5.3.1.3 Computer-marked assignments<\/h3>\n
Students complete an online test and receive immediate computerised feedback.\u00a0These tests are usually offered\u00a0throughout the course, and may be used just for participant feedback. Alternatively the tests may be used for\u00a0determining the award of a certificate. Another option is\u00a0for an end of course grade\u00a0or certificate based solely on an end-of-course online test. Most xMOOC assignments are based on multiple-choice, computer-marked questions, but\u00a0some\u00a0MOOCs have also used text or formula boxes for participants\u00a0to enter answers, such as coding in a computer science course, or mathematical formulae, and in one or two cases, short text answers, but in most cases these will be computer-marked.<\/p>\n\n
5.3.1.4 Peer assessment<\/h3>\nSome xMOOCs have experimented with assigning\u00a0students randomly to small groups for peer assessment, especially for more open-ended or\u00a0more evaluative assignment questions. This has often proved problematic though because of wide variations in expertise between the different members of a group, and because of the different levels of involvement in the course of different participants.\n5.3.1.5 Supporting materials<\/h3>\nSometimes copies of slides, supplementary audio files, urls to other resources, and online articles may be included for downloading by participants.\n5.3.1.6\u00a0A\u00a0shared comment\/discussion space<\/h3>\nThese are places where participants can post questions, ask for help, or comment on the content of the course.\n5.3.1.7 No, or very light, discussion moderation<\/h3>\nThe extent to which the discussion or comments are moderated varies probably more than any other feature in xMOOCs, but at its most, moderation is directed at all participants rather than to individuals. Because of the very large numbers participating and commenting, moderation by the instructor(s) offering the MOOC of comments by individual learners is rarely possible. Some instructors offer no moderation whatsoever, so participants rely on other participants to respond to questions or comments. Some instructors 'sample' comments and questions, and post comments in response to these. Some instructors use volunteers or paid teaching assistants to comb comments to identify common areas of concern shared by a number of participants then the instructor and\/or the teaching assistants will respond. However, in most cases, participants moderate each other's comments or questions.\n\nSome MOOCs now use automated chatbots, software which identifies key terms or questions from students and summarises them for the instructor, who then takes account of this in future lectures (see Chapter 9.4.4<\/a> for more details).\n5.3.1.8 Badges or certificates<\/h3>\n
Most xMOOCs award some kind of recognition for successful completion of a course, based on a final computer-marked assessment. Between a single course and a full degree, all the major MOOC providers have created at least one multi-course microcredential (Pickard et al., 2018<\/a>)<\/a>. However, MOOC badges or certificates have in most cases not\u00a0been recognised for credit or admission purposes even by the institutions offering a MOOC - even when the lectures are the same as for on-campus students.<\/p>\nLittle evidence exists to date about employer acceptance of MOOC qualifications (see for instance, Banks and Meinart, 2016<\/a>)<\/a>. Rivas et al. (2020<\/a>) found that employers overwhelmingly preferred applicants with a traditional degree to those that had completed MOOCs, but also preferred those with MOOC certificates to those without formal post-secondary qualifications. However, with the increasing development of partnerships between major employers and MOOC providers to develop microcredentials, this is changing. Companies such as Google and Microsoft are now offering professional certificates on MOOC platforms such as Coursera at around US$300 per course - not free, by any means, but open to all, and more importantly, carrying credibility with employers.<\/p>\n\n5.3.1.9 Learning analytics<\/h3>\nAlthough to date there has not been a great deal of published information about the use of learning analytics in xMOOCs, the\u00a0xMOOC platforms\u00a0have the capacity to collect and analyse 'big data' about participants and their performance, enabling, at least in theory, for immediate feedback to instructors about areas where the content or design needs improving and possibly directing automated\u00a0cues or hints for individuals. For examples of the use of learning analytics in MOOCs, see Laveti et al., 2017<\/a> or Eradze and Tammets, 2017<\/a>.\n5.3.1.10 xMOOCs Summary<\/h3>\nxMOOCs\u00a0therefore primarily use a teaching model focused on the transmission of information, with high quality content delivery, computer-marked assessment (mainly for student feedback purposes), and automation of all key transactions between participants and the learning platform. There is rarely any\u00a0direct interaction between an individual participant and the\u00a0instructor responsible for the course, although instructors may post general comments in response to a range of participants' comments. Thus there is a highly behaviouristic\/objectivist epistemology underlying xMOOCs.\n5.3.2 cMOOCs<\/h2>\n[caption id=\"attachment_174\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"1792\"]![\"\"](\"https:\/\/openstudio.pub\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/22\/2025\/05\/MOOC-Connectivist.png\")
Figure 5.3.2 A connectivist MOOC Image: Melcher, 2008[\/caption]\n\ncMOOCs, the first of which was developed by three instructors for a course at the University of Manitoba in 2008, are based on networked learning, where learning develops through the connections and discussions between participants over social media. There is no standard technology platform for cMOOCs, which use a combination of open social media that enable networking among all participants. Although usually there are some experts who initiate and participate in cMOOCs, this type of MOOC is by and large driven by the interests and contributions of the participants. Usually there is no attempt at formal assessment.\n5.3.2.1 Key design principles for cMOOCs<\/h3>\nDownes (2014<\/a>) has identified four key design principles for\u00a0cMOOCs:\n\n \t- autonomy\u00a0of the learner:<\/strong> although whoever\u00a0organises the MOOC will usually choose a main topic and invite participants, there is\u00a0no formal curriculum; participants decide\u00a0what to discuss, what to read, and what they wish to contribute towards the topic;<\/li>\n \t
- diversity:<\/strong> in the tools used, the range of participants, their knowledge levels, and the varied content;<\/li>\n \t
- interactivity:<\/strong> in terms of\u00a0co-operative learning, communication between participants, resulting in 'emergent' knowledge<\/li>\n \t
- open-ness<\/strong>:\u00a0in terms of access, content, activities and assessment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nThus for the proponents of cMOOCs, learning results not from the transmission of information from an expert to novices, as in xMOOCs, but from the sharing and flow of knowledge between participants.\n
5.3.2.2 From principles to practice<\/h3>\nIdentifying how these key design features for cMOOCs are turned into practice is somewhat more difficult to pinpoint, because cMOOCs depend on an evolving set of practices.\u00a0Most cMOOCs to date have in fact made some use of 'experts', both in the\u00a0organization and promotion of the\u00a0MOOC, and in providing 'nodes' of content around which discussion tends to revolve. \u00a0In other words, the design practices\u00a0of cMOOCs are still more a work in progress than those of xMOOCs.\n\nNevertheless, at the moment the following are\u00a0key design practices in cMOOCs:\n\n \t- use of social media \u00a0<\/strong>Partly because most cMOOCs are not institutionally based or supported, they do not at present use a shared platform or platforms but are more loosely supported by a range of openly accessible 'connected' tools and media. These may include a simple online registration system, and the use of streamed video or audio files, blogs, wikis, 'open' learning management systems such as Moodle, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram or Facebook, all enabling participants to share their contributions. Indeed, as new apps and social media tools develop, they too are likely to be incorporated into cMOOCs. All these tools are connected through web-based hashtags or other web-based linking mechanisms, enabling participants to identify social media contributions from other participants. Thus the use of loosely linked or connected social media is a key design component of cMOOCs;<\/li>\n \t
- participant-driven content\u00a0<\/strong>In principle, other than a common topic that may be decided by someone wanting to organise a cMOOC, content is decided upon and contributed by the participants themselves. Indeed, there may be no formally identified instructor. In practice though cMOOC organisers (who themselves tend to have some expertise in the topic of the MOOC) are likely\u00a0to invite potential participants who have expertise or are known already to have a well articulated approach to a topic, to make contributions which form the basis of discussion and debate. Participants choose their own ways to contribute or communicate, the most common being through blog\u00a0posts, tweets, or comments on other participants' blog posts, although some cMOOCs use wikis or\u00a0open source\u00a0online discussion forums. The key design practice\u00a0with regard to content is that all participants contribute to and share content;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n \t- distributed communication\u00a0<\/b>This is probably the most difficult design practice\u00a0to understand for those not familiar with cMOOCs - and even for those who have participated. With participants numbering in the hundreds or even thousands, each contributing individually through a variety of social media, there are a myriad different inter-connections between participants that are impossible to track (in total) by\u00a0any single participant. This results in many sub-conversations, more commonly at\u00a0a\u00a0binary level of two people communicating with each other than an integrated group discussion, although all conversations are 'open' and all other participants are able to contribute to a conversation if they know it exists. The key design practice\u00a0then with regard to communication is\u00a0a self-organising network with many sub-components;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n \t- assessment\u00a0<\/strong>There is no formal assessment, although participants may seek feedback from other, more knowledgeable participants, on an informal basis. Basically participants decide for themselves whether what they have learned is appropriate to them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
5.3.2.3 cMOOCs summary<\/h3>\ncMOOCs therefore primarily use a networked approach to learning based on autonomous learners connecting with each other across open and connected social media and sharing knowledge through their own personal contributions. There is no pre-set curriculum and no formal teacher-student relationship, either for delivery of content or for learner support. Participants learn from the contributions of others, from the meta-level knowledge generated through the community, and from self-reflection on their own contributions, thus reflecting many of the features of communities of interest or practice (see Chapter 4.6<\/a>).\n\ncMOOCs have a very different educational philosophy from xMOOCs. Downes and Siemens have argued that cMOOCs reflect a new theory of learning, 'connectivism', based on exploiting online social networks (see Chapter 2.6<\/a>). cMOOCs certainly reflect a constructivist epistemology.\n5.3.3 Other\u00a0variations of MOOCs<\/h2>\nI have deliberately focused on the differences in design between xMOOCs and cMOOCs, and\u00a0Mackness (2103)<\/a>\u00a0and Yousef et al. (2014)<\/a>\u00a0also emphasise similar\u00a0differences in philosophy\/theory between cMOOCs and xMOOCs, as well as Downes himself (2012<\/a>), one of the original designers of cMOOCs.\n\nHowever, it should be noted that the design of MOOCs continues to evolve, with all kinds of variations. Pilli and Admiraal (2016<\/a>) have identified 27 types of MOOC, including:\n\n \t- cMOOCs;<\/em><\/li>\n \t
- xMOOCs;<\/em><\/li>\n \t
- BOOCs<\/em> (a big open online course) - \u00a0a cross between an xMOOC and a cMOOC;<\/li>\n \t
- COOC<\/em>s (community open online courses) -\u00a0small-scale, non-profit courses that corporations open online to provide courses for customers and\/or employees<\/li>\n \t
- DOCCs<\/em> (distributed open collaborative course): this involves 17 universities sharing and adapting the same basic MOOC;<\/li>\n \t
- LOOC<\/em>\u00a0s(little open online course): as well as 15-20 tuition-paying campus-based students, such\u00a0courses also allow a limited number of non-registered students to also take the course, but also paying a fee;<\/li>\n \t
- MOORs<\/em> (massive open online research): a mix of video-based lecturers and student research projects guided by the instructors;<\/li>\n \t
- SPOCs<\/em> (small, private, online courses): the example given is from Harvard Law School, which pre-selected 500 students from over 4,000 applicants, who take the same video-delivered lectures as on-campus students enrolled at Harvard;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nThe MOOCs developed by the University of British Columbia and a number of other institutions use\u00a0volunteers, paid academic assistants or even the instructor to moderate the online discussions and participant comments, making such MOOCs closer in design to\u00a0regular for-credit online courses - except that they are open to anyone.\n
5.3.4 What's going on here?<\/h2>\n
It is not surprising that over time, the design of MOOCs is evolving.\u00a0There seem to be three\u00a0distinct kinds of development:<\/p>\n\n
\n \t- some of the newer MOOCs, especially those from institutions with a history of credit-based online learning prior to the introduction of MOOCs, are beginning to apply some of the best practices, such as organised and moderated discussion groups, from online credit courses to MOOCs (see Chapter 4, Section 4<\/a>);<\/li>\n \t
