Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have been the hottest topic in Higher Education this year. Educating tens of thousands of students in one online course subtends some exciting opportunities but also a raft of pedagogical, logistical, and systemic challenges. This presentation summarises the key issues at stake and outlines a direction forward for Massive Open Online Courses in Higher Education.
Kenney, J.L. & Bower, M. (2012). Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): A snapshot. Presented at Expanding Horizons, L&T Week, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, 18 September.
Audio available from: http://tinyurl.com/moocs-snapshot
4. ‘I think this could be big the way Google was’
(L. John Doerr, Venture Capitalist, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers
& Coursera Board member)
Coursera Founders: Daphne Koller & Andrew Ng, Stanford University
(Source:Berger (image); Young, 2012, in Siemens, 2012)
6. A tec[h]tonic shiC?
• Analogies?
• Public libraries
• iTunes
• Green slips
• Democracy in Middle East
• RockNroll in the 60s
• Divided opinions
• SkepPcs Gartner
Hype
• CriPcs Cycle
• Proponents
(Source: Gartner, 2008)
7. Introducing MOOCs
A Misnomer?
• Massive open online courses: • MOOC as misnomer (Wiley, 2012):
– provide no constraints on class size; – Many are massive but not open;
– run over a defined Pme period; and, – Many are open but not massive; and,
– Many try not to be courses.
– are open to all.
• ‘Almost every so‐called MOOC
• Early instanPaPon pa/ern: ‘let’s put on a violates at least one le/er in the
course here, right now’; acronym’.
• Recent offerings:
– make exisPng university teaching
• Not all MOOCs (Cormier & Siemens, 2010):
– Mirror discussion at a conference,
materials freely available online; in a research lab, or in a workshop;
– use computer marked assessment; and, – Bring a wide variety of perspecPves
– may give parPcipants cerPficates of on a given topic;
complePon. – Members resemble ‘people in a
corner having an in‐depth
discussion that they can choose to
(Source: Open University, 2012, p. 19) enter’; and,
– Have enough course structure for
interested learners to ‘build
sufficient language and experPse to
parPcipate peripherally or directly’
8. MOOC • Berklee College of Music, Brown Uni., Columbia Uni., Emory Uni., Hebrew Uni.of Jerusalem,
Hong Kong Uni. of Science and Technology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Ohio State
Timeline
Uni., Uni.of British Columbia, Uni.of California at Irvine, University of Florida, Uni.of London,
Uni.of Maryland at College Park, Uni.of Melbourne, Uni.of Pittsburgh, Vanderbilt Uni.,
Wesleyan Uni.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
• CCK (Connectivism, • Change MOOC
& Connective • Digital Storytelling,
Knowledge) George • Numerous smaller • Intro to Openness
Jim Groom & Martha
Siemens, Stephen MOOCs in Education, David
Burtis, University of
Downes, Athabasca Mary Washington Wiley, OE US Virtual Worlds,
University & National Games & Ed Tour
• Personal Learning • Artificial Intelligence, P2PU
Research Council Sebastian Thrun &
Environments
(Canada) (25 fee- Peter Norvig, • Virtual Schooling,
Networks &
paying students + Stanford University Michael Barbour,
Knowledge, Dave
>2,300 MOOCers* (>160,000 starters) Wayne State Uni
Cormier, George
*Dave Cormier and Bryan Alexander Siemens & Stephen • Udacity formed • MobiMOOC
coined ‘MOOCs’ during CCK ac<vi<es Downes (Thrun) Ignatia Webs
• Coursera launched
• Georgia Tech, Duke Uni.,
Open but not always Massive OOCs: Stanford University
Uni.of Washington, Rice
• Social Media & Open Ed, Alec Courous, University of Regina (2008); Open (Koller & Ng) Uni., Caltech, Uni.of
Education Intro , David Wiley, Utah State University (2007); Codecademy/ • edX (MIT (MITx) Edinburgh, Uni.of
P2PU (Sims & Bubinski) (2011); Khan Academy – over 189 million lessons; Harvard & Berkeley) Toronto, EPFL Lausanne
Academic Earth; Skillshare >5,000 teachers (2011); World Education (Switz.), Johns Hopkins
University (2012); Saylor Foundation; Course Hero; Faculty project Uni., UCSF, Uni.of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign,
(Sources: Ruminate, 2010; OU, 2012; Webs, 2012; Open Education, 2012; Virtual Schooling, Nextweb, 2012; Uni.of Virginia
P2PU, 2012; Bavatuesdays, 2012; Marginson, 2012; Coecademy, 2012; Coursera, 2012; Academicearth, 2012)
9. MOOCdom
A MOOC Directory Keeping up with MOOCs:
• All MOOC providers (as registered): • Register with mooc.ca newsle/er:
h/p://www.mooc.ca/courses.htm h/p://www.mooc.ca/cgi‐bin/
• Class central: login.cgi?refer=&acPon=Register
h/p://www.class‐central.com/
Some resources on MOOCS: Early and original MOOCs:
• MOOCs starPng point (to Aug 2012): • CCKChange:
h/p://www.worldofwebcast.com/ h/p://change.mooc.ca
post/massive‐list‐of‐mooc‐resources‐ • DS106 (Digital Storytelling):
lit‐and‐literaP h/p://ds106.us/about/
• OOCs starPng point: • Social Media & Open EducaPon:
h/p://openeducaPon.us/ h/p://eci831.ca/about/
ParDcipate in a MOOC on Higher EducaDon Futures (8 Oct to 16 Nov 2012):
• InvitaPon, overview & partners: h/p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEXnVTD0B10
• Register: h/p://www.edfutures.net/index.php?Ptle=Special:UserLogin/signup
10. (Source: Change MOOC, 2012)
Stephen Downes (Na<onal Research Council, Canada), Dave Cormier
(University of Prince Edward Island), and George Siemens
(Athabasca University). We've collaborated on numerous online
courses before and have conPnued to refine our pedagogical methods and our technical
infrastructure. The format this year is different from what we've done in the past: we've
invited a group of fascinaPng thinkers to share their experPse with us ‐ one per week.
