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-News: An EdX MOOC as Propaganda? and Grant to ‘Accelerate’ Adoption of Personalized Learning in Higher Ed

This ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series features noteworthy stories that speak of need-to-know developments within higher education and K-12 that have the potential to influence, challenge and/or transform traditional education as we know it.

1. Is This EdX MOOC Propaganda?
An interesting development going on in the MOOC sector—whether a MOOC serves as propaganda. The MOOC in question is ‘Introduction to Mao Zedong Thought’ which some view as propaganda for the Chinese government.  Some MOOC students claim the course, delivered by professor Feng from Tsinghua University’s School of Marxism, is one-sided and glosses over events during Mao’s tenure. Significant events such as the Cultural Revolution Mao Zedong initiated. Even scholars are claiming it’s propaganda sponsored by the Chinese Government, as a professor of history from the United States Naval Academy does. He says this:

“It’s propaganda” This course is “part of a larger campaign to export a way of Chinese governance ….China wants to be part of the world, but it doesn’t want to be part of a world where Western democracy and capitalism dominate” (Logue).

An alternative perspective comes from a medical student in Tianjin who is quoted as saying, “Sure, it may be a bit like propaganda, but it’s something that’s being taught in every school in China…More Chinese universities should offer these kinds of courses because it gives the world a window into China.” (Hernandez). EdX when questioned about the course claims not to interfere with content, as long as course content is not unlawful or offensive it will allow the content on its platform.

Insight:  When reading the course description of ‘Introduction to Mao Zedong Thought’, it’s described as giving “learners around the world a rare peek into a course that millions of university students in China are required to take each year”.  This statement is telling in itself; it states how history is presented to students in China, quite a different perspective from what is presented in the West. The MOOC provides an opportunity to view Mao Zedong rule through the lens of a Chinese student, and with the knowledge of other perspectives students will gain a deeper understanding into the political process and power structure within the country.  Though the MOOC doesn’t provide other perspectives (based on student feedback), I’ve taken MOOCs that have also presented a one-sided perspective of an issue. One comes to mind—an edX course I took last year, Saving Schools: History, Politics, and Policy in U.S. Education, which presented a single perspective on public education and the reform needed. Content was drawn primarily from one source, an  organization Education Next.  Content primarily consisted of opinion essays from the Education Next publication, an expert featured in the lecture videos who also happened to be the Editor-In-Chief of Education Next, as well as a text-book chapters from a book authored by this same Editor-In-Chief of Education Next.

Stephen Downes quoted in Inside Higher Ed says it the best “There’s no such thing as a neutral course,” he said. And now, “courses that might have been offered behind closed doors are offered for everyone to see.”  He’s right.

• China Turns to Online Courses, and Mao, In Pursuit of Soft Power, Javier Hernandez, New York Times
• Mao’s MOOC Rehabilitation, Josh Logue, Inside Higher Ed
• Introduction to Mao Zedong Thought, edX

Personalizing learning is the tailoring of pedagogy, curriculum and learning environments by learners or for learners in order to meet their different learning needs. Typically technology is used to facilitate personalized learning environments.

2. Next Trend coming to Higher Ed Institutions ‘Personalizing Learning’
There’s been much written about personalized learning in education sector—it’s the latest trend in education and it’s making its way into higher education. The idea behind personalized education is customizing learning experiences by using academic data analytics, and moving from a one-size-fits-all approach to education to adapting learning experiences, curriculum or instructional approaches to individual students. Personalized learning appears most prevalent in K-12 and online education, but now universities have funding opportunities to expand initiatives into personalizing learning using adaptive courseware. This week the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities (APLU) announced a grant available for six universities designed to help institutions ‘scale their adaptive courseware effectively’ —to improve education and help students learn (Wexler). In a nutshell adaptive courseware, is software that uses algorithms based on data generated by students to scaffold instruction.

Adaptive courseware can be used in distance education, but the university association is focused on blended learning. Faculty members will learn to use new online tools but will continue working with students in a traditional classroom setting. The group wants universities to focus their efforts in lower-level, high-enrollment courses, or in courses with high failure and withdrawal rates.