- others are trying to open up their regular campus classes also, simultaneously, to non-registered students (which in fact is how the first MOOC, from Cormier, Downes and Siemens, originated);<\/li>\n \t
- yet others are trying to blend online MOOC materials or content with their on-campus teaching.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
It is likely that innovation in MOOC design and the way MOOCs are used will continue. In particular, different kinds of MOOC come and go. Finding extant examples of some of the types of MOOC listed in Section 5.3.3 has been difficult in revising this chapter.<\/p>\n
However, some of these developments also indicate a good deal of confusion around the definition\u00a0and goals of\u00a0MOOCs, especially regarding massiveness and open-ness. If participants\u00a0from outside a university have to pay a hefty fee to participate in an otherwise 'closed', on-campus course, or if off-campus participants have to be selected on certain criteria before they can participate, is it really open? Is the term MOOC now being used to describe any unconventional online offering or any online continuing education course? It's difficult to see how a SPOC for instance differs from a typical online continuing education\u00a0course, except perhaps in that it uses a recorded lecture rather than a learning management system. There is a\u00a0danger of having any online course ending up being described as a MOOC, when in fact there are major differences in design and philosophy.<\/p>\n
Although each of these individual innovations, often the result of the\u00a0initiative of an individual instructor, are to be welcomed in principle, the consequences need to be carefully considered in fairness to potential participants. Individual instructors designing MOOCs really need to make sure that the design is consistent in terms of educational philosophy, and be clear as to why they are opting for a MOOC rather than a conventional online course. This is particularly important\u00a0if there is to be any form of formal\u00a0assessment. The status of such an assessment for participants who are not formally admitted to or\u00a0registered as a student in an institution needs to be clear and consistent.<\/p>\n
There is even more confusion about mixing MOOCs with on-campus teaching. At the moment the strategy appears to be to first develop a MOOC then see how it can be adapted for on-campus teaching. However, a better strategy might be to develop a conventional, for-credit online course, in terms of design, then see how it could be scaled for\u00a0open access to other participants. Another strategy might be to use open social media, such as a course wiki and student blogs, to widen access to the teaching of a formal course, rather than develop a full-blown MOOC.<\/p>\n
Thinking through the policy implications of incorporating MOOCs or MOOC materials with on-campus teaching\u00a0does not appear to be happening at the moment in most institutions experimenting with 'blended' MOOCs.\u00a0If MOOC participants are taking exactly the same course and assessment\u00a0as registered on-campus for-credit students, will the institution award the\u00a0external MOOC participants who successfully complete the assessment\u00a0credit for it and\/or admit them to the institution? If not, why not? For an excellent discussion of these issues framed for an institution's Board of Governors, see Green, 2013<\/a>.<\/p>\nThus some of these MOOC developments seem to be operating in a policy vacuum regarding open learning in general. At some point, institutions will need to develop a clearer, more consistent strategy for open learning, in terms of how it can best be provided, how it calibrates with formal learning,\u00a0and how open learning\u00a0can be accommodated within the fiscal constraints of the institution, and then where MOOCs, other OERs and\u00a0<\/strong>conventional for-credit online courses\u00a0might fit with the strategy. For more on this topic, see Chapter 12<\/a>.<\/p>\n\nReferences<\/h2>\nBanks, C. and Meinert, E. (2016) The acceptability of MOOC certificates in the workplace<\/a> International Conference eLearning 2016\n\nDownes, S. (2014) The MOOC of One<\/em>,<\/a> Valencia, Spain,\u00a0March 10\n\nEradze M., Tammets K. (2017) Learning Analytics in MOOCs: EMMA Case<\/a>. In: Lauro N., Amaturo E., Grassia M., Aragona B., Marino M. (eds) Data Science and Social Research: Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization<\/em>\u00a0Springer: Cham\n\nGatuguta-Gitau, S. (2017) MOOCs: Employers View, a brief snapshot<\/a> QS<\/em>, London, UK\n\nGordon, A. (2018) 'Micromasters surge as MOOCs go from education to qualification<\/a>', Forbes<\/em>, 13 February\n\nGreen, K. (2013) Mission, MOOCs and Money<\/a> Association of Governing Boards Trusteeship<\/em>, No. 1, Volume 21\n\nLaveti, R. et al. (2017)\u00a0Implementation of learning analytics framework for MOOCs using state-of-the-art in-memory computing<\/a>, IEEE Xplore<\/em>, 19 October\n\nMackness, J. (2013) cMOOCs and xMOOCs - key differences<\/a><\/em>, Jenny Mackness, October 22\n\nPickard, L., Shah, D. and de Simone, J. (2018) Mapping Microcredentials Across MOOC Platforms<\/a> IEEE Explore<\/em>, 15 November\n\nPilli, O. amd Admiraal, W. (2016) A Taxonomy of Massive Open Online Courses<\/a> \u00a0Contemporary Educational Technology,<\/em> Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 223-240\n\nRivas, M., Baker, R. and Evans, B. (2020) Do MOOCs Make You More Marketable? An Experimental Analysis of the Value of MOOCs Relative to Traditional Credentials and Experience<\/a> AERA Open<\/em>, 26 November\n\nYousef, A. et al. (2014) MOOCs: A Review of the State-of-the-Art<\/a><\/em> Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education \u2013 CSEDU 2014, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 9-20\n\nActivity 5.3: Thinking about MOOC design<\/h3>\n
1. When is a MOOC a MOOC and when is it not a MOOC? Can you identify the common features? Is MOOC\u00a0still a useful term?<\/p>\n
2. If you were to design a MOOC, who would be the target audience? What kind of MOOC would it be? What form of assessment could you use? What would make you think your MOOC was a success, after it was delivered? What criteria would you use?<\/p>\n
3. Could you think of other\u00a0ways to make one or more of your courses more open, other than creating a MOOC from scratch? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of these other methods, compared to a MOOC?<\/p>\n
For my comments on these questions click on the podcast below:<\/p>\n[audio mp3=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/teachinginadigitalagev2\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/677\/2014\/11\/MOOC-design-2019-08-02-4.16-PM.mp3\"][\/audio]\n\n<\/div>","rendered":"![\"\"](\"https:\/\/openstudio.pub\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/22\/2014\/11\/MOOC-EdX.png\")
Figure 5.3.1: A screen shot from an edX MOOC – an xMOOC<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn this section the main MOOC designs will be analysed. However,\u00a0MOOCs are still a relatively new phenomenon, and design models are still evolving.<\/p>\n
5.3.1 xMOOCs<\/h2>\n
MOOCs developed initially by Stanford University professors and a little later by MIT and Harvard instructors are based primarily on a\u00a0strongly behaviourist,\u00a0information transmission model, the core teaching being through online recorded videos of short lectures, combined with computer automated testing, and sometimes also through the use of peer assessment. These MOOCs are offered through special cloud-based software platforms such as Coursera, edX and FutureLearn.<\/p>\n
At the time of writing (2022) xMOOCs are by far the most common MOOC. Instructors have considerable flexibility in the design of the course, so there is considerable variation in the details, but in general xMOOCs have the following common design features:<\/p>\n
5.3.1.1 Specially designed platform software<\/h3>\n
Most\u00a0very large xMOOCs use\u00a0specially designed platform software such as Coursera, edX or FutureLearn that allows for the registration of very large numbers of participants, provides facilities for the storing and streaming on demand of digital materials, and automates assessment procedures and student performance tracking. The software platform also allows the companies that provide the software to collect and analyse student data.<\/p>\n
However, smaller institutions are increasingly offering their own xMOOCs through using or adapting their continuing education online registration process, their own video servers, and ‘off-the-shelf’ automated feedback, testing and marking tools.<\/p>\n
5.3.1.2 Video lectures<\/h3>\n
xMOOCs use the standard lecture mode, delivered online by\u00a0participants downloading on demand recorded video lectures. These video lectures are normally available on a weekly basis over a period of 10-13 weeks. Initially these were often 50 minute lectures, but as a result of\u00a0experience some xMOOCs now are using shorter recordings (sometimes down to 15 minutes in length) and thus there may be more video segments. As well, xMOOC\u00a0courses<\/em> are becoming shorter in length, some now lasting only five weeks. Various video production methods have been used, including lecture capture (recording face-to-face on-campus lectures, then storing them and streaming them on demand), full studio production, or desktop recording by the instructor.<\/p>\n5.3.1.3 Computer-marked assignments<\/h3>\n
Students complete an online test and receive immediate computerised feedback.\u00a0These tests are usually offered\u00a0throughout the course, and may be used just for participant feedback. Alternatively the tests may be used for\u00a0determining the award of a certificate. Another option is\u00a0for an end of course grade\u00a0or certificate based solely on an end-of-course online test. Most xMOOC assignments are based on multiple-choice, computer-marked questions, but\u00a0some\u00a0MOOCs have also used text or formula boxes for participants\u00a0to enter answers, such as coding in a computer science course, or mathematical formulae, and in one or two cases, short text answers, but in most cases these will be computer-marked.<\/p>\n
5.3.1.4 Peer assessment<\/h3>\n
Some xMOOCs have experimented with assigning\u00a0students randomly to small groups for peer assessment, especially for more open-ended or\u00a0more evaluative assignment questions. This has often proved problematic though because of wide variations in expertise between the different members of a group, and because of the different levels of involvement in the course of different participants.<\/p>\n
5.3.1.5 Supporting materials<\/h3>\n
Sometimes copies of slides, supplementary audio files, urls to other resources, and online articles may be included for downloading by participants.<\/p>\n
5.3.1.6\u00a0A\u00a0shared comment\/discussion space<\/h3>\n
These are places where participants can post questions, ask for help, or comment on the content of the course.<\/p>\n
5.3.1.7 No, or very light, discussion moderation<\/h3>\n
The extent to which the discussion or comments are moderated varies probably more than any other feature in xMOOCs, but at its most, moderation is directed at all participants rather than to individuals. Because of the very large numbers participating and commenting, moderation by the instructor(s) offering the MOOC of comments by individual learners is rarely possible. Some instructors offer no moderation whatsoever, so participants rely on other participants to respond to questions or comments. Some instructors ‘sample’ comments and questions, and post comments in response to these. Some instructors use volunteers or paid teaching assistants to comb comments to identify common areas of concern shared by a number of participants then the instructor and\/or the teaching assistants will respond. However, in most cases, participants moderate each other’s comments or questions.<\/p>\n
Some MOOCs now use automated chatbots, software which identifies key terms or questions from students and summarises them for the instructor, who then takes account of this in future lectures (see Chapter 9.4.4<\/a> for more details).<\/p>\n5.3.1.8 Badges or certificates<\/h3>\n
Most xMOOCs award some kind of recognition for successful completion of a course, based on a final computer-marked assessment. Between a single course and a full degree, all the major MOOC providers have created at least one multi-course microcredential (Pickard et al., 2018<\/a>)<\/a>. However, MOOC badges or certificates have in most cases not\u00a0been recognised for credit or admission purposes even by the institutions offering a MOOC – even when the lectures are the same as for on-campus students.<\/p>\nLittle evidence exists to date about employer acceptance of MOOC qualifications (see for instance, Banks and Meinart, 2016<\/a>)<\/a>. Rivas et al. (2020<\/a>) found that employers overwhelmingly preferred applicants with a traditional degree to those that had completed MOOCs, but also preferred those with MOOC certificates to those without formal post-secondary qualifications. However, with the increasing development of partnerships between major employers and MOOC providers to develop microcredentials, this is changing. Companies such as Google and Microsoft are now offering professional certificates on MOOC platforms such as Coursera at around US$300 per course – not free, by any means, but open to all, and more importantly, carrying credibility with employers.<\/p>\n5.3.1.9 Learning analytics<\/h3>\n
Although to date there has not been a great deal of published information about the use of learning analytics in xMOOCs, the\u00a0xMOOC platforms\u00a0have the capacity to collect and analyse ‘big data’ about participants and their performance, enabling, at least in theory, for immediate feedback to instructors about areas where the content or design needs improving and possibly directing automated\u00a0cues or hints for individuals. For examples of the use of learning analytics in MOOCs, see Laveti et al., 2017<\/a> or Eradze and Tammets, 2017<\/a>.<\/p>\n5.3.1.10 xMOOCs Summary<\/h3>\n
