Post on 16-May-2015
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???
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
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)
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
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
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Online Course Quality
Popular strategies to assess & improve online course quality
• Sloan-C pillars of quality • Quality Matters • iNACOL standards • Cal. State – Chico Rubric
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Driving Question
Are MOOCs high quality online courses deserving college credit?
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Method
❏ Six MOOCs
❏ 2 from: Coursera, EdX, & Udacity
❏ Identified STEM courses
❏ Randomly selected
❏ 3 experienced QM reviewers
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
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.
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
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
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Implications
• MOOCs are an opportunity to rethink how we design / teach online courses
• MOOCs spark technological innovation
• Limitations of Quality Matter’s standards / rubric
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Limitations
• Small sample
• Selected only MOOCx--no MOOCc
• Used QM rubric for courses; they have one for professional development
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Questions / Comments
So what do you think?
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
???