Change MOOC
Sep 2011 to May 2012
12. (Source: P2PU, 2012)
Virtual Worlds, Games & EducaDon Tour MOOC
March to April 2012 and spinoffs to ARG Academy (May), Machinima OOC (June‐July)
13. Jesse Stommel et al
Marylhurst University & Georgia Tech
(Images: Kevin Dooley; Richard Elzey
gregw66; Nomadic Lass; JD Hancock; cjdc)
MOOC MOOC
August 2012 for one week
(Source: Hybrid Pedagogy, 2012)
14. A MOOC task to define MOOCs …
Q:
(Source: Hybrid Pedagogy MOOC MOOC, 2012)
A: Massive: A typical classroom can hold 30 students or even more. An auditorium around 300. A massive class can go
exponentially beyond these numbers: thousands, hundred-thousands, or even millions, a group size beyond Dunbar‘s number for
a ‘tribe’ (500-2500 individuals). Open: Available for free and to anyone willing and able to participate. Not bound by geography
or time zones. Uses open tools. Uses open educational resources and creative commons licensed assets. Generates open content
that can, in turn, be reused freely. Online: Use of the Internet, where individual people from all over the world can participate in the
event. Includes access via mobile devices. Course: A sequence of lessons imparting knowledge via an instructor, who guides the
process and established guidelines for participation, earning credit, and passing. Conversely, Davidson uses the ‘C’ to stand for
“courseware,” and sees the MOOC as the platform to run the learning on, not the act of learning itself.
>500 people collaborated on a 1,000 word essay to define MOOCs
MOOC MOOC on googledocs (available at: h/p://www.hybridpedagogy.com)
17. There are many potential benefits of
MOOCs, including flexible access,
multiple learning pathways, social
inclusion, intercultural collaboration,
digital literacy development, and
potentially immersion in a community
of practice that may result in a
lifelong learning network.
(Source: Cormier, 2012) (Source: King, 2012)
MOOCs not only have the potential to
alter the relationship between learner
and instructor, but also between
academy and the wider community
(EDUCAUSE, 2011).
MOOCs allow for collaboration that
is not immediately available in a
traditional style classroom.
18. David Wiley OPE
NN
ESS
• Open systems
– EducaPon 2.0
• Open classrooms
– Crowdsourcing
• Open knowledge
– Knowmads
• Open learning
– Everyone
Sources: Virtual School MOOC, 2012; Open Education, 2012; Morovec, 2008; UNESCO, 2012)
19. Characterising MOOCs to date …
• MOOCs integrate:
– ConnecPvity of social networking;
– FacilitaPon of an acknowledged expert in a field of study; and,
– CollecPon(s) of freely accessible online resources.
• MOOCs build on parPcipants who:
– Are acPvely engaged in learning;
– Register in large numbers (several hundred to several thousand parPcipants);
– Self‐organise parPcipaPon according to learning goals, prior knowledge and
skills, and common interests; and,
– Have Internet access.
• MOOC offerings:
– Start, end and run on predefined Pmelines and topics;
– Are usually without fees;
– Have no prerequisites beyond Internet access and interest and,
– Do not predefine expectaPons for parPcipaPon; and
– Frequently give no formal accreditaPon for successful course complePon.
