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

s.webber@sheffield.ac.uk

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