It seems the MOOC critics are everywhere and with some merit. I have been teaching online since the mid 1990s and have registered for a few MOOCs. I’ll admit that I am among those MOOC pariticipants who has registered, logged in for a few weeks and then
jumped ship. My reason for bailing on the MOOCs was not what many people report…difficult content, lack of time, lack of instructor, but because of the way in which it was taught. In her recent article “MOOC Mania,” Susan Meisenhelder addressed much of the hype surrounding MOOCs and discussed many of the issues critics raise related to MOOCs. I’m addressing those criticisms and discussing how I purposefully or intuitively addressed each in the Inquiry MOOC.
The Sage on Stage or the Talk Head is a typical criticism. Many MOOCs have followed the ill-advised practice that some online instructors have used and simply put Powerpoints or lectures on line and called it a MOOC. Effective, active-based learning can occur online, but it requires planning, organization and precise execution. The Inquiry MOOC used a combination of short (3-5 minutes) introductory podcasts, instructional narrative, web-based resources and applicable classroom assignments as the foundation for content delivery. A typical week included viewing one or more podcasts, reading instructor written background information about the topic, designing and implementing a classroom activity and engaging with other learners in discussions. Accountability to the process was self reported through a discussion rubric due at the end of each week (see the Online Discussions post).
Another criticism of MOOCs is there is little or no required reading or text. The Inquiry MOOC had required readings every week. There was a suggested text, but feedback from the students and subsequent discussion/reflection by the Inquiry MOOC Team will result in making the text required the next time the MOOC is offered. Even in this pilot offering, participants were directed to web-based supplemental readings when appropriate.
Most instructors take a hands-off approach to the MOOCs they create. Given that numbers of participants can range in the 1000s, this initial approach is understandable. The Inquiry MOOC utilized the skills of a highly qualified teaching assistant, Holly (see Holly’s blog post) to help with course management. I went into the pilot with the purposeful intent of creating a self-contained learning environment with little to no instruction involvement other than pushing the “start” button on the course. I quickly realized that the questions and concerns Holly was managing were minimal, and the questions she directed to me were ones I had encountered frequently in previous sections of the course, so these were non-issues for me. By half way through the MOOC, I willingly posted my contact information and encouraged students to message me with their questions, concerns and comments. They correspondence I received from the participants was professional and appropriate and I never felt that opening the door to instructor/participant interaction was a burden. In fact, it connected me more with the participants and created a healthier learning environment. I know from previous online instructional experiences that situations arise in which high maintenance students emerge, but I am confident I have the skills to handle those rare occurrences.
The practice of peer assessment in MOOCs is quite well documented and students report they don’t like it. If there are truly 1000s of participants in a MOOC, assessment of individual work by an instructor or a teaching assistance would result in a full-time job, so it makes sense to use a peer assessment approach. However, this is counter-intuitive to best practices, because learning takes place when the “expert” provides specific feedback to assignments. The Inquiry MOOC addressed this in two ways. First, the weekly discussion rubric was reviewed by Holly, the TA. The last prompt on the weekly rubric is, “Do you have a Muddiest Point from the week or anything else you’d like to ask the instructor?” This provides an opportunity for each participant to ask any specific questions of the instructor(s) each week. As Holly reviewed each rubric, she posted a personalized reply to each student, regardless if a question was asked or not. This personal touch occurred every week. In addition, if there were questions Holly couldn’t answer, they were directed to me and I sent a personal reply. Initially Holly reported spending about 2 hours a week managing the nearly 85 participant’s weekly discussion rubrics, but once she was comfortable with the process, the time was cut nearly in half. The second way the Inquiry MOOC addressed the lack of instructor feedback was through the final portfolio of assignments required for the Gold Level Certificate. Those students who anticipating completing the course at the top level were asked to provide a short reflection of their work on the assignments each week. At the end of the course, the assignments were bundled and submitted in a portfolio to the Dropbox. I personally reviewed, scored and provided feedback on each portfolio. The criticism of no written work in MOOCs was clearly overridden through the portfolio requirement for Gold Level. I received 7 completed portfolios from the 48 Serious Enrollees (see the Determining MOOC Completion Rate post). The portfolio contained the 5 short assignments and 1 long-term assignment that were required. The portfolios ranged from 5 to 20 pages and 1500 to over 5000 words. Clearly, participants in the MOOC were writing.
One of the original tenants of MOOCs was their potential to target the unserved population desperate for a chance at college. It seems that target group is not the major consumer of MOOCs and it’s becoming best practice to target specific groups of participants, and that’s what we did with the Inquiry MOOC. The majority of participants were teachers of science and most were currently in classrooms. I think it’s wise to narrow the pool of potential participants in a MOOC. It makes sense from both a delivery and learner perspective.
A final criticism of many MOOCs is the lack of human touch. Nearly all learning is based in human connection and the more participants feel connected to the instructor and other learners, richer, deeper and longer lasting learning is apt to occur. What evolved through this MOOC was a greater attempt on my part to connect with the participants and I will not hesitate to make that a cornerstone of my instruction in future MOOCs.
