Characterizing MOOC Pedagogies: Exploring Tools and Methods for Learning Designers and Researchers

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i4.2084

Keywords:

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), assessment instrument, pedagogy, clustering methods

Abstract

We explore new tools and methods for learning designers and researchers to characterize pedagogical approaches that are applied to the design of MOOCs. This paper makes three main contributions to literature on MOOC design and evaluation: (1) an Expanded Assessing MOOC Pedagogies instrument for use by learning designers and researchers within their own contexts, (2) a demonstration of how nearest neighbor cluster analysis can be used to identify pedagogically similar MOOCs, and (3) a preliminary analysis of the clusters to account for features and factors that contribute to pedagogical similarity of MOOCs within clusters. This work advances research in the development of MOOC typologies, to allow learning designers and researchers to ask nuanced questions about pedagogical aspects of MOOC design.

References

Admiraal, W., Huisman, B., & van de Ven, M. (2014). Self- and peer assessment in massive open online courses. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(3), 119e128.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing, Abridged Edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Authors, 2018

Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Kou, X., Xu, S. & Sheu, F.-R. (2015). Understanding the self-directed online learning preferences, goals, achievements, and challenges of MIT OpenCourseWare Subscribers. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 349-368.

Burgstahler, S. E., & Cory, R. C. (Eds.). (2010). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice. Harvard Education Press.

Coursera: Take the world’s best courses, online. (n.d.) Retrieved July 21, 2017, from http://www.coursera.org

Davis, D., Seaton, D., Hauff, C. & Houben, G. (2018). Toward large-scale learning design: categorizing course designs in service of supporting learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the Fifth (2018) Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale (L@S). ACM.

Dokmanic, I., Parhizkar, R., Ranieri, J., & Vetterli, M. (2015). Euclidean distance matrices: essential theory, algorithms, and applications. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 32(6), 12-30. doi:10.1109/msp.2015.2398954

Fan, Y. (2017). Use the AMP Tool to Characterize Pedagogical Approaches Taken by MOOC Courses in Mainland China. International Journal, 11(1), 141-146.

Head, K. J. (2017). Disrupt This!: MOOCs and the Promises of Technology. Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2006). Authentic tasks online: A synergy among learner, task, and technology. Distance Education, 27(2), 233-247.

Hicks, N. M., Roy, D., Shah, S., Douglas, K. A., Bermel, P., Diefes-Dux,

H. A., & Madhavan, K. (2016, October). Integrating analytics and surveys to understand fully engaged learners in a highly-technical STEM MOOC. In 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1-9). IEEE.

Jain, A. K., Murty, M. N., & Flynn, P. J. (1999). Data clustering: a review. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 31(3), 264-323.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?. Educational technology research and development, 39(3), 5-14.

Luo, M., Wang, L. N., & Zhang, H. G. (2003). An unsupervised clustering-based intrusion detection method. Acta Electronica Sinica, 31(11), 1713-1716.

Major, C. H., & Blackmon, S. J. (2016). Massive open online courses: variations on a new instructional form. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2015(167), 11-25.

Najafi, H., Rolheiser, C., Harrison, L., & Håklev, S. (2015). University of Toronto instructors’ experiences with developing MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3).

MATLAB R2018a (2018). The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States.

Philippe, T., Cojocaru-Mirédin, O., Duguay, S., & Blavette, D. (2010). Clustering and nearest neighbour distances in atom probe tomography: The influence of the interfaces. Journal of Microscopy, 239(1), 72-77.

Reeves, T. (1996). Evaluating what really matters in computer-based education. Computer education: New perspectives, 219-246.

Reich, J. (2015). Rebooting MOOC research. Science, 347(6217), 34-35.

Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1703 N. Beauregard St., Alexandria, VA.

Seaton, D. (2016, January 29). Exploring course structure at HarvardX: a new year’s resolution for MOOC research [blog post].Retrieved from https://vpal.harvard.edu/blog/exploring-course-structure-harvardx-new-year’s- Resolution-mooc-research

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 4-13.

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedelus, 134(3), 52–59.

Skrypnyk, O., de Vries, P., & Hennis, T. (2015). Reconsidering retention in MOOCs: The relevance of formal assessment and pedagogy. In Proceedings of the Third (2015) European MOOCs Stakeholder Summit. (pp. 166–172).

Swan, K., Day, S., & Bogle, L. (2016). Metaphors for learning & MOOC pedagogies. In Proceedings of Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning at Scale (L@S). (pp. 125- 128). ACM.

Swan, K., Day, S., Bogle, L., & van Prooyen, T. (2014). AMP: a tool for characterizing the pedagogical approaches of MOOCs. E-Mentor, 2(54), 75–85.

Swan, K., Day, S., Bogle, L., & van Prooyen, T. (2015). AMP: a tool for characterizing the pedagogical approaches of MOOCs. In C. J.

Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 105-118). New York, NY: Routledge.

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. doi:10.1177/

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Yuen, K. M., & Hau, K. T. (2006). Constructivist teaching and teacher‐centred teaching: a comparison of students’ learning in a university course. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(3), 279-290.

Zeki, C. P., & Güneyli, A. (2014). Student teachers’ perceptions about their experiences in a student centWiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.ered course. South African Journal of Education, 34(3).

Downloads

Published

2019-12-01

Issue

Vol. 23 No. 4 (2019)

Section

Special Conference Issue: AERA Online Teaching and Learning SIG

License

As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.

Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions