the mooc production fellowship: reviewing the first german mooc funding program
TRANSCRIPT
The MOOC Production Fellowship
Reviewing the first German MOOC funding program
#emoocs2016, Graz
Slides: http://bit.ly/emoocs2016-fellowship Anja Lorenz, FH Lübeck
searches for the terms “mooc” in Germanyhttps://www.google.de/trends/explore#q=mooc&geo=DE&date=1%2F2011%2062m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1
MOOC iniciatives driven by single persons or groups
#OPCO11, #OPCO12, Jörn Loviscach (2012) etc.
The funding program
aim: stimulate MOOCs in Germany
by the Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft* and the MOOC platform iversity
10 MOOCs | 25,000 € per MOOC* translated: Donors’ association for the promotion of humanities and sciences in Germany
searches for the terms “mooc” in Germanyhttps://www.google.de/trends/explore#q=mooc&geo=DE&date=1%2F2011%2062m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1
appliance period for the MOOCproduction fellowship
voting period for the MOOC production fellowship
Supported MOOCs
Changemaker MOOC – social entrepreneurship GER
Mathematical thinking and working methods GER
International agriculture management GER, RUS
Europe in the World: Law and Policy Aspects of the EU in Global Governance ENG
Details: https://moocfellowship.org/
Section chirurgica – anatomy interactive GER
The future of storytelling ENG
Fascination of crystals and symmetry GER
Monte Carlo Methods in Finance ENG
Design 101 ENG
DNA – from structure to therapy ENG
Research Design
funded MOOCsF
non-funded
applicantsNF
onlinesurvey
guidedinterviews
finalstatements
via email
onlinesurvey
07.07.–12.08.201505.07.–05.08.2015 since 18.08.2015
since 10.08.2015
funded MOOCs: 10 replies (100%)non-funded appl.: 41 replies (≈16%)
Summary of the fellowship program
Funded MOOCs by numbers
Summary of the funding program 1|2
250,000 € funding for 10 MOOCs>260 applications
224,446 learners6,921 issued certificates 3.1%
Summary of the funding program 2|2
109 MOOC Maker (lecturers, video team, tutors…)95 weeks of preparation50 weeks of follow-up work5+3a MOOCs are still accessible4+2a+1b MOOCs were and are repeated
aon another platform bconcretely planned
experiences of the funded projects
Making MOOCs
Realisation: success stories (F)
reached a wide audience 7probably first Russian-speaking MOOC (Agrar), “global class”, unimagible in other learning scenarios
individual and personal experiences with the learners 5MOOC too difficult → made another MOOC to understand this one; Serbian learner contributes subtitles; history of arts student was happy to met experts of rost structure (crystals)
Impact on own courses/projects 3participation at the yooweedoo competition: 4x, 15 further universities joined the project
team work2
good platform, positive feedback, surprisig easy tutoring of the course each 1
ended up with a personal meeting 1 festival & exhibition“blue flower”, 183 items, 80 P fr. all over the world
What does it need and cost to make a MOOC?
Financiation & realisation
costs per MOOC+ x h of own work 100 €/min + 8,000€ tutoring
Financing of own co-payment (F)
own work inside and outside of working hours 10
also on holidays, via regular budgets, extra work without crediting on teaching responsibilities (lowered interest of the university administration after leadership change), 2,000h explicitly in secondary employment
other funded projects 2
use of university’s resources 2 extra budgets, budgets for tutors
"time donations" by external persons 1 guest speakers
FeedbackWhat did the learners say?
What did the own university say?
Feedback of participants (fraction) (F)
overall good feedback 6
learners were grateful 4
individual and personal feedback 3a collegue from crystallography stated it was the best basics course, best course out of 15 MOOCs, cannot await the next chapter
uncertainty among own students 2 use for own study/relevance for exams
Feedback of the own institution (+) (F)
strong perception and support 4 PH encourages teaching experiments, payd tutors from institution’s budget
motivates the discussion on MOOCs at the own institution 2 stimulates technology enhanced learning in general
university realised or plans further MOOCs 2 edX, continue employment of the video team
satisfied and happy team 2
interest of further institutions 1 federal government department Schleswig Holstein
Feedback of the own institution (-) (F)
no/few perception 4 not until winnig of the Ars Legendi price for excellent teaching, forbid to make the MOOC during working hours
no further MOOC activities 3
because of management change: after high encouragement only few support 1
Online survey, n=41 (16.4%)
Non-funded applicants
Did you nevertheless realize your MOOC?
costs of the MOOC+ 1,600 h of own work
full MOOC curriculum
How did you finance your MOOC? (n=13)
additional work and free time
budgets for tutors, within regular teaching
other project or federal
funding, sabbatical semester
How to support MOOC makers?
