. The authors also highlight a critical point, if the MOOC format is used as a vehicle for granting college credit, as it appears to be, quality benchmarks are essential.

Final Thoughts
A unique approach to quality assessment (and course design) is needed; one that heeds the needs of learners, the constraints and advantages of the delivery platform, and ensures a quality learning experience. Going further, I also suggest that before establishing quality standards, institutions would do well to first identify the primary purpose and intent of the MOOC. Categorizing a MOOC based on its purpose, then establishing quality standards is a good place to start.

References
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States (Rep.). Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf

Lowenthal, P. R., & C. B. Hodges (2015). In search of quality: Using Quality Matters to analyze the quality of massive, open, online, courses (MOOCs). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2348/3411

MOOC enrolment surpassed 35 million in 2015. (2016, January 05). Retrieved from http://monitor.icef.com/2016/01/mooc-enrolment-surpassed-35-million-in-2015/

 

Need-to-Know MOOC News: MOOCs Find Their Niche & Business Model in 2016

This is a special issue of the ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series featuring the latest developments in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) offered by providers: Coursera, iVersity, edX, and Udacity.

1. Coursera’s Business Model Taking Shape
Coursera is finding its niche and business model. The MOOC provider is moving towards three revenue-generating strategies: 1) fee-based courses which require students to pay a fee for access to graded assignments, 2) Specializations, a sequence of courses with a capstone project, and 3) Course Certificates (formerly known as Signature Track).

Signature Track, launched in 2013 was Coursera’s first (significant) revenue generating strategy. Students paid a fee in exchange for the opportunity to earn a verified certificate. Initially only a handful of courses featured the certificate option. Signature Track has since expanded, had a recent name change to Course Certificate and features a flat fee of $49. The Course Certificate option is now available across numerous courses. Revenue estimates suggest Certificates generated between $8 and $12 million in 2014 (Shah, 2014). 

Specializations feature a sequence of courses (typically four to six) with a capstone project where students apply the skills learned in order to earn a certificate. Launched two years ago, the program appears successful given the number of Specializations offered—in the hundreds according to Coursera. Fees range between $300 and $600. Tuition is determined by the price of each course (which range between $39 and $79), the number of courses within each, and the fee for the capstone project. If there is even modest student demand for Specializations as Coursera founder Daphne Koller indicates, revenue opportunity is significant (Bogen, 2015).

The Purchase Course strategy announced last week requires that students pay to gain access to graded assignments. There is an option to ‘audit’ the course where students have access to course materials only. An excerpt from Coursera’s blog (below) outlines the strategy:

Starting today, when you enroll in certain courses, you’ll be asked to pay a fee (or apply for Coursera’s financial aid program) if you’d like to submit required graded assignments and earn a Course Certificate. You can also choose to explore the course [audit] for free, in which case you’ll have full access to videos, discussions, and practice assignments, and view-only access to graded assignments. — Coursera Blog, January 19, 2016

This format is similar to what’s offered at iVersity, a Europe-based MOOC provider. Tuition at Coursera ranges between $39 and $119 per course. Below is a screen shot showing the options presented to students enrolling for a course on Coursera’s platform.

Fee-based courses appear linked to courses that are part of the Specializations programs. The screenshot above is an image of what is presented when enrolling for ‘Understanding Financial Markets’

• Coursera is now offering a ‘Specialization’ program for professional learners (2014), Christina Farr, Venture Beat
• Financial Aid, Coursera Help Center
• Master New Skills in 2016 — 35+ Specializations Now Open, Coursera Blog

2) iVersity’s Pay-for Certificate Program & Udacity’s Nanodegree Plus
iVersity, one of Europe’s MOOC platforms launched it’s own version of Coursera’s Specializations—The Business Communication Programme. It’s targeted to working professionals seeking skills in business communication and marketing. It’s iVersity’s first venture into bundled programs. Yet the Programme is more similar to Udacity’s new Nanodegree Plus program, given it offers enhanced customer service—support and resources to help students find a job.

