BookPDF Available

Proceedings of the European Stakeholder Summit on experiences and best practices in and around MOOCs (EMOOCS 2016)

Authors:

Abstract

Conference Proceeding of th 4h European MOOC Summit in Graz, Austria. Webpage: http://emoocs2016.eu
Mohammad Khalil, Martin Ebner,
Michael Kopp, Anja Lorenz & Marco Kalz (Eds.)
Proceedings of the
EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDER SUMMIT
on experiences and best practices
in and around MOOCs
(EMOOCS 2016)
Imprint
Proceedings of the
EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDER SUMMIT
on experiences and best practices in and around MOOCs
(EMOOCS 2016)
Graz, 2016
Editors
Mohammad Khalil, Martin Ebner, Michael Kopp, Anja Lorenz & Marco Kalz
ISBN
9783739237107
Production
Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt
Sponsored by
5
Table of contents
Preface ........................................................................................................................... 11
Research Track
Learning in MOOCs: A Comparison Study .................................................................. 15
Colin Milligan, Allison Littlejohn & Nina Hood
Exploring learning objectives at scale through concept mapping
of MOOC learner discussions ........................................................................................ 27
Silvia Elena Gallagher & Timothy Savage
An Experiment in Automated Proctoring ...................................................................... 41
Thomas Staubitz, Ralf Teusner, Jan Renz & Christoph Meinel
Measuring completion and dropout in MOOCs:
A learner-centered model .............................................................................................. 55
Leslie Huin, Yann Bergheaud, Pierre André Caron,
Alexandra Codina & Eric Disson
eMOOCs for Personalised Online Learning: A Diversity Perspective .......................... 69
Tanja Jadin & Martina Gaisch
Driving Learner Engagement and Completion within MOOCs:
A Case for Structured Learning Support ....................................................................... 81
Syed Munib Hadi & Rebecca Rawson
New model for measuring MOOCs completion rates .................................................... 95
Syed Munib Hadi & Phillip Gagen
6
Enhancing MOOC Videos: Design and Production Strategies .................................... 107
Alexandre Guedes da Silva, Ana Moura Santos,
Fernando Albuquerque Costa & Joana Viana
A research agenda for exploring MOOCs and change in higher education
using Socio-Technical Interaction Networks ............................................................... 123
Steve White & Su White
Towards Predicting Success in MOOCs: Programming Assignments ........................135
Kshitij Sharma, Łukasz Kidzinski, Patrick Jermann & Pierre Dillenbourg
Supporting Diverse Learner Goals through Modular Design
and Micro-Learning ..................................................................................................... 149
Matthew Leach, Syed Munib Hadi & Adam Bostock
Describing MOOC-based Hybrid initiatives:
The H-MOOC Framework .......................................................................................... 159
Mar Pérez-Sanagustín, Isabel Hilliger, Carlos Alario-Hoyos,
Carlos Delgado Kloos & Saif Rayyan
A Conceptual Business Model for MOOCs Sustainability
in Higher Education ..................................................................................................... 173
Nor Fadzleen Sa Don, Rose Alinda Alias & Naoki Ohshima
The MOOC Production Fellowship: Reviewing the first German
MOOC funding program ............................................................................................. 185
Anja Lorenz
Are higher education students registering and participating in MOOCs?
The case of MiríadaX .................................................................................................. 197
Laia Albó, Davinia Hernández-Leo & Miquel Oliver
What Questions are MOOCs asking? An Evidence-Based Investigation .................... 211
Eamon Costello, Mark Brown & Jane Holland
Gamified Competition Features for Corporate MOOCs: The Battle Mode ................. 223
Jessica Dehler Zufferey, Hamed Alavi, Łukasz Kidzinski & Pierre Dillenbourg
7
Multicriteria Decision Aid Approach to
“Referent Learners” Identification within a MOOC .................................................... 237
Sarra Bouzayane & Inès Saad
Influence of employer support for professional development
on MOOCs enrolment and completion: Results from a cross-course survey .............. 251
Jonatan Castano-Munoz, Marco Kalz, Karel Kreijns & Yves Punie
Portraying MOOCs Learners: a Clustering Experience
Using Learning Analytics ............................................................................................ 265
Mohammad Khalil, Christian Kastl & Martin Ebner
Experience Track
How to integrate and automatically issue Open Badges in MOOC platforms ............ 279
Mario Wüster & Martin Ebner
“Clinical Supervision with Confidence”: Exploring the potential
of MOOCs for faculty development ............................................................................ 287
Veena Rodrigues & Sam Leinster
Bringing together MOOCs and e-books: theoretical considerations
and a concrete educational scenario ............................................................................. 297
Michael Raunig & Elke Lackner
Distributed teaching: Engaging learners in MOOCs ................................................... 305
Ann-Kathrin Watolla
Interactive activities: the key to learning programming with MOOCs ........................ 319
Carlos Alario-Hoyos, Carlos Delgado Kloos, Iria Estévez-Ayres,
Carmen Fernández-Panadero, Jorge Blasco, Sergio Pastrana,
Guillero Suárez-Tangil & Julio Villena-Román
How can motivation and completion rates be improved in a MOOC?
