I believe in the potential power of blogging. I believe it can be harnessed to be a powerful pedagogical tool in the 21st Century. Source: edtechreview.in See on Scoop.it - InformationCommunication (ICT)

I am currently writing a paper which I hope to submit to Educational Multimedia International which looks at effective ways of designing MOOCs. Here is the draft to date, comments welcome! Abstract Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have expanded significantly in recent years and are challenging traditional educational fee-paying offerings. The advantages of MOOCs are cited as the fact that they are free, that they enable participants to be part of a global community of peers and to have the experience of learning through social media, and that they offer the potential for opening up educational and facilitating social inclusion. Nonetheless there are challenges associated with MOOCs. Firstly, most have very high dropout rates. Secondly, there are challenges with approaches to recognition of learning and issues with learner authentication and cheating. Thirdly, there are issues with providing support at scale. This paper argues that effective design of MOOCs is key. It focuses on the description of a twelve-dimensional classification schema for describing and designing MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses).  It then uses the schema to describe five MOOCs, which are respectively based on associative, cognitive, constructivist, situative and connectivist pedagogies. It then describes the 7Cs of Learning Design framework and discusses how it can be used to design MOOCs. Introduction A Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) is an online course taken by a significant number of participants.[1] MOOCs have gained traction in education in recent years and a number of evaluations have been undertaken to ascertain how learners are participating in them and how they are learning. The Open Education Europa ‘European MOOCs Scoreboard’,[2] indicates that there are currently over 800 MOOCs being offered by Europe-based institutions. The original vision behind MOOCs was the idea of harnessing the potential of digital technologies to learn at scale through a network of peers. The original MOOC, Connectivism and Connected Knowledge (CCK08),[3] promoted a Connectivist approach to learning. Learners were encouraged to create their own Personalised Learning Environment and to engage in dialogue and exchange of ideas with their peers through appropriate social media. There was no formal learning pathway or correct set of prescribed tools; each learner adopted their own approach. This type of MOOC has been labelled a cMOOC. More recently we have seen the emergence of more individually focused, didactic MOOCs, where the emphasis is on learning primarily through content and videos, supported by e-assessment elements. These MOOCs have been labelled xMOOCs. The number of MOOCs increased dramatically following the first MOOC. Providers include: edX, Udacity, Coursera and FutureLearn. MOOCs are very much a disruptive technology (Christensen 1997), as they re challenging traditional educational business models. The rapid growth in the number of MOOCs lead to the New York Times naming 2012 ‘the year of the MOOC’.[4] A recent survey[5] suggests that MOOCs are supplementing traditional Higher Educational offerings and democratising learning. The survey looked at 13 MOOCs offered on the Coursera platform. Findings included: Students in the younger group often reported taking MOOCs in topics not taught in their schools. Students in the youngest group also reported taking MOOCs to explore different disciplines to help weigh academic and career choices. Those in the over-65 group reported taking MOOCs to pursue lifelong learning, to keep their minds active and to mentor younger students in their own professional field. Students who said they enrolled in MOOCs because of limited access to higher ed chose them because MOOCs were available despite their financial or mobility limitations. Veltsianos et al. (Veletsianos, Collier et al. 2015) argue that in order to fully understand participation in MOOCs it is important to look at more than just log files and online interactions. They were interested in how people experience MOOCs and why they engage in particular activities in the way they do. The findings of their study included the following: Successful learners have highly developed study habits. Students take notes, if they take more than one MOOC on a similar topic they combine the notes. There is evidence of off platform participation via social media or face to face. Online learning is an emotional experience; both in terms of excitement and disappointment. Life’s daily routines shape the way in which people participate in online courses, in other words the courses need to fit in with other activities individuals are involved with. Finally, drop out rates are not necessarily negative, some learners choose to only do part of a course for a reason. Opinions as to the value of MOOCs are divided. On a positive note they are free and hence are seen as potentially supporting social inclusion and providing an opportunity for participants to experience being part of a global community of peers. Kopp et al. conclude that there are good reasons for HE institutions to offer MOOCs in such a context: firstly, to ‘fulfil their obligations in the field of lifelong learning by providing scientific content to the general public’ (Kopp, Ebner et al. 2014) and secondly to enable students to accumulate credits towards their qualifications in a more flexible way by learning online. On a negative note, many point to the high drop out rates and low levels of participation and some feel that MOOCs are more about ‘learning income’ rather than ‘learning outcomes’, and that they are merely a marketing exercise. Indeed many institutions who have developed MOOCs state that their main reason is to get a feel for the MOOC experience and look at how it sits alongside their traditional educational offerings. A key issue with MOOCs is the way in which participants can achieve recognition for their learning. A number of models have emerged. Participants might pay to get a certificate of attendance or participation. Alternatively they may be awarded digital badges for an achievement or the gaining of particular competences. The OERu[6] is an international consortium of institutions. Learners can approach one of the members and ask for recognition from that institution of their learning for studying through OER or MOOCs. The OpenCred project explored the range of ways in which non-formal open learning could be recognised. Non-formal learning is defined as learning which is embedded in planned activities not always explicitly designated as learning (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support), but which contain an important learning element. Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner’s point of view. The OpenCred project developed a typology around four characteristics of open educational courses: Formality of recognition Robustness of assessment Eligibility for assessment/recognition Affordability for learners. The executive summary of the final OpenCred reports states: The development of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in the Higher Education sector is reaching a point of maturity, where they are no longer an experimental form of learning but moving towards being mainstream. Although few providers of open education have so far awarded credentials, this is beginning to change. The key findings from the project were: Robust assessment is central to recognition of open learning, and that the need to pay for robust assessment leads institutions to either pass on the cost of assessment to learners, or require learners to enrol at the institution - in both cases reducing the openness of the assessment and recognition process. The recognition of open learning is, at present, limited to components of programmes rather than full qualifications. Some organisations are working towards this objective but such initiatives are in their infancy and, as yet, there are no examples available of an individual receiving a full qualification via open learning. There are some common perceptions which impact on the sector’s ability to provide recognition. These relate to the way online learning in general is perceived, and online assessment in particular; the value of ECTS credits as a currency, and the value of badges as motivational tools in open education. There are pockets of experimental practice in workplace settings, but these are currently very limited. Another issue is how to support learners participating in a MOOC, with often tens of thousands of participants, providing tailored individual support is not possible. There are a number of alternatives. The first, prevalent in cMOOCs, is to encourage participants to create their own Personal Learning Environment (PLE) of tools and peers to support their learning. This might include use of hashtags on social media to filter information or the creation and use of a network of peers to interact with. The second is to provide tutors, who summarise key elements of learning at key points in the MOOC. EFQUEL facilitated a 12-week series of blog posts exploring the issue of quality and MOOCs.