futurelearning! reflections on teaching in the futurelearn play mooc
TRANSCRIPT
University of Sheffield, March 2015
Futurelearning! Reflections on teaching
in the Futurelearn Play MOOC
Sheila Webber
Information School,
University of Sheffield
Using 3 frameworks to reflect on the
MOOC vs non-MOOC experience
• Teaching-Learning Environment (Entwistle et al,
2004)
• Conole’s (2014) 12 MOOC dimensions
• Sharpe et al.’s (2006) 8 dimensions of blended
learning
Sheila Webber, 2015
MOOC
• Massive i.e many learners (often, thousands)
• Open i.e. (freely) available to anyone (although
many MOOCs only accessible to those who
register): also open-access issue
• Online
• Course i.e. some aim and structure to the learning
Sheila Webber, 2015
Exploring Play MOOC, Sep-Nov 14
• 17,000 learners registered, 8,000 did at least one step, over 1,000 completed
• Cross faculty team: I led week 6 of 7 on “virtual play”
• Each week has steps; with videos, articles, comment-based discussion and a quiz
• Use of a few tools outside the platform, but mostly interactions inside
• Learners asked to remember, reflect, carry out observations and activities
Contrasting example of non-MOOC
module
• 15 credit core module in MA Librarianship
• “Information Literacy” (IL): 18 students 2014/5
• 3 hour f2f weeks 1-11
• Assignments: (1) Bibliography + reflection on IL;
(2) Reflection on intervention teaching IL
The Teaching-
Learning
Environment
Entwistle et al.
(2004: 3)
These elements still apply with MOOCs, with potentially great diversity in student characteristics and expectations
Sheila Webber, 2015
The Teaching-
Learning
Environment
Entwistle et al.
(2004: 3)
A further key influence in specifying design & quality is the MOOC platform provider
Sheila Webber, 2015
Conole’s (2014) MOOC dimensions (to be rated as low, medium and high)
• (How) Open
• (How) Massive
• Diversity (of participants)
• Use of (varied) multimedia
• Degree of (forms of) communication
• Degree of collaboration
• Amount of reflection
• (Nature of) Learning pathway
• (Form of) Quality assurance
• Certification
• (Link to) Formal Learning
• (Degree of learner) Autonomy Sheila Webber, 2015
Sharpe et al’s (2006) Dimensions of
blended learning
• Delivery: different modes (face-to-face and distance education)
• Technology: mixtures of (web based) technologies
• Chronology: synchronous and a-synchronous interventions
• Locus: practice-based vs. class-room based learning
• Roles: multi-disciplinary or professional groupings
• Pedagogy: different pedagogical approaches
• Focus: acknowledging different aims
• Direction: instructor-directed vs. autonomous or learner-directed learning.
Sheila Webber, 2015
Differences MOOC/non-MOOC?
• Delivery: MOOC - could be just online; non-MOOC required blended approach; both involved interactions outside “class” time
• Technology: Both mixed technologies; different emphases
• Chronology: MOOC a-synchronous, non-M strong emphasis (value?) on synchronous
• Locus: for both, class-room based learning but with strong link to life/practice (both non-M assignments involved practice)
• Roles: Wider range of people involved in MOOC design (learning technologists, film production, central MOOC team)
• Pedagogy: Perhaps more difficult for those in non-M to “avoid” the teacher’s pedagogic approach (e.g. class activities, assessment requirements)
• Focus: MOOC acknowledging wider range of aims?
• Direction: more autonomy required of MOOC learner
Sheila Webber, 2015
Teaching via my Second Life avatar • Reactions to SL
– detached from reality ... escapism ... struggle to see the appeal ... lost ... don’t get it ... don’t see the relevance ... a sad depraved place ...
– challenging ... out of my comfort zone ...
– though also ... interested ... intrigued ... fascinating ... beautiful ...
• Some people talked about my avatar as being cold, having odd lip movements, commented on my appearance etc.
• Draws attention to the identity and position of the educator
Sheila Webber, 2015
Reflections on pedagogic development
• MOOC teaching had notable differences in terms of my role and responsibilities: both constraining & liberating
• Would have liked even more discussion & observation re other educators’ pedagogy
• Teaching in a new environment leads to (incremental) growth and rethinking
• How can use of MOOCs be incorporated into other modes (f2f, blended, distance)
Sheila Webber, 2015
Sheila Webber
http://information-literacy.blogspot.com/
http://www.slideshare.net/sheilawebber
Twitter: @sheilayoshikawa
Pictures by Sheila Webber, taken in Second Life
References • Conole, G. (2014). A 12-Dimensional classification schema for MOOCs.
http://e4innovation.com/?p=799
• Entwistle, N., Nisbet, J. and Bromage, A. (2004). Teaching-learning
environments and student learning in electronic engineering: paper
presented at Third Workshop of the European Network on Powerful
Learning Environments, in Brugge, September 30 – October 2, 2004.
http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl/docs/Brugge2004.pdf
• Sharpe, R. et al. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended e-
learning: a review of UK literature and practice. York: HEA.
Sheila Webber, 2015