Data analysis of IFP School’s first two interactive MOOCs ....................................... 329
Maria Thirouard, Olivier Bernaert & Lucie Dhorne
8
How MOOCs Are Impacting Campus at the
Technische Universität München ................................................................................ 339
Anna Kruse & Elvira Schulze
When a University MOOC become a professional training product ........................... 349
Leslie Huin, Yann Bergheaud, Alexandra Codina & Eric Disson
MOOCS as an Opportunity to Foster International Collaboration
between Universities: MOOCs for Teachers...............................................................357
Paola Corti, Manuela Milani & Susanna Sancassani
Classroom Hollywood: Using Popular Entertainment
to Engage New MOOC Audiences .............................................................................. 365
Katie Bradford & Melissa Loble
Ensuring Self-Regulated Learning Outcomes
with a MOOC & CLIL Project in K-12 ....................................................................... 375
Inge de Waard, Mieke Anckaert, Bjorn Vandewaetere & Kathy Demeulenaere
Differences and Commonalities A comparative report of video styles
and course descriptions on edX, Coursera, Futurelearn and Iversity...........................383
Jeanine Reutemann
How MOOCs can be used as an instrument of scientific research .............................. 393
Claudia Zimmermann, Michael Kopp & Martin Ebner
A Model to Evaluate Mandarin Learning MOOCs ...................................................... 401
Estella Y. M. Chen, Huei-yi Lai, Jing Zhang & Hongchen Wu
‘MOOC’ as a platform for social learning, research
and social change in dementia ..................................................................................... 409
David Robertshaw & Ainslea Cross
An Analysis of Different MOOC Environments
from the Students’ Perspective ....................................................................................417
Vlad Mihaescu, Diana Andone & Radu Vasiu
Carpe Diem: a new day for flexible MOOC design .................................................... 425
Leonie Meijerink, Janine Kiers & Danika Marquis
9
Classifying the IRISH 101 LMOOC ........................................................................... 439
Mairéad Nic Giolla Mhichíl, Mark Brown, Eamon Costelloe,
Enda Donlon, Collette Kirwan, Clare Gormley & Colm Ó Ciardúbháin
Guidelines for Evaluating the Teaching and Learning in MOOCs:
a TU Delft approach .................................................................................................... 447
Danika Marquis, Janine Kiers & Leonie Meijerink
Visualising the MOOC experience: a dynamic MOOC dashboard
built through institutional collaboration ......................................................................461
Manuel Leon, Ruth Cobos, Kate Dickens, Su White & Hugh Davis
Increasing MOOC completion rates through
social interactions: a recommendation system ............................................................. 471
Hugues Labarthe, Rémi Bachelet, François Bouchet & Kalina Yacef
A MOOC on regions in the EU: concept, results and lessons learned.........................481
Pauliina Mäkäräinen & Wolfgang Petzold
OpenCred: exploring issues around the recognition
of non-formal learning via MOOCs in Europe ............................................................ 491
Andreia Inamorato dos Santos, Gabi Witthaus & Yves Punie
Classifying Students to improve MOOC dropout rates ............................................... 501
Massimo Vitiello, Simon Walk, Rocael Hernández, Denis Helic &
Christian Gütl
Workshops
Workshop about Scalable Feedback and Assessment Activities
in Open Online Education ........................................................................................... 509
Julia Kasch, Peter van Rosmalen & Marco Kalz
Learning Design and Conceptual Issues. Is there a conflict between open
and closed learning spaces? Can closed facilitate openness? ......................................515
David Röthler & Alastair Creelman
10
Posters
TeachEng, a Multi-Paradigm MOOCs Provider Platform
to Teach Future Engineers...........................................................................................521
Sébastien Combéfis, Marie-Françoise Lefebvre,
Quentin Lurkin, Cédric Marchand & Philippe Mélotte
STEM MOOCs in practice experiences from
ChalmersX first MOOC on graphene science and technology....................................527
Christian Stöhr
Gamification Strategies: Experiences and Lessons Learned in MOOCs ..................... 533
Miguel Morales, Héctor Amado, Rocael Hernández & Christian Guetl
Developmental-AI MOOC Assessment ....................................................................... 539
Olivier L. Georgeon, Cécile Barbier-Gondras & Jonathan Morgan
Social MOOCs (sMOOCs) and the classroom.