xMOOCs\u00a0therefore primarily use a teaching model focused on the transmission of information, with high quality content delivery, computer-marked assessment (mainly for student feedback purposes), and automation of all key transactions between participants and the learning platform. There is rarely any\u00a0direct interaction between an individual participant and the\u00a0instructor responsible for the course, although instructors may post general comments in response to a range of participants’ comments. Thus there is a highly behaviouristic\/objectivist epistemology underlying xMOOCs.<\/p>\n
5.3.2 cMOOCs<\/h2>\nFigure 5.3.2 A connectivist MOOC Image: Melcher, 2008<\/figcaption><\/figure>\ncMOOCs, the first of which was developed by three instructors for a course at the University of Manitoba in 2008, are based on networked learning, where learning develops through the connections and discussions between participants over social media. There is no standard technology platform for cMOOCs, which use a combination of open social media that enable networking among all participants. Although usually there are some experts who initiate and participate in cMOOCs, this type of MOOC is by and large driven by the interests and contributions of the participants. Usually there is no attempt at formal assessment.<\/p>\n
5.3.2.1 Key design principles for cMOOCs<\/h3>\n
Downes (2014<\/a>) has identified four key design principles for\u00a0cMOOCs:<\/p>\n\n- autonomy\u00a0of the learner:<\/strong> although whoever\u00a0organises the MOOC will usually choose a main topic and invite participants, there is\u00a0no formal curriculum; participants decide\u00a0what to discuss, what to read, and what they wish to contribute towards the topic;<\/li>\n
- diversity:<\/strong> in the tools used, the range of participants, their knowledge levels, and the varied content;<\/li>\n
- interactivity:<\/strong> in terms of\u00a0co-operative learning, communication between participants, resulting in ’emergent’ knowledge<\/li>\n
- open-ness<\/strong>:\u00a0in terms of access, content, activities and assessment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Thus for the proponents of cMOOCs, learning results not from the transmission of information from an expert to novices, as in xMOOCs, but from the sharing and flow of knowledge between participants.<\/p>\n
5.3.2.2 From principles to practice<\/h3>\n
Identifying how these key design features for cMOOCs are turned into practice is somewhat more difficult to pinpoint, because cMOOCs depend on an evolving set of practices.\u00a0Most cMOOCs to date have in fact made some use of ‘experts’, both in the\u00a0organization and promotion of the\u00a0MOOC, and in providing ‘nodes’ of content around which discussion tends to revolve. \u00a0In other words, the design practices\u00a0of cMOOCs are still more a work in progress than those of xMOOCs.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, at the moment the following are\u00a0key design practices in cMOOCs:<\/p>\n
\n- use of social media \u00a0<\/strong>Partly because most cMOOCs are not institutionally based or supported, they do not at present use a shared platform or platforms but are more loosely supported by a range of openly accessible ‘connected’ tools and media. These may include a simple online registration system, and the use of streamed video or audio files, blogs, wikis, ‘open’ learning management systems such as Moodle, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram or Facebook, all enabling participants to share their contributions. Indeed, as new apps and social media tools develop, they too are likely to be incorporated into cMOOCs. All these tools are connected through web-based hashtags or other web-based linking mechanisms, enabling participants to identify social media contributions from other participants. Thus the use of loosely linked or connected social media is a key design component of cMOOCs;<\/li>\n
- participant-driven content\u00a0<\/strong>In principle, other than a common topic that may be decided by someone wanting to organise a cMOOC, content is decided upon and contributed by the participants themselves. Indeed, there may be no formally identified instructor. In practice though cMOOC organisers (who themselves tend to have some expertise in the topic of the MOOC) are likely\u00a0to invite potential participants who have expertise or are known already to have a well articulated approach to a topic, to make contributions which form the basis of discussion and debate. Participants choose their own ways to contribute or communicate, the most common being through blog\u00a0posts, tweets, or comments on other participants’ blog posts, although some cMOOCs use wikis or\u00a0open source\u00a0online discussion forums. The key design practice\u00a0with regard to content is that all participants contribute to and share content;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n- distributed communication\u00a0<\/b>This is probably the most difficult design practice\u00a0to understand for those not familiar with cMOOCs – and even for those who have participated. With participants numbering in the hundreds or even thousands, each contributing individually through a variety of social media, there are a myriad different inter-connections between participants that are impossible to track (in total) by\u00a0any single participant. This results in many sub-conversations, more commonly at\u00a0a\u00a0binary level of two people communicating with each other than an integrated group discussion, although all conversations are ‘open’ and all other participants are able to contribute to a conversation if they know it exists. The key design practice\u00a0then with regard to communication is\u00a0a self-organising network with many sub-components;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n- assessment\u00a0<\/strong>There is no formal assessment, although participants may seek feedback from other, more knowledgeable participants, on an informal basis. Basically participants decide for themselves whether what they have learned is appropriate to them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
5.3.2.3 cMOOCs summary<\/h3>\n
cMOOCs therefore primarily use a networked approach to learning based on autonomous learners connecting with each other across open and connected social media and sharing knowledge through their own personal contributions. There is no pre-set curriculum and no formal teacher-student relationship, either for delivery of content or for learner support. Participants learn from the contributions of others, from the meta-level knowledge generated through the community, and from self-reflection on their own contributions, thus reflecting many of the features of communities of interest or practice (see Chapter 4.6<\/a>).<\/p>\ncMOOCs have a very different educational philosophy from xMOOCs. Downes and Siemens have argued that cMOOCs reflect a new theory of learning, ‘connectivism’, based on exploiting online social networks (see Chapter 2.6<\/a>). cMOOCs certainly reflect a constructivist epistemology.<\/p>\n5.3.3 Other\u00a0variations of MOOCs<\/h2>\n
I have deliberately focused on the differences in design between xMOOCs and cMOOCs, and\u00a0Mackness (2103)<\/a>\u00a0and Yousef et al. (2014)<\/a>\u00a0also emphasise similar\u00a0differences in philosophy\/theory between cMOOCs and xMOOCs, as well as Downes himself (2012<\/a>), one of the original designers of cMOOCs.<\/p>\nHowever, it should be noted that the design of MOOCs continues to evolve, with all kinds of variations. Pilli and Admiraal (2016<\/a>) have identified 27 types of MOOC, including:<\/p>\n\n- cMOOCs;<\/em><\/li>\n
- xMOOCs;<\/em><\/li>\n
- BOOCs<\/em> (a big open online course) – \u00a0a cross between an xMOOC and a cMOOC;<\/li>\n
- COOC<\/em>s (community open online courses) –\u00a0small-scale, non-profit courses that corporations open online to provide courses for customers and\/or employees<\/li>\n
- DOCCs<\/em> (distributed open collaborative course): this involves 17 universities sharing and adapting the same basic MOOC;<\/li>\n
- LOOC<\/em>\u00a0s(little open online course): as well as 15-20 tuition-paying campus-based students, such\u00a0courses also allow a limited number of non-registered students to also take the course, but also paying a fee;<\/li>\n
- MOORs<\/em> (massive open online research): a mix of video-based lecturers and student research projects guided by the instructors;<\/li>\n
- SPOCs<\/em> (small, private, online courses): the example given is from Harvard Law School, which pre-selected 500 students from over 4,000 applicants, who take the same video-delivered lectures as on-campus students enrolled at Harvard;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The MOOCs developed by the University of British Columbia and a number of other institutions use\u00a0volunteers, paid academic assistants or even the instructor to moderate the online discussions and participant comments, making such MOOCs closer in design to\u00a0regular for-credit online courses – except that they are open to anyone.<\/p>\n
5.3.4 What’s going on here?<\/h2>\n
It is not surprising that over time, the design of MOOCs is evolving.\u00a0There seem to be three\u00a0distinct kinds of development:<\/p>\n
\n- some of the newer MOOCs, especially those from institutions with a history of credit-based online learning prior to the introduction of MOOCs, are beginning to apply some of the best practices, such as organised and moderated discussion groups, from online credit courses to MOOCs (see Chapter 4, Section 4<\/a>);<\/li>\n
- others are trying to open up their regular campus classes also, simultaneously, to non-registered students (which in fact is how the first MOOC, from Cormier, Downes and Siemens, originated);<\/li>\n
- yet others are trying to blend online MOOC materials or content with their on-campus teaching.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
It is likely that innovation in MOOC design and the way MOOCs are used will continue. In particular, different kinds of MOOC come and go. Finding extant examples of some of the types of MOOC listed in Section 5.3.3 has been difficult in revising this chapter.<\/p>\n
However, some of these developments also indicate a good deal of confusion around the definition\u00a0and goals of\u00a0MOOCs, especially regarding massiveness and open-ness. If participants\u00a0from outside a university have to pay a hefty fee to participate in an otherwise ‘closed’, on-campus course, or if off-campus participants have to be selected on certain criteria before they can participate, is it really open? Is the term MOOC now being used to describe any unconventional online offering or any online continuing education course? It’s difficult to see how a SPOC for instance differs from a typical online continuing education\u00a0course, except perhaps in that it uses a recorded lecture rather than a learning management system. There is a\u00a0danger of having any online course ending up being described as a MOOC, when in fact there are major differences in design and philosophy.<\/p>\n
Although each of these individual innovations, often the result of the\u00a0initiative of an individual instructor, are to be welcomed in principle, the consequences need to be carefully considered in fairness to potential participants. Individual instructors designing MOOCs really need to make sure that the design is consistent in terms of educational philosophy, and be clear as to why they are opting for a MOOC rather than a conventional online course. This is particularly important\u00a0if there is to be any form of formal\u00a0assessment. The status of such an assessment for participants who are not formally admitted to or\u00a0registered as a student in an institution needs to be clear and consistent.<\/p>\n
There is even more confusion about mixing MOOCs with on-campus teaching. At the moment the strategy appears to be to first develop a MOOC then see how it can be adapted for on-campus teaching. However, a better strategy might be to develop a conventional, for-credit online course, in terms of design, then see how it could be scaled for\u00a0open access to other participants. Another strategy might be to use open social media, such as a course wiki and student blogs, to widen access to the teaching of a formal course, rather than develop a full-blown MOOC.<\/p>\n
Thinking through the policy implications of incorporating MOOCs or MOOC materials with on-campus teaching\u00a0does not appear to be happening at the moment in most institutions experimenting with ‘blended’ MOOCs.\u00a0If MOOC participants are taking exactly the same course and assessment\u00a0as registered on-campus for-credit students, will the institution award the\u00a0external MOOC participants who successfully complete the assessment\u00a0credit for it and\/or admit them to the institution? If not, why not? For an excellent discussion of these issues framed for an institution’s Board of Governors, see Green, 2013<\/a>.<\/p>\nThus some of these MOOC developments seem to be operating in a policy vacuum regarding open learning in general. At some point, institutions will need to develop a clearer, more consistent strategy for open learning, in terms of how it can best be provided, how it calibrates with formal learning,\u00a0and how open learning\u00a0can be accommodated within the fiscal constraints of the institution, and then where MOOCs, other OERs and\u00a0<\/strong>conventional for-credit online courses\u00a0might fit with the strategy. For more on this topic, see Chapter 12<\/a>.<\/p>\nReferences<\/h2>\n
Banks, C. and Meinert, E. (2016) The acceptability of MOOC certificates in the workplace<\/a> International Conference eLearning 2016<\/p>\nDownes, S. (2014) The MOOC of One<\/em>,<\/a> Valencia, Spain,\u00a0March 10<\/p>\nEradze M., Tammets K. (2017) Learning Analytics in MOOCs: EMMA Case<\/a>. In: Lauro N., Amaturo E., Grassia M., Aragona B., Marino M. (eds) Data Science and Social Research: Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization<\/em>\u00a0Springer: Cham<\/p>\nGatuguta-Gitau, S. (2017) MOOCs: Employers View, a brief snapshot<\/a> QS<\/em>, London, UK<\/p>\nGordon, A. (2018) ‘Micromasters surge as MOOCs go from education to qualification<\/a>‘, Forbes<\/em>, 13 February<\/p>\nGreen, K. (2013) Mission, MOOCs and Money<\/a> Association of Governing Boards Trusteeship<\/em>, No. 1, Volume 21<\/p>\nLaveti, R. et al. (2017)\u00a0Implementation of learning analytics framework for MOOCs using state-of-the-art in-memory computing<\/a>, IEEE Xplore<\/em>, 19 October<\/p>\nMackness, J. (2013) cMOOCs and xMOOCs – key differences<\/a><\/em>, Jenny Mackness, October 22<\/p>\nPickard, L., Shah, D. and de Simone, J. (2018) Mapping Microcredentials Across MOOC Platforms<\/a> IEEE Explore<\/em>, 15 November<\/p>\nPilli, O. amd Admiraal, W. (2016) A Taxonomy of Massive Open Online Courses<\/a> \u00a0Contemporary Educational Technology,<\/em> Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 223-240<\/p>\nRivas, M., Baker, R. and Evans, B. (2020) Do MOOCs Make You More Marketable? An Experimental Analysis of the Value of MOOCs Relative to Traditional Credentials and Experience<\/a> AERA Open<\/em>, 26 November<\/p>\n