[7] Selwyn and Bulfin (2014) did a meta analysis of the MOOC literature and identified the following themes: the fact that MOOCs vary in size and scale, the issue as to whether they are free or not, how they sit alongside traditional educational offerings, the issue as to whether they are transformative, the way in which they are challenging traditional educational business models, the types of pedagogical approaches that are facilitated, the nature of the content and degree of interactivity and communication, the relationship between the participants and the tutors, the forms of recognition of learning and assessment, and the ways in which technologies are used. A classification schema for MOOCs The classification of MOOCs as either xMOOCs or cMOOCs is arguably too simple given the diversity of MOOCs we are now seeing. Conole (2014) has developed a classification schema for MOOCs, which consists of twelve dimensions (Tables 1). Each dimension can be seen as a spectrum, from little or no evidence of that dimension through to a significant amount. Table 1: A twelve dimensional classification schema for MOOCs Dimension Description Context Open The degree to which the MOOC is open, ranging from closed Learning Management System courses which require the users to login and potentially pay for access through to completely open courses that use open source tools, where participants are encouraged to share their learning outputs using a creative commons license. Massive How large the MOOC is in terms of the number of participants, which may range from a few hundred to thousands. Diverse How diverse the participant population is; a small specialised course for local doctors for example is likely to be fairly homogenous in terms of the background and experience of the participants, in contrast a large MOOC on Art Aesthetics is likely to have a diverse participant population Learning Multimedia In terms of how much and what type of multimedia is used. Some MOOCs are primarily text-based whereas others make significant use of multimedia and have a high degree of interactivity. Communication This dimension describes the way in which participants are encouraged to communicate with their peers and their tutors. This might range from limited use of discussion forums (which may or may not be moderated by the tutors), through to significant use of communication through a variety of social media tools. Collaboration This dimension refers to the ways in which participants are encourage to collaborate together, this might range from no collaboration (particularly in xMOOCs where participants primarily work through the materials on their own) through to significant collaboration with participants working in groups on a shared set of activities. Reflection Reflection is an important facet of learning (Dewey 1916). This dimension reflects the extent to which participants are encouraged to reflect on (and perhaps apply) their learning. Some MOOCs will not explicitly state this, whilst others might include statements such as ‘reflect on what you have learnt to date’ or ‘apply your understanding to your context’. Alternatively the participants might be encouraged to write reflective blogs and comment on the blog posts of other participants. Learning pathway Some MOOCs, such as cMOOCs, deliberately do not have a specified learning pathway through the materials; the emphasis is on participants creating their own learning pathway and Personal Learning Environments. Other MOOCs may have a prescribed learning pathway to guide the learners. Other still might have alternative learning pathways through the materials for example in the form of a ‘MOOC-lite’ route or a more extensive route through the materials. Quality Assurance This dimension evidences the degree to which the MOOC, when it is being designed and in the evaluation of its delivery, has an associated quality assurance process. This might range from no quality assurance, where the MOOC is developed by an individual teacher, through to some form of relatively informal peer review through to high quality assurance through a formal review process and a number of iterations and improvements. Certification This ranges from no certification associated with the MOOC, through to the assignment of badges on completion or different aspects of the MOOC or achievement of particular competences, through to certificates for participation or completion. Formal Learning This is concerned with whether or not the MOOC is linked to a formal educational offering. This can range from the MOOC being informal and optional through to perhaps being part of a formal educational offering, where MOOC participants learn alongside fee-paying students on a course. Autonomy This is the extent to which participants are expected to work individually through the MOOC and take control of their learning with little or no tutor support through to the participants being given a certain degree of tutor support. This might include forum moderation, or formative assessment on artefacts the participants produce. This classification schema has a number of uses. It can be used to describe a MOOC in terms of these twelve dimensions, and hence provide a mechanism to compare different MOOCs. Using the classification schema to describe different MOOCs  This section describes how the classification schema can be used to describe five different MOOCs. Each MOOC is based on a particular pedagogical approach; namely: associative, cognitive, constructivist, situative or connectivist. Pedagogical approaches (Mayes and De Freitas 2004, Conole 2010) can be classified as: ·           Associative - where the focus is on the individual. It is about associating a stimulus with a response or in other words operant conditioning. Examples of ways in which technologies can facilitate associated pedagogies include drill and practice, and e-assessment. An example of an associative MOOC is a course on Chinese provided by the Open University UK.[8] The MOOC is based around a series of podcasts and interactive assessment elements to test knowledge and understanding. ·           Cognitive - where the emphasis is on learning by experiencing a stimuli, with learners encouraged to contemplate on their learning. An example of a cognitivist MOOC is a coursera’s course on songwriting.[9] The MOOC starts from the learner’s current level of experience. ·           Constructivist - where the emphasis is on building on prior knowledge; i.e. applying a meaning to and building on what the learner already knows. This is more active and task orientated. Example of ways in which technologies can facilitate constructivist pedagogies include: problem-based or inquiry learning. An example of a construcivist MOOC is a course on Learning Design run by the Open University, UK.[10] The course begins by examining participants existing level of knowledge of teaching and of design and builds on this as the course progresses. ·           Situative - where the emphasis is on learning in a context and through dialogue. Examples of how situative pedagogies can be facilitated include learning through virtual worlds. An example of a situative MOOC is a coursera course on Clinical Neurology.[11] It is an applied, contextual course, intended to provide continuing professional development to professionals working in the field. ·           Connectivist - where the emphasis is on learning in a networked context, through a distributed community of peers. Learners create their own personal learning environment and repertoire of digital tools. This encourages reflective, personalised learning. An example of a Connectivist MOOC is the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge course.[12] Table 2 provides a comparison of these five MOOCs using the twelve dimensional classification schema, with quantification along each of the dimensions to indicate the degree to which they are present.   