Udacity’s program goes further by guaranteeing that students find a job within six months, or their money back. Fees at Udacity are monthly—$299. With an estimated program length between six and eight months that brings the cost between $1,794 and $2,392.  iVersity’s tuition model takes a different approach but the price is similar (see screenshot below)—iVersity’s Programme at its regular price  is $1,704 (approximate US funds), and the enhanced model is $2,611.

Screenshot above: Prices for iVersity’s ‘Business Communication Programme’ as displayed on the webpage at iversity.org. Sales prices still appear on site, February 2, 2016

iVersity also offers corporate learning services to companies looking for support in creating their own professional development courses. It’s promoted on their site as “a new form of professional development“.

• Nanodegree Plus, Udacity
• The Business Communication Programme, iVersity

3) Udacity for Business
Udacity also targets the corporate training market (tech-companies specifically) via its business webpage promoting “Hands-on Training. Done Online”. The courses and programs promoted are identical to Udacity’s existing ones, but are packaged to appeal to company and human resource executives as a solution to meet skill gaps among employees and as a tool for succession planning. Screenshot below from Udacity’s site:

4) edX CEO: “edX offers complete programs online, not just individual courses“
EdX, an open source platform and one of the few non-profit MOOC providers,  also has revenue generating strategies, though not for profit. The strategies are needed to support edX’s goal of sustainability in order to achieve its mission of offering “access to high-quality education for everyone, everywhere”. Some of edX’s programs are similar to Coursera and Udacity—certificates with fees typically of $50 per course. Another is the XSeries program, a group of bundled courses. Students receive a Xseries Certificate upon completion, though unlike Coursera’s Specializations or Udacity’s Nanodegree, there is no final or capstone project. Another revenue strategy is licensing edX courses to countries such as China, India, France, the Middle East who have adopted Open edX (Young & Hobson, 2015).

EdX also offers Professional Education Courses targeted to students looking for skills training and professional development. Courses are stand-alone and online, some are self-paced and others have a start and end date that span between four and six weeks. Fees can be hefty, ranging between $89 and $949, as this one “Yield Curve Analysis”.

• edX now offers complete programmes online, not just individual courses: CEO Anant Agarwal (2016), Rica Bhattacharyya, The Economic Times
• EdX CEO Lays out Disruptive Vision for Higher Ed (2015), Here & Now, NPR

Insight:  Offering free, high-quality content on feature-rich digital platforms is not free for the MOOC provider or the partnering institutions. Even though free appeared to be the end-goal of MOOCs at the time of their launch in 2012.  But free is not sustainable. The concept of MOOCs is shifting to where the demand is—fee-based certificate courses and programs in skill-specific areas, and corporate learning. In between are programs offering MOOCs for higher education credit, as with courses for ECTS credit at iVersity, edX’s Global Freshman Academy, and Malaysia’s national credit recognition policy for MOOCs. Even degrees (Georgia Tech’s CS Master’s degree) and mini-degrees based on MOOCs as with MIT’s Micro-Masters. There still are courses for free for the life-long learner, like myself, looking for high quality, online courses not for credit. I view this as a win-win-win for everyone; the platform providers, the institutions and the students. Who says MOOCs weren’t disruptive?

Further Reading:

• Use of MOOCs and Online Education is Exploding: Here’s Why (2015), John Bersin, Forbes
• The Limits of Open (2016), Carl Straumsheim, Inside Higher Ed
• Free to Profit (2013), Ry Rivard, Inside Higher Ed
• Coursera flipped the classroom, but can it turn a profit? (2015), Miranda Bogen

What is the Optimal Size for Online Groups within MOOCs?

Is there an optimal size for groups working within a MOOC?

I received this question from a reader of this blog about optimal group size for individuals who meet online and are collaborating on a project or participating in a study group as in a MOOC. I share here our discussion via email, and resources specific to online groups that readers may find helpful.

