Developing & Improving MOOCs

‘You MOOC, iMOOC’ by Bob Little, Training Journal, May 2013

I have chosen this topic for this latest article review because MTP has recently been asked by two major clients to work with them to develop new learning material, using the MOOC approach.  We had not previously been involved in working this way and we are in the early stages of development; it looks to be an intriguing concept with much potential.

First let’s clarify the terminology by defining what must be the ugliest sounding name and acronym in the history of learning; MOOC stands for Massive Open Online Courses, a title which instantly grates on those of us who have been brought up to value tailored learning for relatively small groups.  But an ugly title and acronym should not make us pre-judge a new approach; it must be valued on its merits.  Effectively MOOC describes self-created online material which is offered to large numbers on an open access basis, usually with short and simplified content.

My overall impression is that the article is surprisingly negative about the central topic and, though this makes a pleasant change from typical Training Journal articles which push consultants’ products, I am not sure that this criticism is fairly balanced.  For instance it skirts over the significant economic benefit from making learning available to large numbers at a relatively low origination cost, particularly compared to conventional e-learning packages and virtual facilitation.

Apparently the doubtful distinction of inventing the term ‘MOOC’ goes to David Cornier in 2008, when he used it to describe a course offered by the University of Manitoba, and its main use so far has been in the Higher Education Sector.  The early part of the article argues that many applications of MOOC are repeating the mistakes of the early days of e-learning by producing text and pictures on screen, without opportunities for interaction.  Someone called Poonam Jaypuriya is quoted at length, complaining about the lack of interactivity and engagement; this is where the term ‘iMOOC’ is introduced, a name given by this person to MOOC which embraces interaction.

It is argued that this failure to create interaction leads to extremely high drop-out rates; Stanford have introduced courses of this type which have been offered to 100,000 people but admit to a drop-out rate of 85%.  This is believed to be due to information overload and a failure to take account of different knowledge levels.  The rather unambitious view seems to be that such drop-out rates are inevitable and that you still have large numbers of learners who would not otherwise have been reached.  My own preference would be to find ways of increasing the engagement levels.

One way of achieving this aim is through better quality material; the suggestion from the article is that much of the content is boring, reproducing lecture notes or showing bland videos, an approach that is bound to fail.  I would argue that there is a need to choose a mix of media, and add interactive features like multiple choice questions and ‘drag and drop’ options.  I would also argue that this learning approach requires that key skill that is so hard to find; the ability to structure potentially complex content in a way that is attractive, concise and simple while maintaining conceptual rigour.

However, the author argues that the truly effective MOOC must go further.  It must encourage interaction through other features that particularly appeal to younger users - simulations, games and, most important, the subsequent use of social media to share ideas and views on content. 

The ambitious goal is for MOOC to be the starting point for ‘Life-long networked learning’ whereby learners are brought together to explore and learn in a structured way after the initial MOOC input.  There should be pockets of learning sited around the web and the instructional design should have this as its main objective.  A number of ways of doing this are suggested and the words used make it sound much easier than it is in practice; aggregation to provide accessible web pages or newsletters, remixing and repurposing material to fit the needs of each participant; feeding forward, sharing material and ideas with others.  This felt to me like jargon being used to disguise how challenging this is; trying to structure something for which the appeal to participants is often its lack of structure.  And the author admits that the dependence on learner proactivity is a serious barrier to delivering this critical phase.

So my overall view is that the article is a useful description of MOOC and its strengths and weaknesses for someone who has not come across the concept before.  However, the author is too negative about failings which are more about poor learning design than about the concept itself.  With the right learning objectives and a commitment to tailoring, it can be a powerful new tool for cost effective learning.  The author is also perhaps too optimistic and superficial about the challenges of establishing a system of networked learning, a holy grail that is likely to be the subject of much searching for Learnning & Development professionals in the future.

Read the article;

http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/articles-features-2013-05-01-you-mooc-imooc/