5.3.1.6\u00a0A\u00a0shared comment\/discussion space<\/h3>\nThese are places where participants can post questions, ask for help, or comment on the content of the course.\n5.3.1.7 No, or very light, discussion moderation<\/h3>\nThe extent to which the discussion or comments are moderated varies probably more than any other feature in xMOOCs, but at its most, moderation is directed at all participants rather than to individuals. Because of the very large numbers participating and commenting, moderation by the instructor(s) offering the MOOC of comments by individual learners is rarely possible. Some instructors offer no moderation whatsoever, so participants rely on other participants to respond to questions or comments. Some instructors 'sample' comments and questions, and post comments in response to these. Some instructors use volunteers or paid teaching assistants to comb comments to identify common areas of concern shared by a number of participants then the instructor and\/or the teaching assistants will respond. However, in most cases, participants moderate each other's comments or questions.\n\nSome MOOCs now use automated chatbots, software which identifies key terms or questions from students and summarises them for the instructor, who then takes account of this in future lectures (see Chapter 9.4.4<\/a> for more details).\n5.3.1.8 Badges or certificates<\/h3>\n
Most xMOOCs award some kind of recognition for successful completion of a course, based on a final computer-marked assessment. Between a single course and a full degree, all the major MOOC providers have created at least one multi-course microcredential (Pickard et al., 2018<\/a>)<\/a>. However, MOOC badges or certificates have in most cases not\u00a0been recognised for credit or admission purposes even by the institutions offering a MOOC - even when the lectures are the same as for on-campus students.<\/p>\nLittle evidence exists to date about employer acceptance of MOOC qualifications (see for instance, Banks and Meinart, 2016<\/a>)<\/a>. Rivas et al. (2020<\/a>) found that employers overwhelmingly preferred applicants with a traditional degree to those that had completed MOOCs, but also preferred those with MOOC certificates to those without formal post-secondary qualifications. However, with the increasing development of partnerships between major employers and MOOC providers to develop microcredentials, this is changing. Companies such as Google and Microsoft are now offering professional certificates on MOOC platforms such as Coursera at around US$300 per course - not free, by any means, but open to all, and more importantly, carrying credibility with employers.<\/p>\n\n5.3.1.9 Learning analytics<\/h3>\nAlthough to date there has not been a great deal of published information about the use of learning analytics in xMOOCs, the\u00a0xMOOC platforms\u00a0have the capacity to collect and analyse 'big data' about participants and their performance, enabling, at least in theory, for immediate feedback to instructors about areas where the content or design needs improving and possibly directing automated\u00a0cues or hints for individuals. For examples of the use of learning analytics in MOOCs, see Laveti et al., 2017<\/a> or Eradze and Tammets, 2017<\/a>.\n5.3.1.10 xMOOCs Summary<\/h3>\nxMOOCs\u00a0therefore primarily use a teaching model focused on the transmission of information, with high quality content delivery, computer-marked assessment (mainly for student feedback purposes), and automation of all key transactions between participants and the learning platform. There is rarely any\u00a0direct interaction between an individual participant and the\u00a0instructor responsible for the course, although instructors may post general comments in response to a range of participants' comments. Thus there is a highly behaviouristic\/objectivist epistemology underlying xMOOCs.\n5.3.2 cMOOCs<\/h2>\n[caption id=\"attachment_174\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"1792\"] Figure 5.3.2 A connectivist MOOC Image: Melcher, 2008[\/caption]\n\ncMOOCs, the first of which was developed by three instructors for a course at the University of Manitoba in 2008, are based on networked learning, where learning develops through the connections and discussions between participants over social media. There is no standard technology platform for cMOOCs, which use a combination of open social media that enable networking among all participants. Although usually there are some experts who initiate and participate in cMOOCs, this type of MOOC is by and large driven by the interests and contributions of the participants. Usually there is no attempt at formal assessment.\n5.3.2.1 Key design principles for cMOOCs<\/h3>\nDownes (2014<\/a>) has identified four key design principles for\u00a0cMOOCs:\n\n \t- autonomy\u00a0of the learner:<\/strong> although whoever\u00a0organises the MOOC will usually choose a main topic and invite participants, there is\u00a0no formal curriculum; participants decide\u00a0what to discuss, what to read, and what they wish to contribute towards the topic;<\/li>\n \t
- diversity:<\/strong> in the tools used, the range of participants, their knowledge levels, and the varied content;<\/li>\n \t
- interactivity:<\/strong> in terms of\u00a0co-operative learning, communication between participants, resulting in 'emergent' knowledge<\/li>\n \t
- open-ness<\/strong>:\u00a0in terms of access, content, activities and assessment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nThus for the proponents of cMOOCs, learning results not from the transmission of information from an expert to novices, as in xMOOCs, but from the sharing and flow of knowledge between participants.\n
5.3.2.2 From principles to practice<\/h3>\nIdentifying how these key design features for cMOOCs are turned into practice is somewhat more difficult to pinpoint, because cMOOCs depend on an evolving set of practices.\u00a0Most cMOOCs to date have in fact made some use of 'experts', both in the\u00a0organization and promotion of the\u00a0MOOC, and in providing 'nodes' of content around which discussion tends to revolve. \u00a0In other words, the design practices\u00a0of cMOOCs are still more a work in progress than those of xMOOCs.\n\nNevertheless, at the moment the following are\u00a0key design practices in cMOOCs:\n\n \t- use of social media \u00a0<\/strong>Partly because most cMOOCs are not institutionally based or supported, they do not at present use a shared platform or platforms but are more loosely supported by a range of openly accessible 'connected' tools and media. These may include a simple online registration system, and the use of streamed video or audio files, blogs, wikis, 'open' learning management systems such as Moodle, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram or Facebook, all enabling participants to share their contributions. Indeed, as new apps and social media tools develop, they too are likely to be incorporated into cMOOCs. All these tools are connected through web-based hashtags or other web-based linking mechanisms, enabling participants to identify social media contributions from other participants. Thus the use of loosely linked or connected social media is a key design component of cMOOCs;<\/li>\n \t
- participant-driven content\u00a0<\/strong>In principle, other than a common topic that may be decided by someone wanting to organise a cMOOC, content is decided upon and contributed by the participants themselves. Indeed, there may be no formally identified instructor. In practice though cMOOC organisers (who themselves tend to have some expertise in the topic of the MOOC) are likely\u00a0to invite potential participants who have expertise or are known already to have a well articulated approach to a topic, to make contributions which form the basis of discussion and debate. Participants choose their own ways to contribute or communicate, the most common being through blog\u00a0posts, tweets, or comments on other participants' blog posts, although some cMOOCs use wikis or\u00a0open source\u00a0online discussion forums. The key design practice\u00a0with regard to content is that all participants contribute to and share content;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n \t- distributed communication\u00a0<\/b>This is probably the most difficult design practice\u00a0to understand for those not familiar with cMOOCs - and even for those who have participated. With participants numbering in the hundreds or even thousands, each contributing individually through a variety of social media, there are a myriad different inter-connections between participants that are impossible to track (in total) by\u00a0any single participant. This results in many sub-conversations, more commonly at\u00a0a\u00a0binary level of two people communicating with each other than an integrated group discussion, although all conversations are 'open' and all other participants are able to contribute to a conversation if they know it exists. The key design practice\u00a0then with regard to communication is\u00a0a self-organising network with many sub-components;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n \t- assessment\u00a0<\/strong>There is no formal assessment, although participants may seek feedback from other, more knowledgeable participants, on an informal basis. Basically participants decide for themselves whether what they have learned is appropriate to them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
5.3.2.3 cMOOCs summary<\/h3>\ncMOOCs therefore primarily use a networked approach to learning based on autonomous learners connecting with each other across open and connected social media and sharing knowledge through their own personal contributions. There is no pre-set curriculum and no formal teacher-student relationship, either for delivery of content or for learner support. Participants learn from the contributions of others, from the meta-level knowledge generated through the community, and from self-reflection on their own contributions, thus reflecting many of the features of communities of interest or practice (see Chapter 4.6<\/a>).\n\ncMOOCs have a very different educational philosophy from xMOOCs. Downes and Siemens have argued that cMOOCs reflect a new theory of learning, 'connectivism', based on exploiting online social networks (see Chapter 2.6<\/a>). cMOOCs certainly reflect a constructivist epistemology.\n5.3.3 Other\u00a0variations of MOOCs<\/h2>\nI have deliberately focused on the differences in design between xMOOCs and cMOOCs, and\u00a0Mackness (2103)<\/a>\u00a0and Yousef et al. (2014)<\/a>\u00a0also emphasise similar\u00a0differences in philosophy\/theory between cMOOCs and xMOOCs, as well as Downes himself (2012<\/a>), one of the original designers of cMOOCs.\n\nHowever, it should be noted that the design of MOOCs continues to evolve, with all kinds of variations. Pilli and Admiraal (2016<\/a>) have identified 27 types of MOOC, including:\n\n \t- cMOOCs;<\/em><\/li>\n \t
- xMOOCs;<\/em><\/li>\n \t
- BOOCs<\/em> (a big open online course) - \u00a0a cross between an xMOOC and a cMOOC;<\/li>\n \t
- COOC<\/em>s (community open online courses) -\u00a0small-scale, non-profit courses that corporations open online to provide courses for customers and\/or employees<\/li>\n \t
- DOCCs<\/em> (distributed open collaborative course): this involves 17 universities sharing and adapting the same basic MOOC;<\/li>\n \t
- LOOC<\/em>\u00a0s(little open online course): as well as 15-20 tuition-paying campus-based students, such\u00a0courses also allow a limited number of non-registered students to also take the course, but also paying a fee;<\/li>\n \t
- MOORs<\/em> (massive open online research): a mix of video-based lecturers and student research projects guided by the instructors;<\/li>\n \t
- SPOCs<\/em> (small, private, online courses): the example given is from Harvard Law School, which pre-selected 500 students from over 4,000 applicants, who take the same video-delivered lectures as on-campus students enrolled at Harvard;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nThe MOOCs developed by the University of British Columbia and a number of other institutions use\u00a0volunteers, paid academic assistants or even the instructor to moderate the online discussions and participant comments, making such MOOCs closer in design to\u00a0regular for-credit online courses - except that they are open to anyone.\n
5.3.4 What's going on here?<\/h2>\n
It is not surprising that over time, the design of MOOCs is evolving.\u00a0There seem to be three\u00a0distinct kinds of development:<\/p>\n\n
\n \t- some of the newer MOOCs, especially those from institutions with a history of credit-based online learning prior to the introduction of MOOCs, are beginning to apply some of the best practices, such as organised and moderated discussion groups, from online credit courses to MOOCs (see Chapter 4, Section 4<\/a>);<\/li>\n \t
- others are trying to open up their regular campus classes also, simultaneously, to non-registered students (which in fact is how the first MOOC, from Cormier, Downes and Siemens, originated);<\/li>\n \t
- yet others are trying to blend online MOOC materials or content with their on-campus teaching.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
It is likely that innovation in MOOC design and the way MOOCs are used will continue. In particular, different kinds of MOOC come and go. Finding extant examples of some of the types of MOOC listed in Section 5.3.3 has been difficult in revising this chapter.<\/p>\n
