MOOC Research Initiative

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


Draft results from MOOC Research Initiative

Text of MOOC Research Initiative

  • An Overview of the MOOC Research Initiative: The project, literature, and landscape George Siemens, PhD October 22, 2013
  • and this doesnt include
  • Or the many flavours of MOOCs
  • And quasi-MOOCs
  • UNESCO, 2013
  • Ill posit: MOOCs: the billion $$ solution to a problem we havent 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, coursetaking, 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 men More learners as % (up to 60%) Average entrance age increasing Top three countries for entering students: China, India, USA Traditional science courses waning in popularity Greater 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
  • Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Initial funding: $400k Funding doubled: $830k
  • Steering Committee Yvonne Belanger, Gates Foundation Stacey Clawson, Gates Foundation Marti Cleveland-Innes, Athabasca University Jillianne Code, University of Victoria Shane Dawson, University of South Australia Keith Devlin, Stanford University Tom (Chuong) Do, Coursera Phil Hill, Co-founder of MindWires Consulting & co-publisher of e-Literate blog Ellen Junn, San Jose State University Zack Pardos, MIT Barbara Means, SRI International Steven Mintz, University of Texas Rebecca Petersen, edX Cathy Sandeen, American Council on Education George Siemens, Athabasca University
  • 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 reviewers Final 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 George Internal Athabasca U processes: contracts, ethics review, much debate Research 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 Stats 266 total submissions 37 countries represented Top countries: - USA - Canada - China - UK - Spain - Australia
  • Phase 2 Stats 78 total submissions 15 countries represented Top Countries: - USA - Canada - UK - China - Australia
  • Final selection MOOC platforms represented: - Coursera: 12 edX: 4 Multiple: 5 Non-Major: 6 Countries: 4 (USA, Canada, UK, Australia) Institutions: ~28
  • Universities U Toronto Open University UK U of Oxford MIT/edX/PEI MIT Carnegie Mellon Duke U UC Berkeley/Stanford/WPI Stanford Penn (Wharton) Athabasca U Columbia U (Teachers C.) HarvardX Cal State / Mt San Jacinto UC Irvine Glasgow Caledonian University UT Austin NC State Monash U U Penn Universit de Montral/HEC Montreal/Universit du Qubec Trois-Rivires U Michigan/U Saskatechwan UW Lacrosse
  • Researchers Dragan Gasevic Srecko Joksimovic Vitomir Kovanovic George Siemens
  • Intent of this analysis: What is the state of MOOC research? 1. Home disciplines of researchers 2. Research methods used 3. 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 edXs 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 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, Soul. Pappano, L. (2012, November 2). The year of the MOOC. New York Times. Available: McAuley, A., B. Stewart, G. Siemens and D. Cormier, 2010. The MOOC Model for Digital Practice. Belanger, Y., & Thornton, J. (2013). Bioelectricity: A Quantitative Approach. dukesp