Funding and measures
Would you participate again in a similar competition today? (n=49; F+NF)
Should institutional and university administrators, political and/or NGO actors (e.g. foundations) promote and support MOOCs in general (more than they did until now)? (n=49;
F+NF)
Should MOOCs be funded? (F+NF)
Why? (fraction)
open up universities 6
more promotion of OER in general 4
gather experience 4
it is a learning format of the future 1
Why not? (fraction)
risk of budget cuts 2expensive production that cannot be realized out of regular budget 2no public taskP 2
What kind of support is needed? 1|2 (F+NF)
crediting MOOCs as teaching hours 13
financial funding 12
overall production support12
implement or improve IT services for MOOCs 11
recognition as academic effort 5
What kind of support is needed? 2|2 (F+NF)
flagships, best practice 2
cooperation 2
legal protection 2
training for MOOC video production 2
development of sustainable concepts 1international evaluation 1
information campaigsn for decission-makers at universities 1
political commitment for OER 1
Conclusion?
Conclusion
… out of the interviews (F)
gratefulness for the opportunity to realize a MOOC 4sentimental value more than financial funding, brave, viral effects estimated
unsure if "massive Open" is the ideal solution 2 missing prior knowledge, unknown participants
stimulates also the reflection of their own teaching 2
valuable eyperience 2
unsure concerning the responsibility for own students 1 ensure tutoring
MOOCs are media as books are → they are as good as teachers 1
Johnson et al. 2015
Thank you!
#emoocs2016, GrazSlides: http://bit.ly/emoocs2016-fellowship
Anja LorenzFachhochschule Lübeck
Anja Lorenz@anjalorenz
[email protected]://about.me/anjalorenz
References
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2015-higher-education-edition/ page 2
Further Data
Attachement
Conditions and funding
The funding program
Conditions
offered for free
meet academic standards
at least one assistant, associate or full professor at a university or college in the applicants team
Funding
25,000 € to realize the MOOC
conceptual support by workshops
technical support for the iversity platform
Call for tenders 2013
3rd April application deadline → 260 submissions
1st–23rd May voting stage for early feedback
20th/21st June final jury decission
searches for the terms “mooc” and “iversity”https://www.google.de/trends/explore#q=mooc%2C%20iversity&geo=DE&date=1%2F2011%2062m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1
Further realized MOOCs (named voluntaryly, NF)
several MOOCs for the Virtual Linguistics Campus
Controlling – A Critical Success Factor in a Globalised World
Game AI
Algorithms and data structures
Ear Training for Sound People
Pete the project manager – learning project management
Molecular Basis of Nutrition-related Diseases
Intercultural Competence/ Intercultural Campus
Vehicle Dynamics
Charlemagne – Pater Europae!
"Web Engineering" (3 parts)
224,446 Learners by comparison
52,006 Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich+ 49,772 University of Cologne+ 46,613 Goethe University of Frankfurt/Main
+ 42,592 University of Münster+ 33,540 Humboldt University of Berlin= 224,523 students
source: wikipedia
Why making MOOCs?
Motivation
Why did you apply? (F+NF)
personal interest for MOOCs 59%
potential of high outreach 41% education-idealistic motivation
support (financial, didactical, technical) 14% best way: do it on your own
general interests for online teaching 12%
follow-up for actual courses/projects 10% yoweedoo, anatomy
working in the MOOC team 6%
offer something special for students 2%
university marketing 2%
Motivation for repetition (F)
Sustainability 40%
combined regular courses/projects 30% Architecture 101, yooweedoo, MatheMOOC, anatomy
reach at first run 10%
improvements by repetition 10%
reuse in other courses 10%
MarketingHow do you promote a MOOC?