However, some of these developments also indicate a good deal of confusion around the definition\u00a0and goals of\u00a0MOOCs, especially regarding massiveness and open-ness. If participants\u00a0from outside a university have to pay a hefty fee to participate in an otherwise 'closed', on-campus course, or if off-campus participants have to be selected on certain criteria before they can participate, is it really open? Is the term MOOC now being used to describe any unconventional online offering or any online continuing education course? It's difficult to see how a SPOC for instance differs from a typical online continuing education\u00a0course, except perhaps in that it uses a recorded lecture rather than a learning management system. There is a\u00a0danger of having any online course ending up being described as a MOOC, when in fact there are major differences in design and philosophy.<\/p>\n
Although each of these individual innovations, often the result of the\u00a0initiative of an individual instructor, are to be welcomed in principle, the consequences need to be carefully considered in fairness to potential participants. Individual instructors designing MOOCs really need to make sure that the design is consistent in terms of educational philosophy, and be clear as to why they are opting for a MOOC rather than a conventional online course. This is particularly important\u00a0if there is to be any form of formal\u00a0assessment. The status of such an assessment for participants who are not formally admitted to or\u00a0registered as a student in an institution needs to be clear and consistent.<\/p>\n
There is even more confusion about mixing MOOCs with on-campus teaching. At the moment the strategy appears to be to first develop a MOOC then see how it can be adapted for on-campus teaching. However, a better strategy might be to develop a conventional, for-credit online course, in terms of design, then see how it could be scaled for\u00a0open access to other participants. Another strategy might be to use open social media, such as a course wiki and student blogs, to widen access to the teaching of a formal course, rather than develop a full-blown MOOC.<\/p>\n
Thinking through the policy implications of incorporating MOOCs or MOOC materials with on-campus teaching\u00a0does not appear to be happening at the moment in most institutions experimenting with 'blended' MOOCs.\u00a0If MOOC participants are taking exactly the same course and assessment\u00a0as registered on-campus for-credit students, will the institution award the\u00a0external MOOC participants who successfully complete the assessment\u00a0credit for it and\/or admit them to the institution? If not, why not? For an excellent discussion of these issues framed for an institution's Board of Governors, see Green, 2013<\/a>.<\/p>\nThus some of these MOOC developments seem to be operating in a policy vacuum regarding open learning in general. At some point, institutions will need to develop a clearer, more consistent strategy for open learning, in terms of how it can best be provided, how it calibrates with formal learning,\u00a0and how open learning\u00a0can be accommodated within the fiscal constraints of the institution, and then where MOOCs, other OERs and\u00a0<\/strong>conventional for-credit online courses\u00a0might fit with the strategy. For more on this topic, see Chapter 12<\/a>.<\/p>\n\nReferences<\/h2>\nBanks, C. and Meinert, E. (2016) The acceptability of MOOC certificates in the workplace<\/a> International Conference eLearning 2016\n\nDownes, S. (2014) The MOOC of One<\/em>,<\/a> Valencia, Spain,\u00a0March 10\n\nEradze M., Tammets K. (2017) Learning Analytics in MOOCs: EMMA Case<\/a>. In: Lauro N., Amaturo E., Grassia M., Aragona B., Marino M. (eds) Data Science and Social Research: Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization<\/em>\u00a0Springer: Cham\n\nGatuguta-Gitau, S. (2017) MOOCs: Employers View, a brief snapshot<\/a> QS<\/em>, London, UK\n\nGordon, A. (2018) 'Micromasters surge as MOOCs go from education to qualification<\/a>', Forbes<\/em>, 13 February\n\nGreen, K. (2013) Mission, MOOCs and Money<\/a> Association of Governing Boards Trusteeship<\/em>, No. 1, Volume 21\n\nLaveti, R. et al. (2017)\u00a0Implementation of learning analytics framework for MOOCs using state-of-the-art in-memory computing<\/a>, IEEE Xplore<\/em>, 19 October\n\nMackness, J. (2013) cMOOCs and xMOOCs - key differences<\/a><\/em>, Jenny Mackness, October 22\n\nPickard, L., Shah, D. and de Simone, J. (2018) Mapping Microcredentials Across MOOC Platforms<\/a> IEEE Explore<\/em>, 15 November\n\nPilli, O. amd Admiraal, W. (2016) A Taxonomy of Massive Open Online Courses<\/a> \u00a0Contemporary Educational Technology,<\/em> Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 223-240\n\nRivas, M., Baker, R. and Evans, B. (2020) Do MOOCs Make You More Marketable? An Experimental Analysis of the Value of MOOCs Relative to Traditional Credentials and Experience<\/a> AERA Open<\/em>, 26 November\n\nYousef, A. et al. (2014) MOOCs: A Review of the State-of-the-Art<\/a><\/em> Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education \u2013 CSEDU 2014, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 9-20\n\nActivity 5.3: Thinking about MOOC design<\/h3>\n
1. When is a MOOC a MOOC and when is it not a MOOC? Can you identify the common features? Is MOOC\u00a0still a useful term?<\/p>\n
2. If you were to design a MOOC, who would be the target audience? What kind of MOOC would it be? What form of assessment could you use? What would make you think your MOOC was a success, after it was delivered? What criteria would you use?<\/p>\n
3. Could you think of other\u00a0ways to make one or more of your courses more open, other than creating a MOOC from scratch? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of these other methods, compared to a MOOC?<\/p>\n
For my comments on these questions click on the podcast below:<\/p>\n[audio mp3=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/teachinginadigitalagev2\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/677\/2014\/11\/MOOC-design-2019-08-02-4.16-PM.mp3\"][\/audio]\n\n<\/div>","rendered":"Figure 5.3.1: A screen shot from an edX MOOC – an xMOOC<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIn this section the main MOOC designs will be analysed. However,\u00a0MOOCs are still a relatively new phenomenon, and design models are still evolving.<\/p>\n
5.3.1 xMOOCs<\/h2>\n
MOOCs developed initially by Stanford University professors and a little later by MIT and Harvard instructors are based primarily on a\u00a0strongly behaviourist,\u00a0information transmission model, the core teaching being through online recorded videos of short lectures, combined with computer automated testing, and sometimes also through the use of peer assessment. These MOOCs are offered through special cloud-based software platforms such as Coursera, edX and FutureLearn.<\/p>\n
At the time of writing (2022) xMOOCs are by far the most common MOOC. Instructors have considerable flexibility in the design of the course, so there is considerable variation in the details, but in general xMOOCs have the following common design features:<\/p>\n
5.3.1.1 Specially designed platform software<\/h3>\n
Most\u00a0very large xMOOCs use\u00a0specially designed platform software such as Coursera, edX or FutureLearn that allows for the registration of very large numbers of participants, provides facilities for the storing and streaming on demand of digital materials, and automates assessment procedures and student performance tracking. The software platform also allows the companies that provide the software to collect and analyse student data.<\/p>\n
However, smaller institutions are increasingly offering their own xMOOCs through using or adapting their continuing education online registration process, their own video servers, and ‘off-the-shelf’ automated feedback, testing and marking tools.<\/p>\n
5.3.1.2 Video lectures<\/h3>\n
xMOOCs use the standard lecture mode, delivered online by\u00a0participants downloading on demand recorded video lectures. These video lectures are normally available on a weekly basis over a period of 10-13 weeks. Initially these were often 50 minute lectures, but as a result of\u00a0experience some xMOOCs now are using shorter recordings (sometimes down to 15 minutes in length) and thus there may be more video segments. As well, xMOOC\u00a0courses<\/em> are becoming shorter in length, some now lasting only five weeks. Various video production methods have been used, including lecture capture (recording face-to-face on-campus lectures, then storing them and streaming them on demand), full studio production, or desktop recording by the instructor.<\/p>\n5.3.1.3 Computer-marked assignments<\/h3>\n
Students complete an online test and receive immediate computerised feedback.\u00a0These tests are usually offered\u00a0throughout the course, and may be used just for participant feedback. Alternatively the tests may be used for\u00a0determining the award of a certificate. Another option is\u00a0for an end of course grade\u00a0or certificate based solely on an end-of-course online test. Most xMOOC assignments are based on multiple-choice, computer-marked questions, but\u00a0some\u00a0MOOCs have also used text or formula boxes for participants\u00a0to enter answers, such as coding in a computer science course, or mathematical formulae, and in one or two cases, short text answers, but in most cases these will be computer-marked.<\/p>\n
5.3.1.4 Peer assessment<\/h3>\n
Some xMOOCs have experimented with assigning\u00a0students randomly to small groups for peer assessment, especially for more open-ended or\u00a0more evaluative assignment questions. This has often proved problematic though because of wide variations in expertise between the different members of a group, and because of the different levels of involvement in the course of different participants.<\/p>\n
5.3.1.5 Supporting materials<\/h3>\n
Sometimes copies of slides, supplementary audio files, urls to other resources, and online articles may be included for downloading by participants.<\/p>\n
5.3.1.6\u00a0A\u00a0shared comment\/discussion space<\/h3>\n
These are places where participants can post questions, ask for help, or comment on the content of the course.<\/p>\n
5.3.1.7 No, or very light, discussion moderation<\/h3>\n
The extent to which the discussion or comments are moderated varies probably more than any other feature in xMOOCs, but at its most, moderation is directed at all participants rather than to individuals. Because of the very large numbers participating and commenting, moderation by the instructor(s) offering the MOOC of comments by individual learners is rarely possible. Some instructors offer no moderation whatsoever, so participants rely on other participants to respond to questions or comments. Some instructors ‘sample’ comments and questions, and post comments in response to these. Some instructors use volunteers or paid teaching assistants to comb comments to identify common areas of concern shared by a number of participants then the instructor and\/or the teaching assistants will respond. However, in most cases, participants moderate each other’s comments or questions.<\/p>\n
Some MOOCs now use automated chatbots, software which identifies key terms or questions from students and summarises them for the instructor, who then takes account of this in future lectures (see Chapter 9.4.4<\/a> for more details).<\/p>\n5.3.1.8 Badges or certificates<\/h3>\n
Most xMOOCs award some kind of recognition for successful completion of a course, based on a final computer-marked assessment. Between a single course and a full degree, all the major MOOC providers have created at least one multi-course microcredential (Pickard et al., 2018<\/a>)<\/a>. However, MOOC badges or certificates have in most cases not\u00a0been recognised for credit or admission purposes even by the institutions offering a MOOC – even when the lectures are the same as for on-campus students.<\/p>\nLittle evidence exists to date about employer acceptance of MOOC qualifications (see for instance, Banks and Meinart, 2016<\/a>)<\/a>. Rivas et al. (2020<\/a>) found that employers overwhelmingly preferred applicants with a traditional degree to those that had completed MOOCs, but also preferred those with MOOC certificates to those without formal post-secondary qualifications. However, with the increasing development of partnerships between major employers and MOOC providers to develop microcredentials, this is changing. Companies such as Google and Microsoft are now offering professional certificates on MOOC platforms such as Coursera at around US$300 per course – not free, by any means, but open to all, and more importantly, carrying credibility with employers.<\/p>\n5.3.1.9 Learning analytics<\/h3>\n
Although to date there has not been a great deal of published information about the use of learning analytics in xMOOCs, the\u00a0xMOOC platforms\u00a0have the capacity to collect and analyse ‘big data’ about participants and their performance, enabling, at least in theory, for immediate feedback to instructors about areas where the content or design needs improving and possibly directing automated\u00a0cues or hints for individuals. For examples of the use of learning analytics in MOOCs, see Laveti et al., 2017<\/a> or Eradze and Tammets, 2017<\/a>.<\/p>\n5.3.1.10 xMOOCs Summary<\/h3>\n
xMOOCs\u00a0therefore primarily use a teaching model focused on the transmission of information, with high quality content delivery, computer-marked assessment (mainly for student feedback purposes), and automation of all key transactions between participants and the learning platform. There is rarely any\u00a0direct interaction between an individual participant and the\u00a0instructor responsible for the course, although instructors may post general comments in response to a range of participants’ comments. Thus there is a highly behaviouristic\/objectivist epistemology underlying xMOOCs.<\/p>\n
5.3.2 cMOOCs<\/h2>\nFigure 5.3.2 A connectivist MOOC Image: Melcher, 2008<\/figcaption><\/figure>\ncMOOCs, the first of which was developed by three instructors for a course at the University of Manitoba in 2008, are based on networked learning, where learning develops through the connections and discussions between participants over social media. There is no standard technology platform for cMOOCs, which use a combination of open social media that enable networking among all participants. Although usually there are some experts who initiate and participate in cMOOCs, this type of MOOC is by and large driven by the interests and contributions of the participants. Usually there is no attempt at formal assessment.<\/p>\n