Table 2: Comparison of five different MOOC courses The classification schema can also be used to design a MOOC, using the criteria for each of the dimensions as a starting point. This can be used in conjunction with the resources associated with the 7Cs of Learning Design framework, which considers seven aspects of the design process. The importance of Learning Design  Designing for learning is arguably one of the key challenges facing education today. Digital technologies offer a plethora of ways in which learners can interact with rich multimedia resources and ways in which they can communicate and collaborate with peers. Despite this technologies are not used extensively and teachers lack the necessary digital literacies (Jenkins 2006, Jenkins 2009) to make effective use of technologies in their teaching. A 2014 survey[13] of the effective use of learning technology in education lists the following as key barriers to the uptake of learning technologies: Lack of resource to provide release and support for staff to enable them to incorporate technology in their practices. Reliance on individuals to champion innovation and exploitation of their willingness to support colleagues. Lack of direction at a strategic level resulting in fragmentation of practice across provider curriculum areas and levels of work. Lack of credit and recognition for innovative uses of technology by key influencers such as government agencies, awarding bodies, governing bodies. Lack of headroom for managers to support innovation and risk taking. Focus on omission and error in inspection and quality assurance, which does not encourage experimentation and exploration of the potential of technology. Little recognition that learning technologies are diverging between central sensitive data for administration, and independent and collaborative use by teachers and learners. Lack of funding to purchase technology. Lack of guidance on what would constitute outstanding and good practice across the range of technology use. Funding methodologies that are inimical to technology supported learning e.g. focusing on classroom activity. Staff not encouraged to use technology so many focus on the mandated administrative processes (e.g. quality assurance requirements, registers, outcomes, summative assessment). In other words the key barriers can be grouped under the following five themes: lack of staff time and support, lack of support at senior level, lack of leadership in effective use of technology, lack of incentives, and lack of funding for technology. A survey by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt surveyed more than 1,000 teachers and administrators on the use of technologies,[14] and found the following were the top needs in classrooms: More engagement from parents of students More time with students to cover the curriculum Training on the use of technologies devices in the classroom More money for classroom materials More training on technology implementation New standards aligned to instructional materials More job embedded professional development More stand alone professional development. Key findings were that 97% of teachers use some form of digital content, 51% of teachers use Apps/digital games in the classroom, only 36% use laptops or desktops and 61% do not use tablets, 60% of teachers stated that they saw increased student engagement when using technologies such as digital content, online applications and games. Learning Design aims to help bridge this gap and guide teachers in their design practice. Learning Design as a research field has emerged in the last fifteen years or so, driven mainly by academics in Europe and Australia. It is an alternative to the more established field of Instructional Design. It aims to provide an holistic overview of the whole design process and helps teachers make more effective design decisions that are pedagogically informed and make appropriate use of digital technologies. Conole (2013, pg. 7) defines Learning Design as: It is a methodology for enabling teachers/designers to make more informed decisions in how they go about designing learning activities and interventions, which is pedagogically informed and makes effective use of appropriate resources and technologies. This includes the design of resources and individual learning activities right u to curriculum-level design. A key principle is to make the design process more explicit and shareable. Learning Design as an area of research and development includes both gathering empirical evidence to understand the design process and the development of a range of Learning Design resources, tools and activities. There are three facets to Learning Design: guidance (to help the teacher make design decisions), visualisation (to help teachers represent their designs visually from different perspectives) and sharing (with peers). It is based on a socio-cultural theoretical approach, and in particular the concept of what mediating artefacts teachers use in the design process (Conole 2013). Learning Design helps teachers think beyond content to the activities learners will engage with and the learner experience. The Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design provides an overview of the emergence of Learning Design and the key concepts.[15] Frey[16] suggests that a: Good Learning Experience Design can create relevant, engaging and memorable educational experiences that successfully address the specific challenges of these adult learners. He suggests the following facets of design: The importance of designing a purposeful journey and making this clear to the learners. Making efficient use of the limited time available to learners. Directly linking learning goals to activities. Building on existing understanding and addressing any gaps in understandings Providing immersive, real-world simulations or experiences.  MOOCs provide an alternative to campus-based courses, and emphasis the power of harnessing a global, distributed community of peers for learning. However, the design of MOOCs is challenging and to date most have been developed on a fairly ad hoc basis. This paper describes how Learning Design can be used to design more effective MOOCs and in particular the use of the 7Cs of Learning Design framework, which is described in the next section. The 7Cs of Learning Design This section describes the 7Cs of Learning Design framework, which can be used to help teachers/designers to make more informed design decisions. Figure 1 illustrates the 7Cs of Learning Design framework. For each C there are a range of resources and activities, some of which are described here.[17]   Figure 1: The 7Cs of Learning Design Framework The first C, Conceptualise, is about creating a vision for the course or module being designed. It helps the teacher/designer think about the nature of the learners who are likely to take the course or module, their age range, diversity, characteristics, skills, perceptions and aspirations. It is also about articulating the core principles associated with the course or module. In terms of a MOOC this is about identifying the type of learners who are likely to participate, along with some understanding of their perceptions about MOOCs and their reasons for wanting to participate. It is also about establishing their level of experience with using technologies and their educational background. This can be achieved through the creation of ‘personas’[18] describing the types of learners who are likely to take the course. Personas are a tool for the MOOC designers to articulate their understanding of expected participants, as a starting point for design. In addition the Course Features activity helps the designers to articulate their vision for the MOOC in terms of: The pedagogical approaches used The core principles of the MOOC The nature of the guidance and support provided The types of content and activities The forms of communication and collaboration that are encouraged The ways in which reflection is encouraged and how the participants can demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes. The next four Cs are concerned with designing the resources and activities that the learners will engage with. The Create C helps the teacher/designer articulate what learning materials need to be created, whether these are text-bases, interactive materials, podcasts or videos. In addition, it covers the use or repurposing of Open Educational Resources. Finally, the teacher/designer might also create some activities, which require the learners to create their own content. Depending on the subject nature of the MOOC there may be many existing OER which can be reused; for more specialised MOOCs it is likely that the designers will need to create the majority of the resources. The Communicate C is concerned with methods to facilitate communication, between the learner and the tutor, the learner and their peers, and the broader community through social media. This might range from effective mechanisms for fostering discussion in a forum, through effective moderation, or looser communication through social media. In cMOOCs there is likely to be a significant emphasis on communication and encouraging participants to communicate with their peers, particularly through social media. This might include the use of a hashtag for the MOOC on Twitter or the setting up of a facebook page for the MOOC. In xMOOCs the focus is more on the individual so communication might be mainly restricted to interaction with the tutors via email. Similarly, the Collaborate C is about fostering mechanisms to enable collaboration or group work. Again this is likely to be more prevalent in cMOOCs than xMOOCs. This could include the use of the jigsaw pedagogical pattern (Hernándex-Leo, Asensio-Pérez et al. 2010). In this participants are put into groups of four. Each person is given a topic to research, they then get together with others who have been researching the same topic and pool their collective knowledge. Finally, they return to their home team and share their combined understanding of the four topics assigned. Finally, the Consider C, is concerned with ways in which reflection can be encouraged and the ways in which the learners can demonstrate the achievement of learning outcomes. Assessment might be diagnostic, formative or summative. Reflection in cMOOCs might be through interaction with other participants or might include encouraging participants to write and share reflective blogs on their learning. xMOOCs usually include formative assessment elements, through for example interactive formative quizzes. Participants