Insight: It appears ALPU’s focus is getting universities to implement adaptive courseware, and not on personalizing learning. There also seems a great emphasis on haste evidenced by the language used by ALPU—for instance in the two-page Grant Overview paper titled “Accelerating Adopting of Adaptive Courseware at Public Universties“, and in the second paragraph, “to speed post-secondary educators toward effective use of high-quality adaptive courseware“.  The last statement does not lend itself to the process of a conducting a thorough needs-analysis or approaching personalized learning thoughtfully and strategically. Also of note, one of ALPU’s partners in the Personalized Learning Consortium is Acrobatiq, a provider of courseware solutions.

• Public-University Group Expands ‘Personalized Learning’ Efforts, Ellen Wexler, The Chronicle of Higher Education
• Accelerating Adoption of Adaptive Courseware, Association of Public & Land-Grand Universities
• Adaptive courseware model for intelligent e-learning systems, Ani Grubisic, Slavomir Stankov, Branko Zito, conference paper

Five Alternatives to the Talking Head Video for MOOCs & Online Courses

Most xMOOCs, and some for-credit online courses rely heavily upon what many refer to as the ‘talking head’ video format. The ‘talking head’ is usually the subject-matter expert delivering a lecture in his or her area of expertise. There’s great value in this format when used strategically and sparingly. Yet the effectiveness of lecture videos as a primary content source for online courses and MOOCs is difficult to determine. Thanks to a comprehensive study done via edX  we have data on student engagement patterns with videos specific to MOOCs to draw upon (Guo, Kim & Rubin, 2014). Key findings include:

• The optimal video length is six minutes or shorter
• Videos produced with a more personal feel could be more engaging than high-fidelity studio recordings
• Khan-style tablet drawing tutorials (screencasts) are more engaging than PowerPoint slides

Video Viewing Patterns: A Non-MOOC Perspective
There is also data on student video engagement in non-MOOC courses to consider. The School of Continuing Education at Columbia University examined video viewing patterns of students using analytics from their video hosting platform and qualitative data from student interviews (Hibbert, 2014). Results were similar to Guo’s.  A significant takeaway from this study—videos are an excellent format in online courses to establish instructor presence; supporting a sense of connectedness for students.

“One of the benefits video can offer is creating faculty presence in an online environment. In the interviews, students cited faculty presence as a key factor related to their engagement and perceived learning from videos”

Alternatives to Talking Heads
The focus of this post is on alternatives to the talking head. I chose this topic because the majority of xMOOCs I’ve experienced over the last two years do not reflect good practices for educational videos described in the latest research. Most xMOOCs rely upon the lecture video format, and though they have their place, there are several unique and creative format options that I want to share with readers.

1. Podcasts. Podcasts are an excellent option for several reasons: 1) smaller file size for easier download, 2) the format uses less bandwidth when streaming and, 3) is a portable file format—allowing students to listen on the go.

Screenshot of podcast from “Globalizing Higher Education Research for the Knowledge Economy” on Coursera

Screen shot of collection of podcast links to interviews  with various experts sharing their definition of global competency. From “Globalizing Higher Education”.   This approach provides multiple perspectives on a topic, prompting students to analyze the topic from different viewpoints.

2.  Interviews.  This format is a variation of the traditional video lecture, except an interviewer poses questions to the subject-matter expert. The interviewer can be a non-expert as was the case in the “Saving our Schools” MOOC I completed recently on edX. In this MOOC graduate students interviewed the expert (the faculty member). Alternatively, the interviewer can be the MOOC instructor interviewing an expert or guest with a unique perspective on the topic.

 Another variation I’ve seen used frequently is a live interview conducted via a video conferencing platform, e.g. Google Hangout, with an interviewer and one or more experts. Students are encouraged to use Twitter as a back channel for questions and discussion.

Screenshot of lecture video using interview-format in “Saving our Schools”.  A graduate student interviews the faculty member.  I prefer the format when the instructor interviews a guest or other subject-matter expert on a topic; it’s more interesting.