(Source: McAuley, Steward, Siemens & Cormier, 2010, pp. 4-5)
20. Pedagogic typology of MOOCs
• cMOOCs (DS106, CCK08‐9‐10‐12) ‐ connecPvist:
– Content as a starPng point: learners expected to create/extend
– Changed relaPonship between teacher/learners
– Distributed, chaoPc and emergent
– Learners are expected to create, grow, expand domain and share
personal sense‐making through arPfact creaPon
cMOOCs focus on
– Distributed, oCen blog‐based, learner created forums and spaces knowledge creation
– Instructor graded assessment and peer‐commented tasks and generation
whereas xMOOCs
• xMOOCs (Coursera/Edx): focus on knowledge
– Formal (tradiPonal) course structure and flow duplication
(Siemens, 2012)
– TradiPonal relaPonship between teacher/learner
– Learners are expected to duplicate/master what they are taught
– Centralised discussion forum support
– Automated assessment and peer‐reviewed assessment
(Sources: Siemens, 2012; Downes, 2012)
21. Goal‐based typology of MOOCs
• Network‐based MOOCs:
Goal: conversaPon,
socially constructed
knowledge; Pedagogy:
connecPvist style.
• Task‐based MOOCs: Goal:
skills, topics and varied
formats with distributed
learning and community.
Pedagogy: instrucPvism
and construcPvism.
• Content‐based MOOCs:
1. Categories are not mutually exclusive Goal: acquisiPon of
? 2. Pedagogy is the difference (Siemens, 2012)
3. Depth of analysis required (ie, family resemblances)
(Lukeš, 2012)
content knowledge.
Pedagogy: instrucPvist.
(Source: Lane, 2012)
22. Type‐target‐intent of MOOC futures
(Source: Bonk, 2012)
Poten<al that the
1. AlternaPve admissions system or list may have
11. Goodwill significant overlap
hiring system with non‐
12. Interdisciplinary
2. Just‐in‐Time skills and competencies educa<onal large
13. RecruiPng (Cross, 2012) crowd online
3. Theory‐ or Trend‐Drive
14. MarkePng (Cross, 2012) experiences
4. Professional development
15. Conference (Cross, 2012)
5. Loss Leader (dip toe in water)
6. Bait and switch
16. Learning Room (Cross, 2012)
17. Religious Revival
?
7. Experimental
18. RotaPng The list may have
8. Degree/Program Qualifier or System nothing to do with
Bo/leneck 19. Repeatable the purpose and
20. Re‐usable MOOC func<on of MOOCs
9. Personality as originally
10. Name Branding constructed
(Bonk, 2012)
The list responded to questions posed by
the University [Indiana University] CIO and VP IT
24. ConnecPvist and rhizomaPc views
ConnecPvist view of knowing (Siemens, 2004; 2006):
• Knowing is the culminaPon of the connecPons between people
• Learning and connecPon: professional, personal and academic
• But … it is also connecPon between organised and disorganised worlds
…… world of the Web
RhizomaPc view of knowledge (Cormier, 2008; 2010; Open University, 2012):
• A rhizomaPc plant has no center and no defined boundary; rather, it is made up of
a number of semi‐independent nodes, each of which is capable of growing and
spreading on its own, bounded only by the limits of its habitat
• No one place where knowledge about a ma/er begins and ends
• Stores knowledge in people and community (rather than publicaPon) which
accommodates a faster rate of change (flux) – knowledge as a moving target
• RhizomaPc knowers use a variety of approaches and tools, and community to test/
filter ideas (networking and the social web)
• Social learning pracPces and discursive knowledge discovery
• Towards community as a valid knowledge repository and away from packaged
views of knowledge and experPse – knowledge as fluid, in transiPon and useable
(Source: Forsythe, 2012 (image))
25. (Source: Class Central, 2012)
Impact: Coursera
‘Their web classes consist of a ballet‐like interplay between
• 17 internaPonal insPtuPons whiteboard‐style chalk talks, cutaways to professors’ own
• USD$22 million funding narraPon, and a steady procession of one‐quesPon quizzes
• >680,000 students in under 12 months to make sure students are keeping pace.’ (Anders, 2012)
(Ferenstein, 2012)
‘tendency to conservaPve approaches’ (Weller, JISC MOOC Webinar,
Impact: edX 2012) … ‘the potenPal missing element of ‘See me’ – the
• USD$60 million funding (Hack, 2012) personal element,.’ … are we making connecPons or just
throwing out content & MCQs?’ (White, JISC MOOC Webinar, 2012)
26. MOOCs as game‐changers: students
• Off‐campus access to universiPes (Evans in Roscoria, 2012)
• PresPge higher educaPon, for free: ‘There is only
one Elvis, and only one Harvard’ (Marginson, 2012)
• Direct access for recruitment & to job search
• Control & choice:
(Skilledup, 2012)
• Supplementary educaPon (Gates Foundation, 2012)
• Produce knowledge‐producing learners (Moravec, 2012)
27. Now
Choice
George Siemens, Learning & Knowledge AnalyDcs Unit – Athabasca University
2013
28. MOOCs as game‐changers: educators
• Pressure on exisPng courses to look towards enhancing
openness (Kernohan, 2012)
• Going back to regular classes is impossible aCer [MOOCs]
Wonderland (Thrun, 2012)
• Unbundled roles and mulPple players in Personal Learning
Environments (PLEs) (Downes, 2010; 2011) : ‐ who is responsible?:
– Learner; Collector; Curator; Alchemist; Programmer; Salesperson;
Convener; Coordinator; Designer; Coach; Agitator; Facilitator; Tech
Support; Moderator; CriPc; Lecturer; Demonstrator; Mentor;
Connector; Theorizer; Sharer; Evaluator; Bureaucrat.
• Personal learning environments (Kop, 2010; 2011; Fournier & Kop, 2011)
• Rather than replacing the teacher, technology has in many
ways increased the focus on pedagogic skills. The art of the
pracPPoner as insPgator, designer and animateur remains key
to the process of learning (JISC, 2009, in JISC MOOC Webinar, 2012)
29. ‘When analyzing the disruption potential of MOOCs, it is
easy to forget that the actual concept is just 4 or 5 years
old. Furthermore, the actual definition of the concept has
undergone a significant change in the past 12 months as
an entirely new branch has emerged.’ (Hill, 2012)
‘Especially disturbing is that none of the major
MOOC providers have hired anyone trained in
instrucPonal design, the learning sciences,
educaPonal technology, course design, or other
educaPonal specialPes to help with the design of
their courses. They are hiring a lot of
programmers…’
(Source: Edtechdev, Wordpress, 2012 in Siemens, 2012)
30. MOOCs as game‐changers: universiDes
MOOCs are one of four economic pressures on US higher ed (King & Sen, 2012):
1. The Internet: from community, to exams and books;
2. Distance Ed: US university students taking online = 20% one course;
9% whole degree (US DoE, 2011);
3. For‐Profit UniversiPes: low‐touch and no research but high spend on teaching
(Uni. of Phoenix spends USD$200 million per year teaching‐related R&D);
4. Online start‐ups: MOOCs as no‐touch, profitable at scale, overcome physical
limits to student numbers and uPlise exisPng technology, people & processes
No. % Students Enrolled at public, private
No. US Colleges/UniversiDes
& for‐profit universiDes
(Source: NCES in King & Sen, 2012, p. 6)
31. Barriers to sustainability
1. Developing revenue models to make the concept self-sustaining;
2. Delivering valuable signifiers of completion such as credentials, badges or acceptance into
accredited programs;
3. Providing an experience and perceived value that enables higher course completion rates (most
today have less than 10% of registered students actually completing the course); and
4. Authenticating students in a manner to satisfy accrediting institutions or hiring companies that
the student identify is actually known. (Source: Hill, 2012)
32. CriDcisms of MOOCs
• A red herring that won’t solve higher ed being bust. The issues are
about higher ed, digital pedagogy and online learning (Stommel, 2012)
• Success is measured by subscripPon (Cohen, 2012)
• They remove teaching students from educaPon
• Suitability to quanPtaPve subjects, parPcularly for objecPve quesPons
and assessment (Skilledup, 2012)
• The difference between a real college course and a MOOC is like the
difference between playing golf and watching golf. (Vaidhyanathan, 2012)
• …MOOC's videos of talking heads, famous profs giving the same old
lectures they give in their outdated face‐to‐face classrooms. Really?
We think THIS is preparing students for the 21st century? Paradigm
shiC? No. That's squandering a technology, not taking advantage of its
parPcular affordances that cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the
analog, pre‐digital world… (Davidson, 2012)
37. MOOC Dimensions – InsPtuPonal
• Purely for markePng
• ArPculaPon/syphon to courses
• AdverPsing
• InformaPon harvesPng
• Small cost (Freemium model)
• Pay for accreditaPon
• Premium for educaPonal service
38. PotenPal MOOC futures
• PresenPng delivery opPons:
– On a spectrum with other modaliPes
– As a combinaPve modality with other delivery modes
• PresenPng pedagogic alternaPves:
– Outcome specific learning design tools (eg, research,
in‐situ learning, community building tools, advanced
learning development, etc)
– To suit diverse student groups and to support diverse
learning needs
• ContribuPng to the overall student experience
• Contextualizing uses with other technologies
(Sources: Skillshare, 2012 (image))
39. [ m a s s i v e
o p e n
o n l i n e
]
c o u r s e s Thank you.
Contacts:
jacqueline.kenney@mq.edu.au
ma/.bower@mq.edu.au