Reader’s Question:
“I was wondering whether or not there is an optimal size for online collaborative groups. I’m referring to collections of individuals who “know” and “meet” each other only via web interactions but who interact with each other (one on one and one on many) to accomplish a goal? Do you have an instinct as to whether there is an optimal size for a student collaborative study group in a MOOC and, if so, is it 5, 15, or even more?  Anything very large would more resemble a bulletin board for postings and replies.”

My Response:
This is an interesting area of study. I’ve done a fair bit of research in this area along with practical application and my observations are consistent with the research which finds that online collaboration in an academic context where a group project is part of a grade for a fully online course, requires involvement and guidance of a moderator (instructor) for best results. Not to say that students’ won’t participate without an instructor’s guidance but that participation by group members is higher with an instructor’s influence (Peck, 2003). Also optimal size for this type of group collaboration—online in a course where students do not interact outside of the the online context, is three to five. This is consistent with my experience where I’ve seen best results when groups are this size. Five is almost too big in an online context: it’s more challenging to coordinate and a group member that is by nature lazier, will find it easier to shirk responsibility in a group of five. In smaller groups there is more responsibility and pressure for each group member to perform. I’ve found the ideal size to be three or four.

However, in a MOOC context group collaboration whether for an online study group or project varies greatly. There are several factors that influence the group collaboration dynamic and outcomes.

First is motivation of participants which is different from in online, for-credit courses; each [student] is taking the MOOC for different reasons many who are not interested in taking the course for a grade which is the case for smaller, closed online courses for credit.  This alone implies that group work or collaboration must be entirely voluntary and not directed by the instructor.

Second is the structure of the MOOC. Due to the massive number of participants, it is technically impossible for an instructor to be involved in the group formation and moderation for a formal group assignment, from a manpower perspective, and from a technical perspective in terms of providing the ‘space’ for groups to form and interact.

However there are instances where informal online study groups can happen as well as smaller discussions, that can be guided by course facilitators. Below are some instances where this can work:

• Participants can be encouraged to form their own groups; which I’ve seen participants do where they reach out to others in the general discussion forum and form their own groups on Facebook or other platform. I’ve seen this happen in MOOCs on several occasions. Groups may be formed by interest in a specific aspect of the topic, or by geography.  Groups are then run independently of the course with no involvement from the course leaders
• I’ve also seen success with breaking discussion groups into smaller groups which allows for more manageable and intimate conversations. For a specific discussion question related to a given topic (module), three or four discussion forums are created and participants asked to contribute based on the first letter of their last name, e.g. for last names beginning in A to G, respond here,  from H to M respond here, etc. This can be very effective as it overcomes the challenge of the cumbersome discussion boards with massive numbers of participants, granted the numbers can still be large.

Formats for what’s described above can be the discussion forum within the LMS, or there are also digital bulletin boards that can be used, which I’ve seen used for smaller groups with tools such as Padlet (though I’ve not seen Padlet used for groups over 30, so not sure of the technical implications).  I like Padlet because users do not need to sign up and create an account, once a board is created (by course facilitator) it can be open for anyone to contribute to who has the link. There are other applications, but many require creating an account and updated versions of Java etc. which some students may not have.

Some MOOC platforms and structures are based on the small group concept and require participation, Stanford’s open courses I believe work on this concept of ‘mandatory’ participation by students who sign up. I believe the groups are fairly large, up to fifteen or twenty. I have not taken a course on this platform, but have heard from practitioners in my network who have.

Hope that helps.  Below are a few resources you may find helpful.

Resources

• http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/otai/GroupProblemSolving.asp
• https://hbr.org/2012/10/how-to-collaborate-in-a-virtua
• http://www.asa.mnscu.edu/facultydevelopment/project-sites/ctlactiveonline/small-group-activity.html
• http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1041/2025