3. Simulations. Simulations, when done well are an effective method for illustrating course concepts and engaging students. A simulation can serve not only as content, but also provide an excellent topic for a discussion forum, or problem solving exercise via a structured assignment.  According to the study at Columbia University, videos that link to an assignment or learning activity receive more views than those that don’t.

The simulation presented here, “A Day in the Life of a Rural Homemaker” from the MOOC “Subsistence Marketplaces” illustrates a typical day of a homemaker in rural India and includes an interactive component.

Screen shot from simulation from “Subsistence Marketplace” MOOC on Coursera.

4. Screencasts. A screen cast is a digital recording of the user’s screen with voice-over narration. This format allows the instructor to include power point slides, images, or motion— hand drawing on white board for instance (similar to Khan academy videos). This format requires little technical expertise, and is frequently used by instructors who prefer to record their own video content. The outcome is more informal.  The research suggests students respond well to an informal approach.  

“The most engaging videos for me [are] when the professors use wit and humor.” student, (Hibbert, 2014)

A professor at UBC records all of her own content videos (screencasts and lectures) for her MOOC “Useful Genetics” even through she has access to a recording studio. She outlines her reasons in her YouTube video “How I record MOOC lecture videos“. She also describes how she films the MOOC content.

Screenshot of a screencast created by the instructor for the MOOC, “Drugs and the Brain” on Coursera. The professor incorporates motion in his screencast. The red arrow highlights areas of focus during the narration.

Screencasts are useful for showing a selection of images. In this screencast the professor shares images of vintage maps, from “Configuring the World: A Critical Political Economy Approach”

5.  Informal end-of-week Recorded Discussions:  In this format the instructor(s) delivers an informal end-of-week recap of the previous week’s student interactions and feedback within the MOOC or online course. I’ve experienced instructor’s using this format in three or four MOOCs; I find it effective in demonstrating the instructor’s presence, commitment and interest in the course. He or she will typically share highlights from the discussion forums, address frequently asked student questions, and encourage participation for the upcoming week.

Screenshot features instructor in a weekly response video from “Configuring the World” MOOC on Coursera

There are other formats to the five presented here. One is not using any video content produced by the institution or instructor. Instead, content sources might include YouTube, TedTalks or even students. This approach was used in a Coursera MOOC “E-Learning and Digital Cultures”. The approach was quite controversial as described by one of the course creators in eLearn Magazine.  However, any format can be effective with a carefully planned instructional strategy that aligns with the learning outcomes and expectations for the course.

References:

• Cliff. (2013, October 01). Increase Engagement: 7 tips to make a talking head video more compelling. Retrieved from http://ustudio.com/blog/increase-engagement-7-tips-to-make-a-talking-head-video-more-compelling
• Guo, P. (2014, March 03). How MOOC video production affects student engagement [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.edx.org/blog/how-mooc-video-production-affects#.VOvr6Harctw
• Guo, P., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014, March 03). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos [PDF]. ACM.
• Hibbert, M. (2014, April 7). What makes an online video compelling. EDUCAUSE Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/what-makes-online-instructional-video-compelling
• Morrison, D. (2014). MOOC Design Tips: Maximizing the Value of the MOOC Video [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/mooc-design-tips-maximizing-the-value-of-video-lectures/
• Morse, S., & Viswanathan, M. (n.d.). Subsistence Marketplaces Simulation: Rural India. Retrieved from http://www.subsistencemarketplaces.com/

“Spreadable Media” — How its Relevant to Education

“The media industries understand that culture is becoming more participatory, that the rules are being rewritten and relationships between producers and audiences are in flux.” (page 35)

spreadablemedia.org

I recently read “Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture”.  Its focus (not surprisingly) is social media; how people consume and engage with content via various channels of social media and its effects on business, entertainment and other sectors. It addresses how meaning and value are created from content that is spread; ‘spread’ meaning sharing of content not just between people, but within communities. Content, the authors suggest, is shaped even manipulated throughout the spreading process.

