MOOC Research Initiative

An Overview of the MOOC Research Initiative: The project, literature, and landscape

George Siemens, PhDOctober 22, 2013

http://edutechnica.com/moocmap/

http://edutechnica.com/moocmap/

and this doesn’t include

Or the many flavours of MOOCs

And quasi-MOOCs

UNESCO, 2013

I’ll posit:MOOCs: the billion $$ solution to a problem we haven’t identified yet:

Over the past two years, MOOCs have drawn over $500m in hard investment & expenses from major/minor MOOC providers and universities.

(and at least as much in soft investment in the form of time, research, publication, course-taking, etc).

MOOCs:

A supply-side answer to decades of change in demand-side learning needs.

Increasing diversity of student profiles

The U.S. is now in a position when less than half of students could be considered fulltime students. In other words, students who can attend campus five days a week nine-to-five, are now a minority.

(Bates, 2013)

“Tertiary institutions not only have to meet the growing demand for university education by expanding the number of places they offer, they also have to adapt programmes and teaching methods to match the changing needs of a more diverse generation of students.”

OECD 2013

Favours women over menMore learners as % (up to 60%)Average entrance age increasingTop three countries for entering students:

China, India, USATraditional science courses waning in popularityGreater international student

OECD 2013

MOOCs: Shadow learning economy

Today in education, we are witnessing an unbundling of previous network structures.

And a rebundling of new network lock-in models.

MOOCs are a keystone concept in reformulating education models and creating new ecosystems

Enter: MOOC Research Initiative

Intent of MRI:Evaluate MOOCs and their impact on teaching, learning, policy, and education

Contribute to research literature (largely lacking)

Connect researchers and create a forum for research-based dialogue

FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Initial funding: $400k

Funding doubled: $830k

Steering CommitteeYvonne Belanger, Gates FoundationStacey Clawson, Gates FoundationMarti Cleveland-Innes, Athabasca UniversityJillianne Code, University of VictoriaShane Dawson, University of South AustraliaKeith Devlin, Stanford UniversityTom (Chuong) Do, CourseraPhil Hill, Co-founder of MindWires Consulting & co-publisher of e-Literate blogEllen Junn, San Jose State UniversityZack Pardos, MITBarbara Means, SRI InternationalSteven Mintz, University of TexasRebecca Petersen, edXCathy Sandeen, American Council on EducationGeorge Siemens, Athabasca University

http://www.moocresearch.com/

Timeline:June 5: Call announced

July 7: Initial short submission due

July 20: Notification of short-listed applications

August 20: Final submissions due

August 30: Final notification of successful grants

Tight timeline“How can you design the experiment, designate the control group, run the experiment (randomizing assignment of students to regular classes and MOOCs) and compare and analyze the results of the different modes of teaching for a presentation at a December conference.  Obviously, this isn't intended for people who want to run an experiment, using scientific modes of discovery, or the deadline for presentation of results would be later.”

Review Process

Each paper: 3 peer reviewersFinal selection based on “over all fit” (i.e. gaps, methodology)

Lessons learned- Extend review/selection time to

resolve review discrepancies- Allow time for discussion between

reviewers - Add more reviewers

Project:PM: Stella GeorgeInternal Athabasca U processes: contracts, ethics review, much debateResearch Centre, Legal, Faculty involved

Results

The results on the following slides are preliminary. Final results will be presented at the MRI conference in December.

Phase 1 Stats266 total submissions37 countries represented

Top countries:- USA- Canada- China- UK- Spain- Australia

Phase 2 Stats

78 total submissions15 countries represented

Top Countries:- USA- Canada- UK- China- Australia

Final selectionMOOC platforms represented:

- Coursera: 12- edX: 4- Multiple: 5- Non-Major: 6

Countries: 4 (USA, Canada, UK, Australia)Institutions: ~28

UniversitiesU TorontoOpen University UK U of Oxford MIT/edX/PEIMIT Carnegie Mellon Duke U UC Berkeley/Stanford/WPIStanfordPenn (Wharton) Athabasca UColumbia U (Teachers C.)

HarvardXCal State / Mt San Jacinto UC Irvine Glasgow Caledonian University UT Austin NC State Monash U U Penn Université de Montréal/HEC Montreal/Université du Québec à Trois-RivièresU Michigan/U Saskatechwan UW Lacrosse

Researchers

Dragan GasevicSrecko JoksimovicVitomir Kovanovic George Siemens

Intent of this analysis:What is the state of MOOC research?1. Home disciplines of researchers2. Research methods used3. Influential authors/publications

More concretely• What is the distribution of the fields involved

in MOOC research? o E.g., are the majority of them educational

researchers, CS & Technology professors, Social Scientists or from Industry?

• What body of knowledge serves as a base for MOOC research? • Who are the major researchers that influence

the MOOC research?• What methodologies are being used?• What are the main topics and concepts

discussed in the MOOC research?• What fields are most central thus bringing other

fields together in the MOOC research?

Methodology• From all submissions we manually extracted the list of

authors.o For every author we collected information about his

baseline field, institution and research interests.• From all submissions we manually extracted the list of

all citations.o For every citation extracted the list of authors, year

and the number of times it has been cited.• From all submissions we manually extracted the

information about the used methodology.o We categorized the paper as quantitative, qualitative

or mixed-methods based and also extracted the list of methodology-related keywords.

• From all submissions we automatically extracted the list of concepts and then created a cooccurrence graph with all terms in all submissions.

Methodologies per field

Lori Breslow, David E. Pritchard, Jennifer DeBoer, Glenda S. Stump, Andrew D. Ho and Daniel T. Seaton (2013), “Studying Learning in the Worldwide Classroom: Research into edX’s First MOOC,” Research & Practice in Assessment Journal, Summer;

Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing Disengagement: Analyzing Learner Subpopulations in Massive Open Online Courses. Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, LAK ’13 Leuven, Belgium.

Yuan, L. & Powell, S. ( 2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. Retrieved from http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2013/667.

Mackness, J., Mak, S. and Williams, Roy (2010) The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010. University of Lancaster, Lancaster, pp. 266-275. ISBN 9781862202252

Daniel, J., (2012) Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility, Korean National Open University, Séoul.

Pappano, L. (2012, November 2). The year of the MOOC. New York Times. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-aremultiplying- at-a-rapid-pace.html.

McAuley, A., B. Stewart, G. Siemens and D. Cormier, 2010. The MOOC Model for Digital Practice. https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/MOOC_Final.pdf

Belanger, Y., & Thornton, J. (2013). Bioelectricity: A Quantitative Approach. dukespace. Retrieved from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/6216/Duke_Bioelectricity_MOOC_Fall2012.pdf

Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. S. F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? participant support on massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7 SPECIAL ISSUE), 74-93.

Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform. eLearnspace. http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/ accessed 2012-09-21

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age.International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, January 2005, Volume 2 Number 1. Retrieved from Webhttp://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm

http://www.moocresearch.com/

ConferenceDecember 5-6, 2013University of Texas Arlington

Twitter/Gmail: gsiemens