Designing for Learning in a MOOC: A Pedagogical Model in Disguise

Authors

  • Claire Leonie Donald University of Auckland
  • Elizabeth Ramsay University of Auckland
  • Inken Joerg University of Auckland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v5i3.287

Keywords:

MOOCs, learning design, pedagogical model

Abstract

This paper describes a recently developed MOOC on introductory statistics from the perspective of the educators, learning designers and learners. It portrays their experiences of the learning design, both as process and product, and compares the teaching intentions inherent in the learning design to the experience of teaching and learning on the MOOC for the first two years of its implementation. We describe the pedagogical model, ‘disguised’ beneath the surface functionality and steps of the MOOC platform, and how it frames some of the planned learning sequences. Reflecting on the teaching, learning and design features of this highly structured MOOC, we share the lessons learned about designing for learning and teaching that pertain to MOOC environments, and those that apply to other contemporary university classrooms.

Author Biographies

  • Claire Leonie Donald, University of Auckland

    Claire Donald is a lecturer and learning designer with the eLearning Group in the Centre for Learning and Research in Higher Education at the University of Auckland. Her research interests are in science and engineering education, learning design, teacher beliefs and learning analytics.

  • Elizabeth Ramsay, University of Auckland

    Elizabeth Ramsay is a learning designer with the eLearning Group in the Centre for Learning and Research in Higher Education at the University of Auckland. She is also the editor of the Centre’s biannual magazine Academix.

  • Inken Joerg, University of Auckland

    Inken Joerg is a graduate of the University of Education Heidelberg and at the time of writing, an intern and research assistant with the eLearning Group in the Centre for Learning and Research in Higher Education at the University of Auckland.

References

Anders, A. (2015). Theories and applications of Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs): The case for hybrid design. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6).

doi: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2185

Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2016). The design process of university teachers: A descriptive model. ASCILITE Adelaide 2016 Conference Proceedings, 33rd International Conference of Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education, 17-19.

Agostinho, S. (2011). The use of a visual learning design representation to support the design process of teaching in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(6), 961-978.

doi: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.923

Bates, A. (2014). Comparing xMOOCs and cMOOCs: Philosophies and practice. Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/13/comparing-xmoocs-and-cmoocs-philosophy-and-practice/

Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2014). The pedagogy of the Massive Open Online Course: The UK view. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/hea_edinburgh_mooc_web_240314_1.pdf.

Brown, G. (2004). How Students Learn: A supplement to the RoutledgeFalmer Key Guides for Effective Teaching in Higher Education series. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.608.9880&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Caplan, D. (2004). The Development of Online Courses. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd ed., pp. 175-194). Athabasca: Athabasca University.

Conole, G. (2015). Designing effective MOOCs. Educational Media International, 52(4), 239-252.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1125989

Conole, G. (2014). A new classification schema for MOOCs. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning (INNOQUAL), 2 (3), 65-77.

Czerniewicz, L., Glover, M., Deacon, A., & Walji, S. (2016). MOOCs, openness and changing educator practices: An Activity Theory case study. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning 2016. Retrieved from https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/item/22499/NLC%20paper.pdf?sequence=1.

Donald, C., Blake, A., Girault, I., Datt, A., & Ramsay, E. (2009). Approaches to learning design: Past the head and the hands to the HEART of the matter. Distance Education, 30(2), 179-199.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910903023181

Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (2011). The Adult Learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (7th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Masterman, E. (2009). Activity theory and the design of pedagogic planning tools. In Lockyer, L. Bennett, S. Agostinho, S., & Harper, B. (Eds.). Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications, and technologies (pp. 209-227). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

doi: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-861-1.ch009

Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2003). Exploring technology-mediated learning from a pedagogical perspective. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 11(2), 111-126.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1076/ilee.11.2.111.14136

Pappano, L. (2012). Education Life. New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html.

Shrivastava, A., & Guiney, P. (2014). Technological developments and tertiary education delivery models – The arrival of MOOCs: Massive Open Online Courses. Report of the Tertiary Education Commission, Wellington: Crown.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2 (1), 3-10.

Stewart, B. (2013). Massiveness + Openness = New Literacies of Participation. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 228-238.

Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2016). A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013–2015. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2).

doi: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448

Wild, C., Triggs, C., & Pfannkuch, M. (1997). Assessment on a budget: Using traditional methods imaginatively. In Gal I., & Garfield J. (Eds). The Assessment Challenge in Statistics Education. IOS Press, International Statistical Institute. Retrieved from: http://iase-web.org/Books.php?p=book1

Downloads

Published

2017-06-07

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 3 (2017)

Section

Reflective Analysis Papers

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice has made best effort to ensure accuracy of the contents of this journal, however makes no claims to the authenticity and completeness of the articles published. Authors are responsible for ensuring copyright clearance for any images, tables etc which are supplied from an outside source.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.