It’s a dense read. The lead author Henry Jenkins, Professor of Communication, Journalism, Cinematic Arts and Education at USC, wrote the book with two digital strategists, Ford and Green. The book aims to “build understanding and conversation among three groups of readers: media scholars, communication professionals, and citizens who actively produce and share media content”. I’d say that there is quite a bit to discuss and not just for those involved in media studies. It’s applicable to education, more so given that social media platforms are used with greater frequency by students and instructors to connect with, consume and create education content.

Several of the book’s sub themes address topics educators and institutions are wrestling with, particularly those offering any form of online education. For instance engagement topic of chapter three—The Value of Media Engagement explores engagement from the perspective of market value, recently a topic of discussion among MOOC providers (Dodd, 2014). Building on the engagement theme, chapter four What Constitutes Meaningful Participation explores the changing relationship between producers and consumers, another parallel to education, as more students seek to be actively involved in a course’s content development—to co-create with instructors and other students. Both chapters offer insight into the issues in context of education, even though authors draw upon examples primarily from the business and entertainment sectors—the applicability is hard to miss.

Lurking
One discussion in chapter three addresses the behavior known as ‘lurking’, a topic of concern when it comes to MOOCs and online courses. Lurkers are students that typically don’t participate or contribute to asynchronous discussion forums, or engage in a real-time video conferencing sessions or other chat venues, yet are reading and/or watching—they are consuming content. Lurking is viewed negatively, or at least as a challenging behaviour by course instructors. More so in courses that require students to participate for course credit. Lurking in connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs) also doesn’t go over well, particularly with other MOOC students (Milligan, Littlejohn & Margaryan, 2013). Jenkins, Ford & Green attempt to reframe lurking behaviour. They discuss barriers to online participation and suggest there might be opportunity to scaffold learning, or at scale least levels of participation (p. 158).

“The authors portray “lurkers” (the bane of online communities where the vast majority of members who only consume others’ information without contributing any of their own) as only learning and biding their time until they too understand the rules and start to participate. In Chapter 5 they even describe what makes materials sharable. This will help me to completely rethink the development of content rather than just to focus on why community members are either engaged or not.”  T. Sales, Amazon Reviewer of “Spreadable Media”

Startling Parallel: Audience Fragmentation
Authors discuss engagement specific to television audiences, yet the similarity between television consumers and participants in education (particularly those engaging in open learning) is strong.  Beginning on page 116 the authors address the challenges the media industry is facing due to audiences consuming content across multiple channels e.g television, mobile devices, or DVRs. This behaviour, according to the authors, fragments the audience, an audience that traditionally consumed content via one channel—television. The audience has since splintered in response, and the result?— people consuming the same content on a variety channels creating smaller audiences. This fragmentation makes it difficult for providers to gauge the value of the different audience groups—to establish an appropriate pricing model.

Note the similarities to the education sector. Education, at one time used two distribution channels for content, 1) the instructor in a physical location delivering content to student, and 2) the textbook. It’s no longer the case. Today education content has numerous distribution channels, for example open education resources (OER) via the web, MOOC providers, textbook companies, closed, fee-based education platforms, Khan Academy and the likes. These channels suggest a fragmentation of the education sector—similar to what’s happening the media industry. It’s not surprising that MOOC providers are finding it a challenge to settle on a viable business model.

Even among those who understand that developing business models around such engagement is key, there has been little consensus on how, or even which, measures of engagement are valuable or how to agree on a model… (p. 116).

Closing Thoughts 
“Spreadable Media” puts forth several relevant and thought-provoking concepts specific to our digital culture. The book on the surface seems more applicable to business decision makers, marketers and media scholars given the numerous references to marketing and entertainment examples, however, the parallels to education though subtle are striking making it a worthwhile and interesting read.

Resources

• Click, M. A. (2013). Book Review: Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture, by Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. Transformative Works and Cultures (TWC), 14.
• Dodd, T. (2014, October 8). Top MOOC provider edX no longer free for all.
• Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (June). “Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs“.  JOLT – Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. v. 9(2)
• Spreadable Media. (n.d.).