Marketing (F)
iversity 10 40,000 students were enough (Design 101)
own networks 6
social media 5
press releases 4
email marketing 2
webpage 2
other platform | print ads | contest Tickets for Bayreuth Festival (MatheMOOC)
may not use internal channels each 1
Marketing successDid they reach the target group?
Reaching the audience (F)
Academicsmajority were academics 3
very special target group 3 alternative to very expensive courses (Finance)
no concrete integration of own students 2
Reaching the audience (F)
“beyond”also amateurs 5 beyond academics
very extended audience 4
international participants 3
all ages represented 2 14–80
disappointed at the few medicine students | missing basic knowledge of amateurs each 1
non-German-speaking learners in German MOOC 1 were either not active
CollaborationHow was the collaboration?
Review of the collaboration (P)
with the Stifterverbandvery good 9
unbureaucratic 7 easy accounting and reporting
Workshops 6 helpful contact to other MOOC makers
good support 4 interested but notintrusive
few contact 4 stayed in the background, not much contact needed
Review of the collaboration (F)
with iversitypositive 7good support for experiments
feature requests 4MOOCs needed to be adapted for technical reasons
→ very different experiences concerning service quality
Degree of interactionHow active were the learners?
Degree of learners’ activity (F)
high mismatch of active vs. registered learners 7i. e. English-speaking registered learners in German MOOCs, partly long time from registartion to start
a very active core 3 vs. few interaction 2
no consideration 3 vs. heavy integration of Social Media 2
specialist questions and interaction, answering questions and healped each other 2 vs. interaction took off slow 2
forum features were not sufficient 2
interaction with several cultures 1 daytimes without electricity, buy data volume at the start of the month
local groups 1
To which challenges were you faced?
Difficulties
Realization: that doesn’t work that well 1|2 (F)
platform problems 8 features, measure of performance, forum, data security
MOOC format as challege for contents 6 enter maths, niveau of the learners
production effort 5 only manageble in a good team
Realization: that doesn’t work that well 2|2 (F)
Copyright 3 uncertainty, copyright from the publisher for 3 years, buying images
only few interaction 3 rate of registrations and participants, only few exams
critical sustainability 1 efford for update
assessments 1 filter effects of exams, identification
Further feedbackWhat do the learners say?
Feedback of learners individual option (F)
complaints that it is not an English MOOC 1
owns students take it positive 1
no evaluation proceeded 1
no negative critics 1
partly too high requirents 1
sporadic critics 1
comparison difficult 1
few feedback 1
appreciation of the learning offers 1
Further Statemenst (F)
very dependant on team and platform 2
winnig data from collaboration as interesting approach 1 use reach
Idea: involve students into production 1MOOCs would not reach financial stability 1side projects 1without regard of work not realizable 1technische Details erschweren didaktische Freiheit 1improving video learning 1realized much as amateur 1contradicting the education task 1 entertainment vs. education
Repetition of the MOOCsWhich experiences did they made?
SustainabilityWhat has become of the MOOC?
What has become of the MOOC after the first run?
no resources, changed business model of iversity
own website, institution made contracts with edX
additionally:using the content for other courses/projectson YouTube CC-Licence
Platform and adoption for repetition (F)
iversity 5 1–4times
small editing 5 earse mistakes, additional content
other Platform planned 3
no videos’ remake 2
new task option 2 integrated martphone as tool, Impro-task
Community involved stronger 1 financing for cheaters cheaper
no updates 1
Success of repetition (F)
fewer as for the first run 4
about same numbers of learners 2
certificate track had no influence 1
Non-Fundet applicantsWhat becomes with these concepts?
Which platform did you use for your MOOC? How many participants had subscribed to your MOOC? How many people had been in your team? (n=13)
Ø ca. 6,800 TN 1 to 50–30,000
Ø 4,4 Personen im Team 1–15
Why did you do not do the MOOC? (n=28)
Blended Learning
FundingHow to support MOOC makers?
Reasons for/against reapplication (F+NF)
3x progather important experience 5
realize topic 4
stimulate the format 2
3x contrano chance to win 6
dissatisfaction with the compatition 5
too high efforts 4