might also get recognition of their learning through certificates of participation or attendance, or the awarding of digital badges for particular achievements or development of competences. The Combine C enables the teacher/designer to step back and reflect on the design process to date and look at the design from different perspectives. This includes creativity an activity profile[19] showing how much time participants are spending on the following types of tasks: Assimilative activities - such as reading, listening or viewing Information handling - such as finding and collating resource or manipulating data in a spreadsheet Communication - for example in forums or through social media Productive - creating learning artefacts, for example a chemical compound or an architectural model Adaptive - interacting with modelling or simulation tools Experimental - such as drill and practice or practising skills in a particular context or undertaking an investigation Assessment - recognition of learning through either formative or summative assessment. It is also possible to create a Course View Map which describes in details the nature of the MOOC in terms of: What guidance and support is provided The nature of the content and activities the participants will engage with The way in which communication and collaboration is encouraged The way in which reflection is encouraged and how participants can demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes. The storyboard enables the designer to map out what the participants are doing over time. Figure 2 shows an example of a story board. At the top the weeks and topics are listed. On the left hand side the learning outcomes are listed. In the centre are the activities the participants will engage with. For example in week one they are reading an article and listening to a video. In week two they listen to a podcast and read a document. In the final weeks they listen to a podcast, read a document and watch a video. In week one, the output is for them to write an essay. In week two they write a blog post. In the final week they do a group presentation and write a reflective essay on their learning. Under this the assessment elements are listed. So in week one the tutor provides formative feedback on the assay. In week two participants provide feedback on some of their peers’ blog posts. In the final week there is a summative assessment of a group presentation and a reflective review of their learning. Finally, the learning outcomes are mapped to the assessment elements, to ensure constructive alignment (Biggs n.d.).     Figure 2: An example of a storyboard Finally, the Consolidate C is about implementing the design in a real-life context and evaluating its effectiveness. This might include the development of an evaluation rubric. Evaluation methods might include analysis of participants’ interactions with the MOOC, a survey or interviews.[20] In addition the MOOC classification schema can be used to evaluate how effective a MOOC is in terms of the extent to which the design is effectively implemented. Conclusion This paper has described a twelve dimensional classification schema for MOOCs, which can be used to design, describe and evaluate MOOCs. Five examples of different pedagogical MOOCs have been mapped against the schema.  MOOCs represent a sign of the times; they instantiate an example of how technologies can disrupt the status quo of education and are a forewarning of further changes to come. Whether or not MOOCs will reach the potential hype currently being discussed is a mote point, what is clear is that we need to take them seriously. More importantly, for both MOOCs and traditional educational offerings we need to make more informed design decisions that are pedagogically effective, leading to an enhanced learner experience and ensuring quality assurance. The key value of MOOCs is that they are challenging traditional educational institutions and having to make them think, in particular on their educational business model and the distinctiveness of their offering. As a recent article states MOOCs are challenging traditional institutional business models about what they are offering, how it is distinctive and what the unique learner experience will be at their institution. As Cormier (2013) states: When we use the MOOC as a lens to examine Higher Education, some interesting things come to light. The question of the ‘reason’ for education comes into focus. Furthermore, UNESCO estimates that more than 100 million children can’t afford formal education.[21] MOOCs provide them with a real lifeline to get above the poverty line. This, and the fact that MOOCs provide access to millions. As Creelman (2013) notes: Whatever you think of them they are opening up new learning opportunities for millions of people and that is really the main point of it all. So for me the value of MOOCs to promote social inclusion, coupled with them making traditional institutions reconsider the educational offering they are providing and what is distinctive about their institution. These factors signify the importance of MOOCs as a disruptive technology, challenging existing educational business models and, hence, whether they survive or not is not important, if they result in an opening up of education and a better quality of the learner experience that has got to be for the good. References Biggs, J. (n.d.). "Constructive alignment." John Biggs http://www.johnbiggs.com.au/academic/constructive-alignment/. Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard, Harvard University Press. Conole, G. (2010) "Review of pedagogical frameworks and models and their use in e-learning." Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. New York, Springer. Conole, G. (2014). "A new classification schema for MOOCs." INNOQUAL 2(3). Cormier, D. (2013). "Week 3 - Forget the learners, how do I measure a MOOC quality experience for ME! By Dave Cormier." MOOC Quality Project http://mooc.efquel.org/week-3-forget-the-learners-how-do-i-measure-a-mooc-quality-experience-for-me/. Creelman, A. (2013). "Make hay whilt the sunshines." The corridor of uncertainty http://acreelman.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/make-hay-while-sun-shines.html. Dewey, J. (1916). Experience and Nature. New York, Dover. Hernándex-Leo, D., J. I. Asensio-Pérez, Y. Dimitriadis and E. D. Villasclaras-Fernández (2010). Generating CSCL Scripts: From a Conceptual Model of Pattern Languages to the Design of Real Scripts. E-learning design patterns. P. Goodyear and S. Retalis. Rotterdam, Sense Publishers: 49-64. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide, NYU Press. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century, Mit Pr. Kopp, M., M. Ebner and A. Dorfer-Novak (2014). "Introducing MOOCs to Austrian Universities: is it worth it to accept the challenge?" The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, INNOQUAL November 2014. Mayes, T. and S. De Freitas (2004). Review of e-learning frameworks, models and theories, JISC e-learning models desk study. Selwyn, N. and S. Buffin (2014). MOOC research initiative - final report. Veletsianos, G., A. Collier and E. Schneider (2015). "Digging deeper into learners’ experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of MOOCs, notetaking and contexts surrounding content consumption." British Journal of Educational Technology 46(3): 570 - 587.       [1] A video describing the original idea behind MOOCs can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3gMGqcZQc and https://www.mooc-list.com/ provides a list of MOOCs   [2] http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/european_scoreboard_moocs   [3] http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2008/10/30/connectivism-course-cck08/   [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html?_r=0   [5] http://campustechnology.com/articles/2015/07/06/survey-moocs-supplement-traditional-higher-ed.aspx   [6] http://oeru.org/   [7] http://mooc.efquel.org/    [8] http://www.openculture.com/free_mandarin_chinese_lessons   [9] https://www.coursera.org/course/songwriting   [10] http://www.olds.ac.uk/   [11] https://www.coursera.org/course/clinicalneurology   [12] http://cck11.mooc.ca/     [13] https://www.alt.ac.uk/sites/alt.ac.uk/files/public/ALTsurvey%20for%20ETAG%202014.pdf   [14] http://www.gamesandlearning.org/2015/07/06/survey-teachers-using-more-technology-but-not-that-often/   [15] http://www.larnacadeclaration.org/   [16] http://gettingsmart.com/2015/04/the-importance-of-learning-experience-design-for-higher-education/   [17] The full set of resources and activities associated with the framework are available from here http://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/oer/oers/beyond-distance-research-alliance/7Cs-toolkit   [18] http://www.ld-grid.org/resources/representations-and-languages/personas   [19] More information on the Activity Profile can be found at http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/2459, this includes an interactive widget to create an Activity Profile   [20] The LTDI evaluation cookbook is a useful resource describing different evaluation techniques - see http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/cookbook/   [21] http://enikki.mitsubishi.or.jp/e/event/index6.html  

