aect 2013 in search of quality mooc presentation

In Search of Quality: An analysis of MOOC course structure & design

Charles Hodges & Patrick Lowenthal

slides @ patricklowenthal.com

MOOCs & Education

What’s the first thing you think of when you think

of MOOCs???


General Feeling???

News Headlines

What is a MOOC?

•  Large, open, online course

•  Vary in size and openness

•  Typically non-credit

•  Low completion rates (see Rosen, 2012)

•  Many faculty remain skeptical students are learning

Background of MOOCs

•  Past 18 months, MOOCs dominate discussions of changes in education (e.g. EDUCAUSE, 2012; Markoff, 2011, Rushkoff, 2013)

•  2012 was described as the year of the MOOC (Watters, 2012)


Online Course Quality

•  Despite continual growth, faculty, are skeptical of online learning (Allen & Seaman, 2013; Gabriel, 2011; Lytle, 2012)

•  Questions of quality, integrity

•  Intent to save $$ vs. improve learning


Online Course Quality

Popular strategies to assess & improve online course quality

•  Sloan-C pillars of quality •  Quality Matters •  iNACOL standards •  Cal. State – Chico Rubric


Driving Question

Are MOOCs high quality online courses deserving college credit?


Method

❏  Six MOOCs

❏  2 from: Coursera, EdX, & Udacity

❏  Identified STEM courses

❏  Randomly selected

❏  3 experienced QM reviewers


Preliminary Results

Course Percent Pass

Coursera 1 82% No

Coursera 2 51% No

EdX 1 83% No

EdX 2 68% No

Udacity 1 43% No

Udacity 2 44% No

Preliminary Results Standards Always Met 1.2 Introduced to the purpose and structure of the course. 1.7 Appropriate self-introduction by the instructor. 3.1 Assessments measure learning objectives and consistent with course activities 3.5 Multiple opportunities to measure learning progress 4.3 All materials are appropriately cited. 4.4 Instructional materials are current. 4.5 Instructional materials present a variety of perspectives. 5.2 Activities provide opportunities for interaction that support active learning. 6.2 Course tools / media support engagement & guide student to become active

learners. 6.3 Navigation is logical, consistent, and efficient. 6.4 Students can access the technologies in the course. 6.5 Technologies are current. 8.1 Employs accessible technologies and guidance on how to obtain accommodation. 8.2 Contains equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content. 8.3 Design facilitates readability and minimizes distractions. 8.4 Design accommodates assistive technologies.

Preliminary Results

Standards Never Met 2.2 Module learning objectives describe outcomes that are

measurable & consistent with the course-level objectives.

7.2 Instructions articulate institution’s accessibility policies & services.

7.3 Instructions articulate institution’s academic support services and how students can access the services.

7.4 Instructions articulate institution’s student support services and how students can access the services.


Without Standard Seven Results

Course Percent Pass

Coursera 1 91% Yes

Coursera 2 48% No

EdX 1 92% Yes

EdX 2 52% No

Udacity 1 49% No

Udacity 2 72% No

Discussion

•  MOOC’s can be high “quality” (based on QM standards)

•  MOOC’s aren’t inherently bad

•  Self-paced MOOCs use different strategies

•  MOOCs rely heavily on recorded lectures & quizzes

•  Many in this study could easily be updated to meet QM standards

•  QM rubric relies heavily on clear and measurable objectives


Implications

• MOOCs are an opportunity to rethink how we design / teach online courses

• MOOCs spark technological innovation

• Limitations of Quality Matter’s standards / rubric


Limitations

• Small sample

• Selected only MOOCx--no MOOCc

• Used QM rubric for courses; they have one for professional development


Questions / Comments

So what do you think?


???