MOOC Design Tips: Maximizing the Value of Video Lectures

“Which kinds of videos lead to the best student learning outcomes in a MOOC?”
How Video Production Affects Student Engagement: An Empirical Study of MOOC Videos (Guo, Kim & Rubin, 2014)

An excellent question that design teams and instructors of MOOCs want to know—which kinds of videos lead to the best student learning outcomes in a MOOC?  According to a recent study conducted by researchers for the edX MOOC platform, this was the most pressing question posed by the course design teams working with its partner institutions. Given that most MOOCs offered through higher education institutions platforms such as edX, iVersity, or Coursera use video lectures as the primary content delivery source, it is a critical question that preoccupies many if not most MOOC instructional design teams. Adding to this need-to-know element is the fact that video production is most often the highest cost associated with MOOC production. MOOC video production can range from a few hundred dollars and run up to the thousands. This post suggests how institution can use resources effectively in the video production process with the primary goal of supporting students’ learning outcomes.

The report released by edX last week gives design teams some concrete data to examine. I’ve emphasized below the recommendations and practical application points from the paper for readers who might be part of a design team for MOOC, online course, or for those with an interest in video production for instructional videos.  There are limitations to the study outlined in the paper, though the depth of the analysis does provide data worthy of consideration. 

The report, the first of its kind according to the authors Guo, Kim & Rubin, analyzes students’ engagement* with lecture videos gathered from data extracted from over 6.9 million video watching sessions across four edX courses.  *Student engagement is defined in the study by:

1. Engagement time: the length of time that a student spends of a video. This is the same metric used by YouTube. Though researchers acknowledged the limitation of engagement assessed from this one-dimensional perspective.

2. Question/Problem Attempt:  Almost one-third of the videos across the four courses featured an assessment problem directly following the video, usually a multiple-choice question designed to check a student’s understanding of the video’s contents. “We record whether a student attempted the follow-up problem within 30 minutes after watching a video.”

Videos Types for MOOCs
Lectures are divided into two primary types for the study, [which mirrors most MOOCs]: 1) lecture videos for content delivery—presented via an instructor/professor (‘talking head’ is the term used in the paper), and 2) a tutorial/demonstration, a step-by-step problem solving walk-through, common in computer science courses, courses featuring mathematical concepts or science courses featuring lab demonstrations.

Video Production Format
For analysis purposes, researchers coded the videos examined in study using six primary video production formats, which I’ve summarized below, along with production styles not mentioned in the study.

1) Lecture-Style Video Formats:

• Instructor(s) with/without Presentation Slides: Features instructor(s) lecturing, with or without PowerPoint slide presentation slides inserted throughout with instructor ‘voice over’ while slide is displayed
• Office Setting: close-up shots of the instructor filmed at his or her office, typically instructor speaks directly to camera
• Classroom Setting: video captured from a live classroom lecture
• Production Studio Setting: instructor recorded in a studio with no audience, typically speaking to the camera

2) Tutorial/Demonstration Video Formats:

• Video Screencast: of the instructor demonstrating a concept, i.e. writing code in a text editor, or command-line prompt (in the case of computer science courses), using spreadsheet or document
• Instructor Drawing Freehand on a Digital Tablet, using a software program, which is a style popularized by Khan Academy videos (click here to view an example)

Other Formats not mentioned in the study:

• Instructor interviewing another expert or guest speaker
• Instructor delivering lecture in another setting related to the course (though not always), for example an ecologist giving lecture at the beach, an art historian in a museum, etc.
• Panel Discussion of experts on specific course-related topic

Which format to use? The primary factor that determines which format to use are the objectives of the MOOC or course, and the course content. The course design team typically selects the video formats during the course design phase when the instructional strategy is created, for example: the formats of the video are chosen, the content chosen for each, related student activities or assessments selected, etc.