Whether white card training can be effectively delivered online is primarily a matter of risk management. The risk management process requires that the risks involved in delivering the course online need to be identified, control measures put in place to control the identified risks, and these control measures monitored and periodically reviewed. Identified risks. ASQA’s national strategic review of the white card identified many issues with the existing delivery of the white card online. Two that stood out were verifying of the identity of a student, and delivery and assessment methodologies that tested not just the knowledge of the students, but also their skills. In the white card course, the skills that needed addressing were specifically identified as verbal communication skills. The primary risks identified were with regard to: • Risk 1: The authenticity of the student • Risk 2: The validity of the assessment processes Risk control measures. The control measures implemented by the Regulator to control these risks were: • The use of a Statutory Declaration signed by the student and an observer, that the student completed the course without assistance, and • Having the student’s identification documents certified by a Justice of the Peace The control measure used to control the risk of student assessments not receiving adequate training in knowledge and skills, was to phone-verify 5% of students by the issuing RTO. In summary, the primary risk control measures put in place were: • Control 1: Statutory Declaration • Control 2: JP certifying a student’s ID • Control 3: Review 5 % of white card recipients Monitor and Review the control measures. A critical link in the risk management process is to monitor and review the effectiveness of control measures, and make changes if the controls are not effective. This poses some important questions regarding the online delivery of the White Card. At any stage has a review been conducted on the effectiveness of Statutory Declarations as an effective control measure? Is the review of just 5% of recipients by an RTO sufficient in measuring the quality of training received, and just importantly that the Statutory Declarations are working as a control measure as intended? Has the Regulator conducted its own verification of White Card recipients to determine whether training outcomes are being achieved? The use of a Statutory Declaration as a risk control measure has significant problems. Although the penalty for fraudulently signing as Statutory Declaration may act to some degree as a deterrent, it is very difficult to imagine how this a Regulator could determine that some form of malpractice has occurred. The person completing the course or the observer would need to make admissions to the Regulator that they made a false declaration with regard to how the training had been conducted. And for that matter, has anyone ever confirmed the details of the JP who has signed the Statutory Declaration? There is another aspect of the online delivery of the white card from a risk management perspective that is worth looking at. That is the Hierarchy of Risk Control. The Risk Management Hierarchy of Control Eliminate the Risk Substitute with a lesser risk Isolate the risk Engineer out the risks Administration controls PPE n/a The purpose of the Risk management hierarchy of control is to identify the best way in which control methods should be implemented in a system. The goal is to strive to achieve the highest level of risk control possible, with the elimination of risk the preferred option. Excluding the use of PPE which is not relevant to delivering the white card, Administrative controls are the lowest level of risk control. At present, most of the online delivery of the white card relies primarily on the Statutory Declaration as a risk control measure. Since this is an administrative control, it is the lowest level of risk control in the hierarchy. By using Ammonite’s VAT system we are striving for the highest control measure - trying to eliminate the risk. For the risk involving the authenticity of the student, this is twofold. It involves confirming the identity of the student using their webcam to record their photo identity and profile picture, and recording images of the student as they complete each assessment during the course. For the risk involving the validity of assessment, it involves ensuring that not only is the student’s knowledge tested in a manner that assures they understand the material delivered, but critically that they are tested in their comprehension and verbal communication skills. This is done using Ammonite’s unique assessment methodology and video assessment technology using the webcam. So in my opinion the argument that the use of Statutory Declarations is an effective control measure in the online delivery of the white card is inherently flawed because it simply defies good risk management processes. It is the very least that could be done to ensure that online training is free from risk. And aside from this, it is very clear from ASQA’s national strategic review into the online delivery of the white card that industry and other stakeholders have lost faith in the current online delivery methods. That in itself indicates a failure in the use Statutory Declarations as a risk control process. Ammonite’s approach to online delivery has been described by some as ‘overkill’. I see it as simply striving to achieve the best outcomes for our students and industry - renewed confidence in online training.