5.3.2.1 Key design principles for cMOOCs<\/h3>\n
Downes (2014<\/a>) has identified four key design principles for\u00a0cMOOCs:<\/p>\n\n- autonomy\u00a0of the learner:<\/strong> although whoever\u00a0organises the MOOC will usually choose a main topic and invite participants, there is\u00a0no formal curriculum; participants decide\u00a0what to discuss, what to read, and what they wish to contribute towards the topic;<\/li>\n
- diversity:<\/strong> in the tools used, the range of participants, their knowledge levels, and the varied content;<\/li>\n
- interactivity:<\/strong> in terms of\u00a0co-operative learning, communication between participants, resulting in ’emergent’ knowledge<\/li>\n
- open-ness<\/strong>:\u00a0in terms of access, content, activities and assessment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Thus for the proponents of cMOOCs, learning results not from the transmission of information from an expert to novices, as in xMOOCs, but from the sharing and flow of knowledge between participants.<\/p>\n
5.3.2.2 From principles to practice<\/h3>\n
Identifying how these key design features for cMOOCs are turned into practice is somewhat more difficult to pinpoint, because cMOOCs depend on an evolving set of practices.\u00a0Most cMOOCs to date have in fact made some use of ‘experts’, both in the\u00a0organization and promotion of the\u00a0MOOC, and in providing ‘nodes’ of content around which discussion tends to revolve. \u00a0In other words, the design practices\u00a0of cMOOCs are still more a work in progress than those of xMOOCs.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, at the moment the following are\u00a0key design practices in cMOOCs:<\/p>\n
\n- use of social media \u00a0<\/strong>Partly because most cMOOCs are not institutionally based or supported, they do not at present use a shared platform or platforms but are more loosely supported by a range of openly accessible ‘connected’ tools and media. These may include a simple online registration system, and the use of streamed video or audio files, blogs, wikis, ‘open’ learning management systems such as Moodle, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram or Facebook, all enabling participants to share their contributions. Indeed, as new apps and social media tools develop, they too are likely to be incorporated into cMOOCs. All these tools are connected through web-based hashtags or other web-based linking mechanisms, enabling participants to identify social media contributions from other participants. Thus the use of loosely linked or connected social media is a key design component of cMOOCs;<\/li>\n
- participant-driven content\u00a0<\/strong>In principle, other than a common topic that may be decided by someone wanting to organise a cMOOC, content is decided upon and contributed by the participants themselves. Indeed, there may be no formally identified instructor. In practice though cMOOC organisers (who themselves tend to have some expertise in the topic of the MOOC) are likely\u00a0to invite potential participants who have expertise or are known already to have a well articulated approach to a topic, to make contributions which form the basis of discussion and debate. Participants choose their own ways to contribute or communicate, the most common being through blog\u00a0posts, tweets, or comments on other participants’ blog posts, although some cMOOCs use wikis or\u00a0open source\u00a0online discussion forums. The key design practice\u00a0with regard to content is that all participants contribute to and share content;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n- distributed communication\u00a0<\/b>This is probably the most difficult design practice\u00a0to understand for those not familiar with cMOOCs – and even for those who have participated. With participants numbering in the hundreds or even thousands, each contributing individually through a variety of social media, there are a myriad different inter-connections between participants that are impossible to track (in total) by\u00a0any single participant. This results in many sub-conversations, more commonly at\u00a0a\u00a0binary level of two people communicating with each other than an integrated group discussion, although all conversations are ‘open’ and all other participants are able to contribute to a conversation if they know it exists. The key design practice\u00a0then with regard to communication is\u00a0a self-organising network with many sub-components;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n- assessment\u00a0<\/strong>There is no formal assessment, although participants may seek feedback from other, more knowledgeable participants, on an informal basis. Basically participants decide for themselves whether what they have learned is appropriate to them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
5.3.2.3 cMOOCs summary<\/h3>\n
cMOOCs therefore primarily use a networked approach to learning based on autonomous learners connecting with each other across open and connected social media and sharing knowledge through their own personal contributions. There is no pre-set curriculum and no formal teacher-student relationship, either for delivery of content or for learner support. Participants learn from the contributions of others, from the meta-level knowledge generated through the community, and from self-reflection on their own contributions, thus reflecting many of the features of communities of interest or practice (see Chapter 4.6<\/a>).<\/p>\ncMOOCs have a very different educational philosophy from xMOOCs. Downes and Siemens have argued that cMOOCs reflect a new theory of learning, ‘connectivism’, based on exploiting online social networks (see Chapter 2.6<\/a>). cMOOCs certainly reflect a constructivist epistemology.<\/p>\n5.3.3 Other\u00a0variations of MOOCs<\/h2>\n
I have deliberately focused on the differences in design between xMOOCs and cMOOCs, and\u00a0Mackness (2103)<\/a>\u00a0and Yousef et al. (2014)<\/a>\u00a0also emphasise similar\u00a0differences in philosophy\/theory between cMOOCs and xMOOCs, as well as Downes himself (2012<\/a>), one of the original designers of cMOOCs.<\/p>\nHowever, it should be noted that the design of MOOCs continues to evolve, with all kinds of variations. Pilli and Admiraal (2016<\/a>) have identified 27 types of MOOC, including:<\/p>\n\n- cMOOCs;<\/em><\/li>\n
- xMOOCs;<\/em><\/li>\n
- BOOCs<\/em> (a big open online course) – \u00a0a cross between an xMOOC and a cMOOC;<\/li>\n
- COOC<\/em>s (community open online courses) –\u00a0small-scale, non-profit courses that corporations open online to provide courses for customers and\/or employees<\/li>\n
- DOCCs<\/em> (distributed open collaborative course): this involves 17 universities sharing and adapting the same basic MOOC;<\/li>\n
- LOOC<\/em>\u00a0s(little open online course): as well as 15-20 tuition-paying campus-based students, such\u00a0courses also allow a limited number of non-registered students to also take the course, but also paying a fee;<\/li>\n
- MOORs<\/em> (massive open online research): a mix of video-based lecturers and student research projects guided by the instructors;<\/li>\n
- SPOCs<\/em> (small, private, online courses): the example given is from Harvard Law School, which pre-selected 500 students from over 4,000 applicants, who take the same video-delivered lectures as on-campus students enrolled at Harvard;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The MOOCs developed by the University of British Columbia and a number of other institutions use\u00a0volunteers, paid academic assistants or even the instructor to moderate the online discussions and participant comments, making such MOOCs closer in design to\u00a0regular for-credit online courses – except that they are open to anyone.<\/p>\n
5.3.4 What’s going on here?<\/h2>\n
It is not surprising that over time, the design of MOOCs is evolving.\u00a0There seem to be three\u00a0distinct kinds of development:<\/p>\n
\n- some of the newer MOOCs, especially those from institutions with a history of credit-based online learning prior to the introduction of MOOCs, are beginning to apply some of the best practices, such as organised and moderated discussion groups, from online credit courses to MOOCs (see Chapter 4, Section 4<\/a>);<\/li>\n
- others are trying to open up their regular campus classes also, simultaneously, to non-registered students (which in fact is how the first MOOC, from Cormier, Downes and Siemens, originated);<\/li>\n
- yet others are trying to blend online MOOC materials or content with their on-campus teaching.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
It is likely that innovation in MOOC design and the way MOOCs are used will continue. In particular, different kinds of MOOC come and go. Finding extant examples of some of the types of MOOC listed in Section 5.3.3 has been difficult in revising this chapter.<\/p>\n
However, some of these developments also indicate a good deal of confusion around the definition\u00a0and goals of\u00a0MOOCs, especially regarding massiveness and open-ness. If participants\u00a0from outside a university have to pay a hefty fee to participate in an otherwise ‘closed’, on-campus course, or if off-campus participants have to be selected on certain criteria before they can participate, is it really open? Is the term MOOC now being used to describe any unconventional online offering or any online continuing education course? It’s difficult to see how a SPOC for instance differs from a typical online continuing education\u00a0course, except perhaps in that it uses a recorded lecture rather than a learning management system. There is a\u00a0danger of having any online course ending up being described as a MOOC, when in fact there are major differences in design and philosophy.<\/p>\n
Although each of these individual innovations, often the result of the\u00a0initiative of an individual instructor, are to be welcomed in principle, the consequences need to be carefully considered in fairness to potential participants. Individual instructors designing MOOCs really need to make sure that the design is consistent in terms of educational philosophy, and be clear as to why they are opting for a MOOC rather than a conventional online course. This is particularly important\u00a0if there is to be any form of formal\u00a0assessment. The status of such an assessment for participants who are not formally admitted to or\u00a0registered as a student in an institution needs to be clear and consistent.<\/p>\n
There is even more confusion about mixing MOOCs with on-campus teaching. At the moment the strategy appears to be to first develop a MOOC then see how it can be adapted for on-campus teaching. However, a better strategy might be to develop a conventional, for-credit online course, in terms of design, then see how it could be scaled for\u00a0open access to other participants. Another strategy might be to use open social media, such as a course wiki and student blogs, to widen access to the teaching of a formal course, rather than develop a full-blown MOOC.<\/p>\n
Thinking through the policy implications of incorporating MOOCs or MOOC materials with on-campus teaching\u00a0does not appear to be happening at the moment in most institutions experimenting with ‘blended’ MOOCs.\u00a0If MOOC participants are taking exactly the same course and assessment\u00a0as registered on-campus for-credit students, will the institution award the\u00a0external MOOC participants who successfully complete the assessment\u00a0credit for it and\/or admit them to the institution? If not, why not? For an excellent discussion of these issues framed for an institution’s Board of Governors, see Green, 2013<\/a>.<\/p>\nThus some of these MOOC developments seem to be operating in a policy vacuum regarding open learning in general. At some point, institutions will need to develop a clearer, more consistent strategy for open learning, in terms of how it can best be provided, how it calibrates with formal learning,\u00a0and how open learning\u00a0can be accommodated within the fiscal constraints of the institution, and then where MOOCs, other OERs and\u00a0<\/strong>conventional for-credit online courses\u00a0might fit with the strategy. For more on this topic, see Chapter 12<\/a>.<\/p>\nReferences<\/h2>\n
Banks, C. and Meinert, E. (2016) The acceptability of MOOC certificates in the workplace<\/a> International Conference eLearning 2016<\/p>\nDownes, S. (2014) The MOOC of One<\/em>,<\/a> Valencia, Spain,\u00a0March 10<\/p>\nEradze M., Tammets K. (2017) Learning Analytics in MOOCs: EMMA Case<\/a>. In: Lauro N., Amaturo E., Grassia M., Aragona B., Marino M. (eds) Data Science and Social Research: Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization<\/em>\u00a0Springer: Cham<\/p>\nGatuguta-Gitau, S. (2017) MOOCs: Employers View, a brief snapshot<\/a> QS<\/em>, London, UK<\/p>\nGordon, A. (2018) ‘Micromasters surge as MOOCs go from education to qualification<\/a>‘, Forbes<\/em>, 13 February<\/p>\nGreen, K. (2013) Mission, MOOCs and Money<\/a> Association of Governing Boards Trusteeship<\/em>, No. 1, Volume 21<\/p>\nLaveti, R. et al. (2017)\u00a0Implementation of learning analytics framework for MOOCs using state-of-the-art in-memory computing<\/a>, IEEE Xplore<\/em>, 19 October<\/p>\nMackness, J. (2013) cMOOCs and xMOOCs – key differences<\/a><\/em>, Jenny Mackness, October 22<\/p>\nPickard, L., Shah, D. and de Simone, J. (2018) Mapping Microcredentials Across MOOC Platforms<\/a> IEEE Explore<\/em>, 15 November<\/p>\nPilli, O. amd Admiraal, W. (2016) A Taxonomy of Massive Open Online Courses<\/a> \u00a0Contemporary Educational Technology,<\/em> Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 223-240<\/p>\nRivas, M., Baker, R. and Evans, B. (2020) Do MOOCs Make You More Marketable? An Experimental Analysis of the Value of MOOCs Relative to Traditional Credentials and Experience<\/a> AERA Open<\/em>, 26 November<\/p>\n
5.3.1.8 Badges or certificates<\/h3>\n