The second factor determining which format to employ is the amount of resources (dollars) available for video production. This determines right off the bat which tool, program or hardware will be used for the video production. Important to note, the amount of resources invested in video production does not scale to how much students’ learn or to MOOC completion rates. For example, I completed a course on Canvas Network, Statistics in Education for Mere Mortals (my course review here). The course featured video lectures and tutorials, all created by the instructor using low-budget technology. Lectures appeared to be filmed on the instructor’s laptop using a web cam, (power point slides were added, so there was some editing). Each module featured a tutorial, a screen cast where the instructor demonstrated application of various formulas to a data set. I found the professor, Lloyd Rieber, encouraging and personable; he also delivered the content concisely in lecture videos and tutorials. Interestingly, the course completion rate was over 10%, higher than typical MOOC completion rates that are usually lower than 7%.

Key Findings of Study

• Shorter videos are more engaging. Student engagement levels drop sharply after 6 minutes
• Engagement patterns differ between the two video formats; engagement higher with the lecture style videos (‘talking head’) which researchers suggest is due to more “intimate and personal feel”
• Several MOOC instructors interviewed for study felt more comfortable with the classroom lecture format, however this format did not translate well online, even with much editing in production studio
• For tutorial/demonstrations videos, the Khan-style format where instructor draws on tablet and narrates, was found to engage students more effectively than screen casts. A contributing factor—instructors ability to situate themselves “on the same level” as student
• Video producers and edX design teams determined that pre-production planning had the largest impact on the engagement effect of the videos. Researchers used a data set within the study to test this idea

Practical Recommendations for Course Design Teams

1. Identify type and format for each video lecture using course objectives and module breakdown as a guide, and budget. Plan each lecture for the MOOC format and its potential students. Consider copyright terms for images used in videos and slides. Plan ahead by selecting appropriate images, free from copyright during the planning phase

2. Invest in pre-production planning phase. Segment course content into chunks, using six-minutes per video as a guideline. Identify purpose for each video lecture, and key content points to deliver within each.  Write script for each [lecture video format] and have instructor practice before filming—reduces filming and editing time

3. For tutorial/demonstration videos introduce motion and continuous visual flow into tutorials, along with extemporaneous speaking so that students can follow along with the instructor’s thought process. Complete basic outline of video beforehand, not full script to be read word-for-word

4. Provide more personal feel to videos. Try filming in an informal setting (such as the instructor’s  office) where he or she can make good eye contact—it often costs less and might be more effective than a professional studio. Coach instructors to use humour, personal stories and convey enthusiasm where possible

Closing Thoughts
MOOCs are here to stay, which makes studies like this one valuable for helping educators be more effective through course design. This study brings us closer to finding the answer to the question which kinds of videos lead to the best student learning outcomes in a MOOC?  Yet it’s a start, there is still much more to be done in understanding how students learn in massive courses, and how institutions can be more effective with investment of its resources for increasing student learning outcomes.

Further Reading:

• Guo, P., Kim J., & R. Rubin, How Video Production Affects Student Engagement: An Empirical Study of MOOC Videos, 2014. http://pgbovine.net/publications/
• Hibbert, M., What Makes an Online Instructional Video Compelling, 2014. EDUCAUSE
• Optimal Video Length for Student Engagement, 2013. edX Blog
• How to Make a Khan Academy Video, Khan Academy

Need-to-Know News: White Male Cohort in Georgia Tech MOOC Degree & Surprising Data on Student Tech Use

This ‘Need-to-Know’ blog post series features noteworthy stories that speak of need-to-know developments within higher education and K-12 that have the potential to influence, challenge and/or transform traditional education as we know it.  Note: This is a re-posting of a blog article published on January 18, 2014.

Cohort Begins in the First-ever Massive Online Degree Program 
Georgia Tech in conjunction with Udacity launched its first cohort of 375 students in its MOOC-inspired Masters of Computer Science 100% online degree program. Readers may remember the headlines, a computer science Master’s Degree from Georgia Institute of Technology, offered 100% online for less than $7,000. The program, inspired by MOOCs and with start-up funds from AT&T was voted as a ‘go’ by Georgia Tech faculty last year.

We now have a profile of enrolled students in the first cohort which started this week—there is little diversity; the vast majority are white males, who work and live in the United States. Yet Sebastian Thrun described the cohort in his blog post quite differently,  “This is a very big day for us. Udacity’s mission is to democratize higher education. With this program, we are making a top-notch computer science education available to a much broader group of students… I believe this is a watershed moment for students around the world. ” What exactly does Thrun mean by ‘much broader group of students’? Ironically, there is more diversity in Georgia Tech’s on-campus Master’s of Computer Science Program than in this one.