Taking into account all of the articles & scenarios we have discussed within class this semester in ICT III what factor of Digital Citizenship are you going to take with you (think about social media, and future jobs)? How can you be sure that you will not fall into the "trap" of posting information on the Internet/Social Media that may or may not hurt you in the future??  Post your Reflection by Friday, December 19, 2014 @5pm. Must be a minimum of 7-9 complete sentences. Make you respond to a minimum of two other classmates reflections as well. 

In most companies, account managers (AMs) are critical, sales-generating resources.  Yet many companies—even those with large account management teams—skimp when it comes to account management training.  This blog post will cover the four steps to creating an account management training program that will super charge your company’s account management team. Step 1.  Identify the account management competencies that are critical for your organization. Obviously, these competencies will vary by company, industry, and account type.  If you’ve never developed a competency model before, then I suggest you check with senior team members in your Training and Human Resources functions.  These colleagues may have a defined competency-design process and templates that you can use.  If you are building an AM competency model from scratch, you can download our baseline AM competency model at the bottom of this page as a starting point.

Many thanks to all that nominated, voted, or otherwise participated in the 11th annual Edublog Awards. We processed over 5,000 nominations to create the finalists lists for each category. This is n… Source: edublogawards.com See on Scoop.it - InformationCommunication (ICT)

So you want to start your first blog, and you want to do it fast. This guide will show you how. You’ll learn how to choose a cheap web hosting account, grab your dream domain and get WordPress up and running in an hour. Source: www.studyweb.com See on Scoop.it - InformationCommunication (ICT)

A really interesting take on the role technology plays in improving educational outcomes. The bottom line The bottom line is, it is how technology is used rather than the technology itself that is the key. Studies have shown that learning with words and pictures together with supporting text, works better than by using words alone. Also onscreen text completes with visuals and should be avoided. And the role of teachers and trainers is to not to deliver information, but rather to inspire their students to want to learn. Technology should be characterised as an educational evolution rather than a revolution.

Once you’ve decided your organization will benefit from eLearning, the temptation to simply get started can be very strong.  Starting too early, however, is one of the leading causes of project "churn" (that is, lots of activity but little productivity), which in turn is a common cause of timing problems, budget overages, and strained vendor-client relationships. (Read about how to avoid all the major causes of project churn here.) You see, most eLearning agencies are there to help you take your content and convert it into a meaningful learning experience. At the start, they’ll know very little about the topic being covered. They rely on you and your organization for guidance. If you and your stakeholders have not agreed on the knowledge and skills that are needed, your agency will get conflicting messages from subject matter experts and stakeholders or, in some cases, no real direction from anyone. So, how can you know when you’re ready to start? You need to be able to answer these four questions:

Students watching "A Day Made of Glass" video and reflecting upon the abilities of technology in the future.  Watch your day in 2020 [ Future Technology ] [HD] from Mr. Kirsch on Vimeo.

With the new year comes a new requirement from the Regulator. You guessed it, I’m talking about the Unique Student Identifier. The USI All students studying nationally recognised training in Australia from 1 January 2015 are required to have a Unique Student Identifier. The USI is now a mandatory data field for reporting nationally recognised training. The responsibility to collect and verify a student’s USI code is the responsibility of the RTO. Ammonite’s response to this requirement is our automated USI validation system. Once your organisation is setup with an Auskey, validating your student’s USI code is as simple as clicking a button. This will verify the USI and the details the student has entered during their enrolment, against the national database. Of course, if you prefer to manually verify a USI code, our platform allows you to use this option as well. Ammonite, confidence in online training.

Blogging The Smart Way "How to Create and Market a Killer Blog with Social Media" Do some of these questions cross your mind as a new or potential blogger? You want to launch a blog but you don’t know where to start? Source: www.jeffbullas.com See on Scoop.it - InformationCommunication (ICT)

Imagine you’re tasked with overseeing an eLearning project. There will be five different interim deliverables provided, each of which must be reviewed two or three times as you cycle through drafts. Furthermore, you aren’t the only reviewer. In fact, there are five of them. All five must review and sign off on each deliverable. That means you’ll need agreement from five stakeholders on two to three drafts each of five different deliverables. In other words, you’ll need to get five people, each with their own thoughts and agendas, to agree on 15 occasions during the project. If you’ve ever tried to get five people to agree on something, then you know why a review process like this can prove so challenging. Reviewing deliverables may seem like the most innocuous thing. It turns out, though, that the process can be the most challenging part of overseeing an eLearning project and by far the leading cause of project delays and scope increases. Three signs to look for Here are three signs that you’re suffering from a painful review process - with potentially dangerous implications for your timeline and budget:

Here’s your ultimate blogging checklist! Follow these blogging tips to learn the do’s and don’ts in blogging, how to implement SEO the right way, optimize your layout and make your content interesting. Source: www.twelveskip.com See on Scoop.it - InformationCommunication (ICT)

Are you confused with the countless opinions on best practices for creating effective multimedia content? One incredibly valuable resource that, for years, has shaped our methodologies is a book called "e-Learning and the Science of Instruction" by Clark and Mayer. Rather than opinions and personal philosophies, this book is based on the scientific theory of how people learn, and the results from over twenty-five years of research on multimedia learning. It is a fact, supported by scientific evidence, that when used correctly, multimedia learning resources have the highest learning outcome. I would like to point out some of the fundamental guidelines from this research which has shaped the multimedia resources on our Market Place: The Pinacle: Short videos (approx 2-3 minutes) with only a small amount of text to reinforce the key points have the highest learning outcome. Animations can certainly be used to help explain difficult concepts. Slight Reduction: If you add music, the learning outcome is reduced. Massive Reduction: If you have both a voice over AND the full text on screen the learning outcome reduces significantly. Using either a voice over or the text by itself, has a better learning outcome than exposing the learner to both at once. Unfortunately many authoring tools encourage developers to create exactly these "input-overloaded" resources. The authors would admire their work for cating for people with hearing impairements, while unknowingly decimate the effectiveness of their learning resource for everybody else. The sad truth is - it is easy to support learners with hearing impairements whilst maintaining a high learning outcome for everybody. Ammonite Market Place: At present, there is over 42 hours of videos on the market place! These videos are approximately 2-3 minutes in length, get straight to the point of the topic, and only use text to reinforce key points. Your Ammonite platform has access to these videos for a very reasonable fee which goes to the author. If you use these videos, Ammonite automatically caters for learners who have a hearing impairement (ask us how). You also benefit from a single click update if the multimedia resources are superseeded. We'd like to thank the authors of these videos for their continued brilliant work!