Most xMOOCs award some kind of recognition for successful completion of a course, based on a final computer-marked assessment. Between a single course and a full degree, all the major MOOC providers have created at least one multi-course microcredential (Pickard et al., 2018<\/a>)<\/a>. However, MOOC badges or certificates have in most cases not\u00a0been recognised for credit or admission purposes even by the institutions offering a MOOC - even when the lectures are the same as for on-campus students.<\/p>\n Little evidence exists to date about employer acceptance of MOOC qualifications (see for instance, Banks and Meinart, 2016<\/a>)<\/a>. Rivas et al. (2020<\/a>) found that employers overwhelmingly preferred applicants with a traditional degree to those that had completed MOOCs, but also preferred those with MOOC certificates to those without formal post-secondary qualifications. However, with the increasing development of partnerships between major employers and MOOC providers to develop microcredentials, this is changing. Companies such as Google and Microsoft are now offering professional certificates on MOOC platforms such as Coursera at around US$300 per course - not free, by any means, but open to all, and more importantly, carrying credibility with employers.<\/p>\n\n It is not surprising that over time, the design of MOOCs is evolving.\u00a0There seem to be three\u00a0distinct kinds of development:<\/p>\n\n It is likely that innovation in MOOC design and the way MOOCs are used will continue. In particular, different kinds of MOOC come and go. Finding extant examples of some of the types of MOOC listed in Section 5.3.3 has been difficult in revising this chapter.<\/p>\n However, some of these developments also indicate a good deal of confusion around the definition\u00a0and goals of\u00a0MOOCs, especially regarding massiveness and open-ness. If participants\u00a0from outside a university have to pay a hefty fee to participate in an otherwise 'closed', on-campus course, or if off-campus participants have to be selected on certain criteria before they can participate, is it really open? Is the term MOOC now being used to describe any unconventional online offering or any online continuing education course? It's difficult to see how a SPOC for instance differs from a typical online continuing education\u00a0course, except perhaps in that it uses a recorded lecture rather than a learning management system. There is a\u00a0danger of having any online course ending up being described as a MOOC, when in fact there are major differences in design and philosophy.<\/p>\n Although each of these individual innovations, often the result of the\u00a0initiative of an individual instructor, are to be welcomed in principle, the consequences need to be carefully considered in fairness to potential participants. Individual instructors designing MOOCs really need to make sure that the design is consistent in terms of educational philosophy, and be clear as to why they are opting for a MOOC rather than a conventional online course. This is particularly important\u00a0if there is to be any form of formal\u00a0assessment. The status of such an assessment for participants who are not formally admitted to or\u00a0registered as a student in an institution needs to be clear and consistent.<\/p>\n There is even more confusion about mixing MOOCs with on-campus teaching. At the moment the strategy appears to be to first develop a MOOC then see how it can be adapted for on-campus teaching. However, a better strategy might be to develop a conventional, for-credit online course, in terms of design, then see how it could be scaled for\u00a0open access to other participants. Another strategy might be to use open social media, such as a course wiki and student blogs, to widen access to the teaching of a formal course, rather than develop a full-blown MOOC.<\/p>\n Thinking through the policy implications of incorporating MOOCs or MOOC materials with on-campus teaching\u00a0does not appear to be happening at the moment in most institutions experimenting with 'blended' MOOCs.\u00a0If MOOC participants are taking exactly the same course and assessment\u00a0as registered on-campus for-credit students, will the institution award the\u00a0external MOOC participants who successfully complete the assessment\u00a0credit for it and\/or admit them to the institution? If not, why not? For an excellent discussion of these issues framed for an institution's Board of Governors, see Green, 2013<\/a>.<\/p>\n Thus some of these MOOC developments seem to be operating in a policy vacuum regarding open learning in general. At some point, institutions will need to develop a clearer, more consistent strategy for open learning, in terms of how it can best be provided, how it calibrates with formal learning,\u00a0and how open learning\u00a0can be accommodated within the fiscal constraints of the institution, and then where MOOCs, other OERs and\u00a0<\/strong>conventional for-credit online courses\u00a0might fit with the strategy. For more on this topic, see Chapter 12<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n 1. When is a MOOC a MOOC and when is it not a MOOC? Can you identify the common features? Is MOOC\u00a0still a useful term?<\/p>\n 2. If you were to design a MOOC, who would be the target audience? What kind of MOOC would it be? What form of assessment could you use? What would make you think your MOOC was a success, after it was delivered? What criteria would you use?<\/p>\n 3. Could you think of other\u00a0ways to make one or more of your courses more open, other than creating a MOOC from scratch? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of these other methods, compared to a MOOC?<\/p>\n For my comments on these questions click on the podcast below:<\/p>\n[audio mp3=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/teachinginadigitalagev2\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/677\/2014\/11\/MOOC-design-2019-08-02-4.16-PM.mp3\"][\/audio]\n\n<\/div>","rendered":" In this section the main MOOC designs will be analysed. However,\u00a0MOOCs are still a relatively new phenomenon, and design models are still evolving.<\/p>\n MOOCs developed initially by Stanford University professors and a little later by MIT and Harvard instructors are based primarily on a\u00a0strongly behaviourist,\u00a0information transmission model, the core teaching being through online recorded videos of short lectures, combined with computer automated testing, and sometimes also through the use of peer assessment. These MOOCs are offered through special cloud-based software platforms such as Coursera, edX and FutureLearn.<\/p>\n At the time of writing (2022) xMOOCs are by far the most common MOOC. Instructors have considerable flexibility in the design of the course, so there is considerable variation in the details, but in general xMOOCs have the following common design features:<\/p>\n Most\u00a0very large xMOOCs use\u00a0specially designed platform software such as Coursera, edX or FutureLearn that allows for the registration of very large numbers of participants, provides facilities for the storing and streaming on demand of digital materials, and automates assessment procedures and student performance tracking. The software platform also allows the companies that provide the software to collect and analyse student data.<\/p>\n However, smaller institutions are increasingly offering their own xMOOCs through using or adapting their continuing education online registration process, their own video servers, and ‘off-the-shelf’ automated feedback, testing and marking tools.<\/p>\n xMOOCs use the standard lecture mode, delivered online by\u00a0participants downloading on demand recorded video lectures. These video lectures are normally available on a weekly basis over a period of 10-13 weeks. Initially these were often 50 minute lectures, but as a result of\u00a0experience some xMOOCs now are using shorter recordings (sometimes down to 15 minutes in length) and thus there may be more video segments. As well, xMOOC\u00a0courses<\/em> are becoming shorter in length, some now lasting only five weeks. Various video production methods have been used, including lecture capture (recording face-to-face on-campus lectures, then storing them and streaming them on demand), full studio production, or desktop recording by the instructor.<\/p>\n Students complete an online test and receive immediate computerised feedback.\u00a0These tests are usually offered\u00a0throughout the course, and may be used just for participant feedback. Alternatively the tests may be used for\u00a0determining the award of a certificate. Another option is\u00a0for an end of course grade\u00a0or certificate based solely on an end-of-course online test. Most xMOOC assignments are based on multiple-choice, computer-marked questions, but\u00a0some\u00a0MOOCs have also used text or formula boxes for participants\u00a0to enter answers, such as coding in a computer science course, or mathematical formulae, and in one or two cases, short text answers, but in most cases these will be computer-marked.<\/p>\n Some xMOOCs have experimented with assigning\u00a0students randomly to small groups for peer assessment, especially for more open-ended or\u00a0more evaluative assignment questions. This has often proved problematic though because of wide variations in expertise between the different members of a group, and because of the different levels of involvement in the course of different participants.<\/p>\n Sometimes copies of slides, supplementary audio files, urls to other resources, and online articles may be included for downloading by participants.<\/p>\n These are places where participants can post questions, ask for help, or comment on the content of the course.<\/p>\n The extent to which the discussion or comments are moderated varies probably more than any other feature in xMOOCs, but at its most, moderation is directed at all participants rather than to individuals. Because of the very large numbers participating and commenting, moderation by the instructor(s) offering the MOOC of comments by individual learners is rarely possible. Some instructors offer no moderation whatsoever, so participants rely on other participants to respond to questions or comments. Some instructors ‘sample’ comments and questions, and post comments in response to these. Some instructors use volunteers or paid teaching assistants to comb comments to identify common areas of concern shared by a number of participants then the instructor and\/or the teaching assistants will respond. However, in most cases, participants moderate each other’s comments or questions.<\/p>\n Some MOOCs now use automated chatbots, software which identifies key terms or questions from students and summarises them for the instructor, who then takes account of this in future lectures (see Chapter 9.4.4<\/a> for more details).<\/p>\n Most xMOOCs award some kind of recognition for successful completion of a course, based on a final computer-marked assessment. Between a single course and a full degree, all the major MOOC providers have created at least one multi-course microcredential (Pickard et al., 2018<\/a>)<\/a>. However, MOOC badges or certificates have in most cases not\u00a0been recognised for credit or admission purposes even by the institutions offering a MOOC – even when the lectures are the same as for on-campus students.<\/p>\n Little evidence exists to date about employer acceptance of MOOC qualifications (see for instance, Banks and Meinart, 2016<\/a>)<\/a>. Rivas et al. (2020<\/a>) found that employers overwhelmingly preferred applicants with a traditional degree to those that had completed MOOCs, but also preferred those with MOOC certificates to those without formal post-secondary qualifications. However, with the increasing development of partnerships between major employers and MOOC providers to develop microcredentials, this is changing. Companies such as Google and Microsoft are now offering professional certificates on MOOC platforms such as Coursera at around US$300 per course – not free, by any means, but open to all, and more importantly, carrying credibility with employers.<\/p>\n Although to date there has not been a great deal of published information about the use of learning analytics in xMOOCs, the\u00a0xMOOC platforms\u00a0have the capacity to collect and analyse ‘big data’ about participants and their performance, enabling, at least in theory, for immediate feedback to instructors about areas where the content or design needs improving and possibly directing automated\u00a0cues or hints for individuals. For examples of the use of learning analytics in MOOCs, see Laveti et al., 2017<\/a> or Eradze and Tammets, 2017<\/a>.<\/p>\n xMOOCs\u00a0therefore primarily use a teaching model focused on the transmission of information, with high quality content delivery, computer-marked assessment (mainly for student feedback purposes), and automation of all key transactions between participants and the learning platform. There is rarely any\u00a0direct interaction between an individual participant and the\u00a0instructor responsible for the course, although instructors may post general comments in response to a range of participants’ comments. Thus there is a highly behaviouristic\/objectivist epistemology underlying xMOOCs.<\/p>\n cMOOCs, the first of which was developed by three instructors for a course at the University of Manitoba in 2008, are based on networked learning, where learning develops through the connections and discussions between participants over social media. There is no standard technology platform for cMOOCs, which use a combination of open social media that enable networking among all participants. Although usually there are some experts who initiate and participate in cMOOCs, this type of MOOC is by and large driven by the interests and contributions of the participants. Usually there is no attempt at formal assessment.<\/p>\n Downes (2014<\/a>) has identified four key design principles for\u00a0cMOOCs:<\/p>\n Thus for the proponents of cMOOCs, learning results not from the transmission of information from an expert to novices, as in xMOOCs, but from the sharing and flow of knowledge between participants.<\/p>\n Identifying how these key design features for cMOOCs are turned into practice is somewhat more difficult to pinpoint, because cMOOCs depend on an evolving set of practices.\u00a0Most cMOOCs to date have in fact made some use of ‘experts’, both in the\u00a0organization and promotion of the\u00a0MOOC, and in providing ‘nodes’ of content around which discussion tends to revolve. \u00a0In other words, the design practices\u00a0of cMOOCs are still more a work in progress than those of xMOOCs.