A cross-fertilization path proposed by ECO project....................................................545
Alessandra Tomasini, Paola Corti & Susanna Sancassani
JMOOC, MOOC promoting organization in Japan:
Current situation and Potential .................................................................................... 551
Yoshimi Fukuhara
11
EMOOCs 2016 says hello
and welcome to Graz, Austria!
Graz is located in central Europe and is the second biggest city in Austria, as well as
the capital of Styria. Furthermore, Graz has been a university town since 1585, and is
currently home to four universities with a total of more than 50,000 students. During
the last decades, Graz became the main scientific center for South-East-Europe. Every
year, approximately 40,000 people participate in more than 100 international confer-
ences and enjoy the beautiful Old Town, the attractive cultural range, the quality and
diversity of the restaurants as well as the excellent infrastructure of the conference
venues. We are thus extremely pleased for the EMOOCs conference to take place in
this beautiful city, where two exquisite Austrian universities, the University of Graz
and the University of Technology of Graz, will act as local hosts.
Although many of you are familiar with EMOOCs, it is probably good to say a few
words about it. This summit is based on the idea to bring MOOC-players together
researchers, practitioners, teachers, students, business people and all interested in the
topic are invited to share their results, experiences or products. The event aims to sup-
port the MOOC movement in order to improve tomorrow’s education in any institu-
tion. We firmly believe that an interdisciplinary exchange of ideas and research in the
field of ICT and lifelong learning is of crucial importance to help solving contemporary
societal problems, especially in economically strained times like ours. Furthermore, we
should also not forget that we need an innovative educational and training infrastruc-
ture that is able to provide first class learning experiences to learners. In our opinion,
new technology, new pedagogy and new role models in teaching and research are ex-
tremely important.
After passing through a careful round of reviews with the Program Committee, a total
of 52 submissions were finally accepted. Out of these, 20 were submitted as research
publications and 25 as so called experience track publications. In addition, two work-
Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2016
12
shops were approved and seven posters will be presented in a specific session. 53 re-
viewers from around the world were involved in the review process and we would like
to thank them for their valuable work.
Credits and Acknowledgements
Finally, the Conference Chairs would like to express their gratitude towards a consid-
erable number of volunteers and helpers who have devoted their time and endless pa-
tience to the organization of this conference. EMOOCs is a powerful and ever growing
e-learning association of many enthusiastic people who have organized this conference
for the last four years and we are very grateful to be a small part of it.
In particular, we have to thank the chairs, who were working on a voluntary basis for a
whole year to make this conference a success: .
x Chair of the Research Track: Marco Kalz, Open University of Netherlands
x Chair of the Experience Track: Anja Lorenz,
University of Applied Sciences Lübeck
x Chair of the Institutional & Corporate Track: Carlos Delgado Kloos,
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
x Chair of the preconference MOOC: Mohammad Khalil,
Graz University of Technology
x International Chair: Philip Tsang, Charles Sturt University
x Social Media Chair: David Nussbaumer, Graz University of Technology
We would also like to thank the 50+ members of the International Program Committee,
who provided timely and insightful reviews without complaint and little credit. Finally,
we would like to thank the staff at the Academy of New Media and Knowledge Trans-
fer (University of Graz) and the Department of Education Technology (University of
Technology of Graz) for their support in this amazing endeavor. These folks have
worked incredibly hard behind the scenes to manage all the aspects of the conference.
They bravely dealt with many complicated situations and handled a variety of requests
from the committees. Special thanks go to Klaus Hatzl (University of Graz), who took
Preface
Michael Kopp & Martin Ebner
on the part of the local organizer. Last but not least we would like to thank our spon-
sors for their very important financial support.
We especially welcome conference delegates who are attending EMOOCs for the first
time and hope you will enjoy it. We kindly ask all our EMOOCs “regulars” to extend a
warm welcome to newcomers and students, who are now becoming a valuable part of
the constantly expanding MOOC-community.