In response to recent media reports which claim that overseas organisations are providing false diplomas from Australian educational institutions for up to $6500 each, the Chief Commissioner (ASQA), last Friday, reminded RTO’s that they have a responsibility to have "mechanisms in place to reduce fraudulent reproduction of its certification." Back in April 2014, we posted a video that shows one bulletproof mechanism that all but eliminates potential fraud. It is really great to see that this 'solution' has now made it onto the list of fraud prevention steps provided by ASQA. The Commissioner goes on to identify the minimum requirements that must be included on a RTO’s certification and then identifies what steps can be taken to reduce the chances of fraud. Some of the steps that can be taken include: using a template with ‘copy protected’ text that makes otherwise hidden text visible when the document is copied or scanned using a template that includes text or graphic design components that are ‘micro-printed’ having all important details (e.g. graduate’s name, qualification name, date) printed over a multi-coloured ‘watermark’ background There are a couple obvious issues with certification being issued when there is a vast number of issuing organisations. The first being that other organisations do not really know what the official certification even looks like. The second is that it is relatively easy for even a fairly unskilled person to manipulate an existing certificate. For $6500 I would imagine it would be fairly easy to attract highly competent fraudsters. From the list of possible fraud prevention steps mentioned, the one that is most secure is the utilisation of a QR code on the certification as has been adopted and promoted by Ammonite. We have created a short video on how this inexpensive and readily available technology can eliminate fraud. This technology is available for any instance using the Ammonite TOMS platform.

Writing is a great way to express yourself, work through your own thoughts, and all-around exercise your brain. In honor of NaNoWriMo and writing week here at Lifehacker, here are some of our favorite ways to improve your writing. Source: lifehacker.com See on Scoop.it - InformationCommunication (ICT)

I recently came across a social media posting where the head of a university Masters program in Instructional Design sought recommendations for essential software that would be useful for aspiring Instructional Designers. The degree program was characterized as having a heavy emphasis on tools, while bringing in ID theory through the use of those tools. The posted question made me step back and wonder, should graduate programs in Instructional Design be primarily focusing on tools? Is that the prevailing trend? If so, maybe it's time to advise some caution and suggest that the primary focus be around solid Instructional Design theory and practice. To do otherwise may cause us to end up with graduate level technicians, who know how to manipulate a few tools to create programs that may or may not result in learning. The analogy that comes to mind here is teaching creative writing by teaching students to use Microsoft Word. Now Word probably is the most commonly used tool around, so learning to use it ensures, at the least, that students would be in sync with writing tools but not that they will be able to write creatively. Unfortunately for Instructional Design, there aren't many, if any, commonly accepted tools among organizations and potential employers of Instructional Designers. Of course that doesn't mean that you can't learn a new tool more easily because of experience with another similar tool. But again, primarily knowing a tool really well doesn't ensure good Instructional Design as an outcome. A suggestion for graduate Instructional Design programs is to focus heavily on preparing their students to be able to design highly effective instruction ( the kind that results in real learning and improved performance ). That's where the true need exists for Instructional Designers. During my career I often hired instructional designers, but to my disappointment many did not demonstrate much in depth knowledge of or skill with Instructional Design itself. I often asked candidates to tell me how and why they'd used behaviorist models as well as the results they achieved. I did the same for constructivist models or any common model. In response, I often got sort of a blank stare or attempt to craft an answer that maybe told me something that candidates thought I wanted to hear, which were usually pretty far off the mark. Others routinely gave responses such as "I know we covered that in grad school, but I'd have to go back and dig out some of my old books". In other words many practicing and 'experienced' candidates may have been creating programs ostensibly for training, but maybe not designing effective interventions that enabled learning to happen. In many cases they may have been good expository writers or media creators, which is also desirable in an Instructional Design, but not enough in and of itself. Once in a while, I did get a candidate who truly understood that Instructional Design is about thoughtfully and strategically designing learning experiences while using a variety of models and techniques. Those were the folks who I couldn't hire fast enough, even if they had not used the same tools as we did. From where I sat, it was more important to be a true Instructional Designer first, and a tool manipulator second. Don't get me wrong, tools are necessary in order to translate strong designs into tangible instructional products, particularly while learning to design, and in organizations that may not provide instructional programming support. My advice for graduate Instructional Design programs is to pick a tool...any tool that can produce a viable instructional product based on a comprehensively effective Instructional Design. At the proverbial end of the day, it probably doesn't really matter which specific tool is selected to educate IDs as long as design is the central focus. To do otherwise may all too often end up with training that presents content, but may miss the mark for making learning happen. It really comes down to the old saw of 'training ain't telling', no matter how technologically slick a presentation may be. Take it from one who has coached many designers over the years.