Online Degree Program Applicant Demographics:

• 2,360 applicants: 86% male, 14% female
• 514 applicants from AT&T
• Over 80% resided in the United States: Most represented states:  343 from California and 336 from Georgia

There is a disconnect between the final numbers in the cohort, 375 and what a Udacity spokesperson said this past October, “450 of the applicants will start the program in January, but every qualified applicant will be accepted and may start next summer“.

Final Cohort Student Demographics:

• 375 students: 82 work at AT&T
• 330 or 92% are from the US, in contrast to Georgia Tech’s on-campus comparable program, of which 90% are International
• Average age is thirty-five, eleven years older than the on-campus program

Insights: The demographic profile of the programs’ applicants, and enrolled students are worth examining as stand alone data, and in comparison to Georgia Tech’s traditional degree; it provides a window into the potential and pitfalls associated with offering a fully online, Masters degree offered at a cost that requires considerable scale.  In order for the program to be sustainable, it requires 10,000 by the third year. Is this feasible given the student profile where there are so few students from outside of the United States?

• Georgia Tech Launches World’s First Massive Online Degree Program, Georgia Tech College of Computing
• The First Cohort, (2014)  Inside Higher Ed
• Who Applied to Georgia Tech’s Master’s Program, (2013), Inside Higher Ed

2) Report Suggests Higher Education and MOOCs like Oil and Water
This week Babson Survey Research Group released its eleventh annual report about the state of online education in the United States, Grade Change, Tracking Online Education in the United States. The report collected data from 2800 colleges and universities in the US and provides a readable summary of critical issues in online education: perceptions of online education, enrolled student data, and online as a strategy. I find the Babson reports helpful in identifying patterns and trends in online education.  This is the  second year MOOCs data is included, and this year’s data is more telling and potentially helpful for institutions and organizations involved in higher education given the comparison to last year’s numbers . Highlights:

• The top three reasons that institutions site for offering MOOCs
  • increase the institution’s visibility: 27.2%
  • to drive student recruitment : 20.0 %
  • innovative pedagogy: 18.0%
• How well are MOOCs meeting institution’s objectives
  • too early to tell: 65.8%
  • meeting very few:  1.3 %
  • meeting some: 17.2%
• Only 23 percent of academic leaders believe that MOOCs represent a sustainable method for offering online courses.

Insights: It’s apparent that the profile of the typical MOOC student is not the undergraduate student profile—an example is Udacity’s experience with San Jose State University, where Thrun called his course a lousy product [to explain the failure of the program], which isn’t quite accurate. MOOCs [offered through MOOC platforms, i.e. Coursera, Udacity] are not the best vehicles to serve the needs of undergraduate students. Institutions have invested considerable resources in MOOCs, it’s time to move on.

• Grade Change, Tracking Online Education in the United States, The Sloan Consortium
• Clarification: No, there aren’t 7.1 million students in US taking at least one online class, e-literate

3) Students and Technology— It’s Not What You Think 
The report by EDUCAUSE about higher education students’ and their technology use as it relates to their education is enlightening. It includes their perceptions, usage patterns and needs when it comes to technology—it’s a must read. The info graphic [below] gives a good summary of the findings. Other highlights:

• Students recognize the value of technology but still need guidance when it comes to using it more effectively for academics
• Students prefer blended learning environments
• Students are ready to use their mobile devices more for academics, and they look to institutions and instructors for opportunities and encouragement to do so.
• Students value their privacy, and using technology to connect with them has its limits.

References:

• ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2013, ECAR Research Hub
• Infographic, ‘Students and Technology in 2013’

Insights: Student patterns—their behaviours, and interaction with technology give institutional leaders and educators a glimpse into how to effectively provide support and make education relevant. I wrote a post about this very topic last week.

To keep up with other developments in online learning, you can follow me on Twitter, @onlinelearningi.