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, at the moment the following are\u00a0key design practices in cMOOCs:<\/p>\n cMOOCs therefore primarily use a networked approach to learning based on autonomous learners connecting with each other across open and connected social media and sharing knowledge through their own personal contributions. There is no pre-set curriculum and no formal teacher-student relationship, either for delivery of content or for learner support. Participants learn from the contributions of others, from the meta-level knowledge generated through the community, and from self-reflection on their own contributions, thus reflecting many of the features of communities of interest or practice (see Chapter 4.6<\/a>).<\/p>\n cMOOCs have a very different educational philosophy from xMOOCs. Downes and Siemens have argued that cMOOCs reflect a new theory of learning, ‘connectivism’, based on exploiting online social networks (see Chapter 2.6<\/a>). cMOOCs certainly reflect a constructivist epistemology.<\/p>\n I have deliberately focused on the differences in design between xMOOCs and cMOOCs, and\u00a0Mackness (2103)<\/a>\u00a0and Yousef et al. (2014)<\/a>\u00a0also emphasise similar\u00a0differences in philosophy\/theory between cMOOCs and xMOOCs, as well as Downes himself (2012<\/a>), one of the original designers of cMOOCs.<\/p>\n However, it should be noted that the design of MOOCs continues to evolve, with all kinds of variations. Pilli and Admiraal (2016<\/a>) have identified 27 types of MOOC, including:<\/p>\n The MOOCs developed by the University of British Columbia and a number of other institutions use\u00a0volunteers, paid academic assistants or even the instructor to moderate the online discussions and participant comments, making such MOOCs closer in design to\u00a0regular for-credit online courses – except that they are open to anyone.<\/p>\n It is not surprising that over time, the design of MOOCs is evolving.\u00a0There seem to be three\u00a0distinct kinds of development:<\/p>\n It is likely that innovation in MOOC design and the way MOOCs are used will continue. In particular, different kinds of MOOC come and go. Finding extant examples of some of the types of MOOC listed in Section 5.3.3 has been difficult in revising this chapter.<\/p>\n However, some of these developments also indicate a good deal of confusion around the definition\u00a0and goals of\u00a0MOOCs, especially regarding massiveness and open-ness. If participants\u00a0from outside a university have to pay a hefty fee to participate in an otherwise ‘closed’, on-campus course, or if off-campus participants have to be selected on certain criteria before they can participate, is it really open? Is the term MOOC now being used to describe any unconventional online offering or any online continuing education course? It’s difficult to see how a SPOC for instance differs from a typical online continuing education\u00a0course, except perhaps in that it uses a recorded lecture rather than a learning management system. There is a\u00a0danger of having any online course ending up being described as a MOOC, when in fact there are major differences in design and philosophy.<\/p>\n Although each of these individual innovations, often the result of the\u00a0initiative of an individual instructor, are to be welcomed in principle, the consequences need to be carefully considered in fairness to potential participants. Individual instructors designing MOOCs really need to make sure that the design is consistent in terms of educational philosophy, and be clear as to why they are opting for a MOOC rather than a conventional online course. This is particularly important\u00a0if there is to be any form of formal\u00a0assessment. The status of such an assessment for participants who are not formally admitted to or\u00a0registered as a student in an institution needs to be clear and consistent.<\/p>\n There is even more confusion about mixing MOOCs with on-campus teaching. At the moment the strategy appears to be to first develop a MOOC then see how it can be adapted for on-campus teaching. However, a better strategy might be to develop a conventional, for-credit online course, in terms of design, then see how it could be scaled for\u00a0open access to other participants. Another strategy might be to use open social media, such as a course wiki and student blogs, to widen access to the teaching of a formal course, rather than develop a full-blown MOOC.<\/p>\n Thinking through the policy implications of incorporating MOOCs or MOOC materials with on-campus teaching\u00a0does not appear to be happening at the moment in most institutions experimenting with ‘blended’ MOOCs.\u00a0If MOOC participants are taking exactly the same course and assessment\u00a0as registered on-campus for-credit students, will the institution award the\u00a0external MOOC participants who successfully complete the assessment\u00a0credit for it and\/or admit them to the institution? If not, why not? For an excellent discussion of these issues framed for an institution’s Board of Governors, see Green, 2013<\/a>.<\/p>\n Thus some of these MOOC developments seem to be operating in a policy vacuum regarding open learning in general. At some point, institutions will need to develop a clearer, more consistent strategy for open learning, in terms of how it can best be provided, how it calibrates with formal learning,\u00a0and how open learning\u00a0can be accommodated within the fiscal constraints of the institution, and then where MOOCs, other OERs and\u00a0<\/strong>conventional for-credit online courses\u00a0might fit with the strategy. For more on this topic, see Chapter 12<\/a>.<\/p>\n Banks, C. and Meinert, E. (2016) The acceptability of MOOC certificates in the workplace<\/a> International Conference eLearning 2016<\/p>\n Downes, S. (2014) The MOOC of One<\/em>,<\/a> Valencia, Spain,\u00a0March 10<\/p>\n Eradze M., Tammets K. (2017) Learning Analytics in MOOCs: EMMA Case<\/a>. In: Lauro N., Amaturo E., Grassia M., Aragona B., Marino M. (eds) Data Science and Social Research: Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization<\/em>\u00a0Springer: Cham<\/p>\n Gatuguta-Gitau, S. (2017) MOOCs: Employers View, a brief snapshot<\/a> QS<\/em>, London, UK<\/p>\n Gordon, A. (2018) ‘Micromasters surge as MOOCs go from education to qualification<\/a>‘, Forbes<\/em>, 13 February<\/p>\n Green, K. (2013) Mission, MOOCs and Money<\/a> Association of Governing Boards Trusteeship<\/em>, No. 1, Volume 21<\/p>\n Laveti, R. et al. (2017)\u00a0Implementation of learning analytics framework for MOOCs using state-of-the-art in-memory computing<\/a>, IEEE Xplore<\/em>, 19 October<\/p>\n Mackness, J. (2013) cMOOCs and xMOOCs – key differences<\/a><\/em>, Jenny Mackness, October 22<\/p>\n Pickard, L., Shah, D. and de Simone, J. (2018) Mapping Microcredentials Across MOOC Platforms<\/a> IEEE Explore<\/em>, 15 November<\/p>\n Pilli, O. amd Admiraal, W. (2016) A Taxonomy of Massive Open Online Courses<\/a> \u00a0Contemporary Educational Technology,<\/em> Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 223-240<\/p>\n Rivas, M., Baker, R. and Evans, B. (2020) Do MOOCs Make You More Marketable? An Experimental Analysis of the Value of MOOCs Relative to Traditional Credentials and Experience<\/a> AERA Open<\/em>, 26 November<\/p>\n5.3.1.9 Learning analytics<\/h3>\nAlthough to date there has not been a great deal of published information about the use of learning analytics in xMOOCs, the\u00a0xMOOC platforms\u00a0have the capacity to collect and analyse 'big data' about participants and their performance, enabling, at least in theory, for immediate feedback to instructors about areas where the content or design needs improving and possibly directing automated\u00a0cues or hints for individuals. For examples of the use of learning analytics in MOOCs, see Laveti et al., 2017<\/a> or Eradze and Tammets, 2017<\/a>.\n
5.3.1.10 xMOOCs Summary<\/h3>\nxMOOCs\u00a0therefore primarily use a teaching model focused on the transmission of information, with high quality content delivery, computer-marked assessment (mainly for student feedback purposes), and automation of all key transactions between participants and the learning platform. There is rarely any\u00a0direct interaction between an individual participant and the\u00a0instructor responsible for the course, although instructors may post general comments in response to a range of participants' comments. Thus there is a highly behaviouristic\/objectivist epistemology underlying xMOOCs.\n
5.3.2 cMOOCs<\/h2>\n[caption id=\"attachment_174\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"1792\"]
Figure 5.3.2 A connectivist MOOC Image: Melcher, 2008[\/caption]\n\ncMOOCs, the first of which was developed by three instructors for a course at the University of Manitoba in 2008, are based on networked learning, where learning develops through the connections and discussions between participants over social media. There is no standard technology platform for cMOOCs, which use a combination of open social media that enable networking among all participants. Although usually there are some experts who initiate and participate in cMOOCs, this type of MOOC is by and large driven by the interests and contributions of the participants. Usually there is no attempt at formal assessment.\n5.3.2.1 Key design principles for cMOOCs<\/h3>\nDownes (2014<\/a>) has identified four key design principles for\u00a0cMOOCs:\n
\n \t
5.3.2.2 From principles to practice<\/h3>\nIdentifying how these key design features for cMOOCs are turned into practice is somewhat more difficult to pinpoint, because cMOOCs depend on an evolving set of practices.\u00a0Most cMOOCs to date have in fact made some use of 'experts', both in the\u00a0organization and promotion of the\u00a0MOOC, and in providing 'nodes' of content around which discussion tends to revolve. \u00a0In other words, the design practices\u00a0of cMOOCs are still more a work in progress than those of xMOOCs.\n\nNevertheless, at the moment the following are\u00a0key design practices in cMOOCs:\n
\n \t
\n \t
\n \t
5.3.2.3 cMOOCs summary<\/h3>\ncMOOCs therefore primarily use a networked approach to learning based on autonomous learners connecting with each other across open and connected social media and sharing knowledge through their own personal contributions. There is no pre-set curriculum and no formal teacher-student relationship, either for delivery of content or for learner support. Participants learn from the contributions of others, from the meta-level knowledge generated through the community, and from self-reflection on their own contributions, thus reflecting many of the features of communities of interest or practice (see Chapter 4.6<\/a>).\n\ncMOOCs have a very different educational philosophy from xMOOCs. Downes and Siemens have argued that cMOOCs reflect a new theory of learning, 'connectivism', based on exploiting online social networks (see Chapter 2.6<\/a>). cMOOCs certainly reflect a constructivist epistemology.\n
5.3.3 Other\u00a0variations of MOOCs<\/h2>\nI have deliberately focused on the differences in design between xMOOCs and cMOOCs, and\u00a0Mackness (2103)<\/a>\u00a0and Yousef et al. (2014)<\/a>\u00a0also emphasise similar\u00a0differences in philosophy\/theory between cMOOCs and xMOOCs, as well as Downes himself (2012<\/a>), one of the original designers of cMOOCs.\n\nHowever, it should be noted that the design of MOOCs continues to evolve, with all kinds of variations. Pilli and Admiraal (2016<\/a>) have identified 27 types of MOOC, including:\n
\n \t
5.3.4 What's going on here?<\/h2>\n
\n \t
References<\/h2>\nBanks, C. and Meinert, E. (2016) The acceptability of MOOC certificates in the workplace<\/a> International Conference eLearning 2016\n\nDownes, S. (2014) The MOOC of One<\/em>,<\/a> Valencia, Spain,\u00a0March 10\n\nEradze M., Tammets K. (2017) Learning Analytics in MOOCs: EMMA Case<\/a>. In: Lauro N., Amaturo E., Grassia M., Aragona B., Marino M. (eds) Data Science and Social Research: Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization<\/em>\u00a0Springer: Cham\n\nGatuguta-Gitau, S. (2017) MOOCs: Employers View, a brief snapshot<\/a> QS<\/em>, London, UK\n\nGordon, A. (2018) 'Micromasters surge as MOOCs go from education to qualification<\/a>', Forbes<\/em>, 13 February\n\nGreen, K. (2013) Mission, MOOCs and Money<\/a> Association of Governing Boards Trusteeship<\/em>, No. 1, Volume 21\n\nLaveti, R. et al. (2017)\u00a0Implementation of learning analytics framework for MOOCs using state-of-the-art in-memory computing<\/a>, IEEE Xplore<\/em>, 19 October\n\nMackness, J. (2013) cMOOCs and xMOOCs - key differences<\/a><\/em>, Jenny Mackness, October 22\n\nPickard, L., Shah, D. and de Simone, J. (2018) Mapping Microcredentials Across MOOC Platforms<\/a> IEEE Explore<\/em>, 15 November\n\nPilli, O. amd Admiraal, W. (2016) A Taxonomy of Massive Open Online Courses<\/a> \u00a0Contemporary Educational Technology,<\/em> Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 223-240\n\nRivas, M., Baker, R. and Evans, B. (2020) Do MOOCs Make You More Marketable? An Experimental Analysis of the Value of MOOCs Relative to Traditional Credentials and Experience<\/a> AERA Open<\/em>, 26 November\n\nYousef, A. et al. (2014) MOOCs: A Review of the State-of-the-Art<\/a><\/em> Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education \u2013 CSEDU 2014, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 9-20\n
Activity 5.3: Thinking about MOOC design<\/h3>\n
5.3.1 xMOOCs<\/h2>\n
5.3.1.1 Specially designed platform software<\/h3>\n
5.3.1.2 Video lectures<\/h3>\n
5.3.1.3 Computer-marked assignments<\/h3>\n
5.3.1.4 Peer assessment<\/h3>\n
5.3.1.5 Supporting materials<\/h3>\n
5.3.1.6\u00a0A\u00a0shared comment\/discussion space<\/h3>\n
5.3.1.7 No, or very light, discussion moderation<\/h3>\n
5.3.1.8 Badges or certificates<\/h3>\n
5.3.1.9 Learning analytics<\/h3>\n
5.3.1.10 xMOOCs Summary<\/h3>\n
5.3.2 cMOOCs<\/h2>\n
5.3.2.1 Key design principles for cMOOCs<\/h3>\n
\n
5.3.2.2 From principles to practice<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
5.3.2.3 cMOOCs summary<\/h3>\n
5.3.3 Other\u00a0variations of MOOCs<\/h2>\n
\n
5.3.4 What’s going on here?<\/h2>\n
\n
References<\/h2>\n