I recently had an opportunity to work with some high school students who were taking course work via distance learning. Here are some purely anecdotal observations along with a few possible implications regarding this limited sampling of Millennials. This may be of interest since these are some of the folks who will be entering the workforce in the next 2-7 years. After retiring last year as a Learning & Development Manager with a large USfinancial institution, I've been keeping busy as a substitute high school teacher. Even though I was certified as a Social Studies teacher long ago, I am usually asked to substitute in a broad variety of subject areas. I was once even assigned to a Chinese class. Fortunately the regular teacher left work for the students to do independently, which is the common prep model for subs. I was recently assigned to sub in a distance learning lab. As an Instructional Designer and former Learning (and e-Learning) manager I found it to be an interesting and eye opening experience. The students each arrived with their standard issue laptops in their backpacks. By the way, they use laptops in almost every class. Teachers often leave assignments on Moodle, which appears to be an effective communication tool for supporting instruction. In this distance learning setting, students logged in to their assigned modules, then completed and submitted them. Unlike traditional corporate e-learning, which is often built around interactions between learner and e-Learning program/course, high school distance learning work is submitted to a live instructional professional who may or may not be located in or even near the high school. The instructional professional scores assignments as they are completed, and then provides real time feedback. The students in my class were individually working on a variety of subjects including Math, Civics, Art History and Music Appreciation. I even had a few who were taking Latin. On a subsequent assignment I had an entire class of students who were taking Advanced Placement (AP) English online.All this piqued my professional curiosity, particularly since I'd been reading about how Millennials appear to prefer online learning, though a widely reported study by Dan Schawbel of Millennial Branding disagrees. So I asked the students about their distance learning experiences and how they felt about using this approach. My first question was "why are you using this delivery method?" I was curious to know whether distance learning had been self selected or was it assigned. The common answer was that scheduling conflicts were the primary driver of distance learning as an alternative to classroom instruction. Students who needed a particular course, let's say in Latin, may have had limited availability within their particular class schedules. This appeared more common among Juniors and Seniors. So, taking a subject via distance learning offered a flexible option for scheduling it more easily. In the case of the AP students, they indicated that there was no available onsite classroom teacher. As a result their only option was to take the course online. I asked how they liked distance learning compared to the traditional classroom setting, and would they have voluntarily selected it had there not been schedule conflicts or lack of a classroom teacher. The responses were interesting in that they centered around the particular subjects taken. For example, those taking math via distance learning generally did not like it. I asked why that was the case and the predominant answer was that it was "hard." I drilled down on what they meant and was told that it required a lot of work. That made sense to me since self-instructional methods do require a good deal of personal commitment for learners to be successful. What was also interesting to me about this response was that it was not dissimilar from what I had heard from corporate learners in the past when I'd asked about their preferences for e-learning vs classroom training. I often heard in business that e-learning was "OK" but that respondents frequently indicated their preference for classroom training. One inference that could be drawn from this is that some learners may find that classroom settings may be less personally demanding than e-learning. What I mean is that ILT may not require quite as much individual effort to listen to an instructor, ask real time questions and observe interactions with other learners than it might to work through the majority of the learning content by one's self. Additionally, the 'social' aspects of the classroom can be lacking in e-learning as are the verbal and visual cues that typically are present there. That was often cited by corporate learners as a key benefit of ILT in training. Of course there are ways to address this last point, by adding social media components for example.As I said above, the high schoolers' opinions tended to center around subjects. Those students who were taking Art History or Music Appreciation indicated that they preferred distance learning. They said it was because they could move more quickly and at their own pace. They also referred to these as 'easier' subjects. Those who were taking Civics and languages seemed to fall into a middle ground where they neither preferred nor disliked distance learning. For them it seemed to be more clearly a means to an end. The AP students may have offered the most intriguing insight. Although they may as a group be high performing and motivated toward academic success (likely a plus for e-Learners), they expressed displeasure about having to take their class online. Since they were preparing to take the AP exam, in order to obtain college credit for the course, they indicated concern that they might not get all that they felt they needed online. They said that they would have preferred to have a classroom teacher who, they believed could better help them prepare for the AP exam.So what implications for corporate training may we be able to draw from this admittedly limited anecdotal information? Well, while there seems to be a some perception in the learning field that Millennials and others nearing entry into the workforce may be 'wired' to prefer e-Learning over ILT, that preference seems to be conditional. As indicated by the students who I queried, preference may have a good deal to do with WIIFM (What's In It For Me). By that I mean that if learners see e-Learning or distance learning as a more efficient means to an end, then they may prefer those models, even to the point of demanding in business that they be available as options. This may be encouraging for e-learning and distance learning if leveraged wisely. For example, where a learner needs to master something that's relatively specific, as well as recognized by the student as essential to personal success, then (all other things being equel) the quickest path may be the preferred one. In those cases, short, targeted approaches may be wise, effective, and well received. That said, there continues to appear to be a preference for classroom training when learners, on a number of dimensions, perceive that setting to be more personally advantageous. So, maybe we need to consider these variables before thinking that, because Millennials seem to have a great deal of technological savvy, they routinely prefer e-learning, distance learning, or online learning over more traditional training methods. Like so much else that we know about learning, whether it be for young adults in school or adults in the workforce, solid audience analyses that support tailoring methods and instructional platforms to our learners continues to make good sense. 

If you’re not one of the 20 million or so people who have taken the ‘Awareness Test’, it’s definitely worth a few minutes of your time… As you can see, you can’t always trust your brain. It doesn’t give us an accurate image of what’s out in the world… it can’t really. There’s so much information pouring in from our all our senses, of course our brains have to make executive decisions on what to focus on and filter. But our brain doesn’t just filter. It interprets. It takes all those years of walking around on this planet and tries to stuff new information into the mental models we’ve created… and we have a whole bunch of those - whether it’s our implicit understanding of how gravity works or the nature of light and shadows. Our brains make assumptions, adjustments and giant leaps of interpretations. A quick case in point: So we can’t trust our brains. Or, more accurately, we can trust them to continue interpreting and twisting the world around us so it can fit into our expectations. That alone should motivate us to take a moment and question what we see. To be open to alternative inputs and try to think outside of current mental models. Easier said then done, but stay tuned to this blog for some practical ideas on how.

Last week we wrote about how getting multiple reviewers to agree on an eLearning deliverable is no easy task. In fact, the process of reviewing eLearning deliverables can be the most challenging part of overseeing an eLearning project. Not managing that process effectively is, hands down, the leading cause of project delays and scope issues. As a project sponsor - the one tasked with making sure the project is completed and meets its objectives - your success depends on identifying and effectively managing risks like this one. Unfortunately, that’s not always easy or straightforward. How can you avoid problems with deliverable reviews? The key is in recognizing the root causes that can lead to trouble later down the line. Here’s what those root causes might look like in real life:

A Pew Research Center study shows a divide between experts about whether there’s privacy online, and if there will be. Source: mashable.com See on Scoop.it - FootprintDigital

We have about 80 billion neurons which link together to form neural pathways… these are in essence our lines of thought and memory. For a long time it was believed that these pathways formed in our youth and were hardwired throughout our adult lives. Latest advances in neuroscience has shown that this is not the case. Neuroplasticity is about our brains ability to change based on our interactions with our environment. It can be directed through focus, emotion and motivation… and the neurons that ‘fire together, wire together.’ Best news is, that it starts from the day we are born end continues our entire lives. Keeping all that in mind, here’s an invitation for you…

Source: www.alicekeeler.com See on Scoop.it - Educational News and Web Tools