Warm greetings and welcome to Graz,
Michal Kopp, University of Graz, Austria
Martin Ebner, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Conference Chairs
15
Learning in MOOCs: A Comparison Study
Colin MILLIGAN
1
, Allison LITTLEJOHN
2
& Nina HOOD
3
1
Caledonian Academy, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK,
colin.milligan@gcu.ac.uk
2
Institue for Educational Technology, The Open University, UK,
allison.littlejohn@open.ac.uk
3
Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, New Zealand,
n.hood@auckland.ac.nz
Abstract
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have emerged as a significant
environment for online learning, yet little is known about how people actually learn
in a MOOC. The study brings together qualitative data from parallel studies in two
different MOOCs, comparing learning strategies of people who self-report low and
high levels of Self-Regulated Learning (SRL). This comparative study identifies
commonalities and differences in learning patterns between these two learner
groups and across the two courses. The study draws comparisons in goal-setting,
self efficacy, and the selection of learning and task strategies. The study concludes
that differences in the learning strategies of learners in each of the MOOCs may be
influenced by different course design.
Keywords
Self-regulated learning, SRL, self efficacy, help-seeking, task strategies
Research Track
Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2016
16
1 Introduction
A recent study of the instructional design quality of 75 Massive Open Online Courses
(MOOCs) concluded that MOOCs from major providers are generally of low instruc-
tional quality (MARGARYAN, BIANCO & LITTLEJOHN, 2015). These MOOCs are
typically designed around the presentation of content resources to large numbers of
learners. Learners have few programmed opportunities to engage in dialogue and re-
ceive feedback from instructors. This instructional design demands that learners self-
regulate their learning, proactively seeking feedback from others and self-evaluating
their progress to complement the learning content. Yet, MOOCs attract diverse groups
of learners, many of whom may lack the ability to self-regulate, or choose not to regu-
late their own learning (MILLIGAN, LITTLEJOHN & MARGARYAN, 2013). This
presents a design challenge to MOOC providers: to create MOOC environments that
encourage and assist learners to self-regulate their learning. MOOCs are still novel, and
we know very little about how individuals learn in MOOCs. Research in this domain is
vital in developing our understanding of how to design MOOC environments that en-
courage active agency in learning. In this paper we compare the findings of two paral-
lel studies of self-regulated learning (SRL) in MOOCs aimed at professionals (data
scientists and those conducting clinical trials), exploring the commonalities and differ-
ences that emerge from this analysis. Each study used the same qualitative and quanti-
tative instruments to explore individual self-regulation of learning (ZIMMERMAN,
2000). The paper begins with a short review of current research on MOOCs. This re-
view is followed by a description of the method and context of the two courses under
study, and the instruments used. The results are then presented and discussed. The
paper concludes with a summary of the main findings and implications, alongside a
reflection on the limitations of the study and prospects for future research.
2 Literature Review
While initial MOOC research was often qualitative, quantitative studies have become
dominant with the emergence of large scale MOOC platforms that permit the genera-
tion and analysis ‘clickstream’ data (VELETSIANOS, COLLIER & SCHNEIDER,
2015). Attempts to interpret clickstream data include mining the data tracking how
Learning in MOOCs: A Comparison Study
Colin Milligan, Allison Littlejohn & Nina Hood
learners access MOOC resources and classifying learners according to their patterns of
interaction with content (KIZILCEC, PIECH & SCHNEIDER, 2013) or with other
learners in online discussion forums (GILLANI & EYNON, 2014). These studies have
demonstrated links between engagement and completion (where completion is used as
measure of learning success). But while these quantitative studies of learner activity
within MOOC platforms provide us with greater understanding of what learners do
within MOOCs, our understanding of why MOOC participants learn as they do, and
how they actually learn is less developed (VELETSIANOS COLLIER & SCHNEI-
DER, 2015, p571). Furthermore, unlike in traditional HE courses where learner expec-
tations are largely standardised (for example successful completion of a course or de-
gree programme as a marker of success), the diversity of learners in a MOOC results in
a range of motivations for participation (KIZILCEC PIECH & SCHNEIDER, 2013)
and potentially leads to different levels of engagement (BRESLOW, PRITCHARD,
DEBOER, STUMP, HO & SEATON, 2013) which may not be focused on completion.
To understand learning in MOOCs it is necessary to move beyond the artificial binary
distinction between completers, and non-completers, to more fully investigate the par-
ticular motivations and drivers, including contextual, cognitive, and behavioural fac-
tors, that influence individual learners’ behaviour and actions. GAŠEVIĆ, KO-
VANOVIĆ, JOKSIMOVIĆ & SIEMENS (2014, p. 168) call for studies that improve
our unde