Extending MOOC Capabilities with Dedicated Networks: The e-Portfolio Training Case

Abstract

This paper presents new ways of expanding learning scenarios by means of an extended MOOC that differentiates from traditional ones in several ways. Firstly, it is the result of a coordinated effort of organizations, including three different universities. Secondly, it is inserted in a European project broader action of fostering e-portfolio adoption through the creation of a European network of experts, researchers and users. Thirdly, it makes use of innovative scaling up pedagogies for crowd learning, focusing on scaffold and self-regulated learning together with the implementation of the latest notions of social learning. Finally, it pretends to act as a synergy element of the network, both providing and nourishing from each other.

Full text

Expanding Learning Scenarios
Opening Out the Educational Landscape
Proceedings of the European Distance and E-Learning Network 2015 Annual Conference
Barcelona, 9-12 June, 2015
ISBN 978-615-5511-04-2
EXTENDING MOOC CAPABILITIES WITH DEDICATED NETWORKS:
THE E-PORTFOLIO TRAINING CASE
Marcelo Maina, Loudes Guàrdia, Ivan Alsina, Univesitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain
Introduction
A recent survey (Elaine Allen & Seaman, 2015) on the state of the art of online higher
education in the United States shows that academic leaders consider online learning a key
strategic issue for their institutions, and this figure has grown from 48.8% in 2002 to 70.8% in
2015. The major role in education of online learning is also attested by international studies
like the Docebo (2014) report that depicts the growing market tendency of e-learning
worldwide.
There is a general agreement that online education, even if long-time pre-existing the advent
of the Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) phenomenon became mainstream after the
2012 disruptive appearance of elite universities in the open education arena. MOOCs kicked
the board of a stagnating position of higher education now facing challenges coming from
inner constraints but also from social and technological accelerated changes.
MOOCs variants, the search for novel forms of open education
Even if the MOOC movement recognizes a foundational moment in Siemens Connectivism
and Connective Knowledge open course in 2008 (Daniel, 2012), it is widely known that AI-
Stanford like courses (Rodriguez, 2012) has gained worldwide attention and great impact.
Liyanagunawardena, Adams and Williams (2013) systematic study of 5 years of published
literature on MOOCs corroborated what Rodriguez (ibid.) MOOC analysis concluded: highly
prevailing MOOC offer can be associated to AI-Stanford like type of courses (or xMOOC)
which “fall predominantly into the cognitive-behaviourist category (with some small
components from social constructivism)” (p.11).
This finding reinforces certain critiques on MOOCs as traditional ways of conceiving
education packaged in new forms (Bates, 2012) where teachers are
“…the most relevant and reliable source of knowledge and information. As
teacher presence is “mediated”, mediatisation solutions point to chunking
videotaped classes, providing a set of additional resources and learning
activities, and assessing through more or less automated tests. This type of

Extending MOOC Capabilities with Dedicated Networks: The e-Portfolio Training Case
Marcelo Maina et al.
184 Expanding Learning Scenarios – EDEN Annual Conference Proceedings, 2015, Barcelona
ISBN 978-615-5511-04-2
MOOC privileges the knowledge transfer and duplication.” (Guàrdia, Maina
& Sangrà, 2013, p.2).
The MOOC response is not to be neglected. MOOC are here to stay and to transform
education, even transforming itself. There are several new acronyms reflecting this search for
alternatives that highlight differences and similarities with the more popular MOOC:
x Mini MOOC (University of Exester): while MOOCs usually last between 4 to 5 weeks,
mini MOOCs are conceived for 3 weeks delivery with a 1 to 3 hours of participant
involvement each.
x SOOC (Small Open Online Course) (Ross, 2012): these can be simple considered free
online courses since they limit the number of participants to a very few.
x MOUC (Massive Open University style Courses) (Mulder, 2013): they are free
graduate introductory courses that combine traditional Open University courses with
more flexibility in terms of time and pace. They are self-study courses. Additional
services like tutoring or evaluation are to be charged.
x TOOC (Targeted Open Online Course) (Baker, Rynearson & Edwards, 2014): they are
professional oriented courses that can be credited in formal education. They are part of
an institutional strategy aiming at establishing alliances between universities and local
interest social groups.
x SMOC (Synchronous Massive Online Course) (Straumsheim, 2013): their particular
trait is the teacher lectures in real time to a massive audience.
x DOOC (Distributed Open Collaborative Course) (Jaschik, August 19, 2013): this
approach empowers the teacher’s role that localizes high quality course structured
content available on the web according to their specific reality and that of its students.
x SPOC (Small, Private Online Courses) (Goral, 2013): it can be seen as an online course
at low price limiting the number of participants.
Even though the future of MOOCs is something to be written, there is evidence that claims for
a new balance between formal and informal education and within formal education itself, like
the those trends pointed out by Mazoue (2014) that “are shifting educational practice away
from core tenets” (para.1): MOOC-based degrees, competency-based education, the
formalization of learning, and regulatory reform. While not all are really new, as the author
recognizes himself, a greater awareness on competency curriculum, shorter and focused
courses or programs, and new regulations allowing lifelong skills recognition are now on the
discussion agenda of higher education.
We already assist to original initiatives blurring boundaries between formal and new forms of
education and blending open education with the traditional educational offer. Exploration of
new formulas illustrate the case: embedding MOOC using a higher education blended
approach (Griffiths, 2014) or adopting a flipped classroom approach where MOOC video
lectures, exercises and quizzes supplement secondary school courses (Najafi, Evans &
Federico, 2014).

Extending MOOC Capabilities with Dedicated Networks: The e-Portfolio Training Case
Marcelo Maina et al.
Expanding Learning Scenarios – EDEN Annual Conference Proceedings, 2015, Barcelona 185
ISBN 978-615-5511-04-2
Different needs, different motivations
The numerous initiatives, experiences and studies around MOOCs evidence an institutional
concern and an intense debate of stakeholders in universities, educational organizations and
government. But what are other studies telling us from the participants’ perspective? The
Haggard, Brown, Mills et al. (2013) report shows diversity in the intentions of enrolled people
to MOOCs. The statistical analysis of the participants’ behaviour let identified four distinctive
profiles: auditing, sampling, disengaging and completing. It also showed a clear pattern of
decreasing participation over course durations.
The new delineated scenario of MOOCs calls for a better understanding of the participants’
motivations and actual needs. Arguments that try to make sense of MOOC impact in terms of
traditional explanations of dropout rates are controversial (Ho, Reich, Nerterko et al., 2014).
Many participants in MOOC declare to enrol for specific (bits) units or parts of a MOOC.
They do not all have the intention to complete the course or they do not sign for recognition,
but instead they declare to be interested in concrete competence development or being
curious about specific knowledge. Some preliminary conclusions situate MOOCs and the
evolving open education field as requiring a complete questioning of the way in which the
educational offer is conceived, delivered, and measured… and explored.
Exploring transformative ways of educational provision
The European EPNET project (www.eportfolio.eu) aims at fostering e-portfolio practices for
different actors from an integrative approach. We focus on the intersection between learning
and professional stages of an individual trajectory, and we situate the e-portfolio as an asset
useful to different stakeholders as broad as teachers, employers, governmental administrators
and professional bodies. The project plans the provision of a MOOC-inspired open set of
modules for self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 1998).
Milligan and Littlejohn (2014) warn about the replication of traditional education into online
and open learning. Their study of MOOCs for professional development showed how
traditional ways of conceiving MOOCs were counterproductive: in xMOOC approaches
professionals tend to focus on “viewing” content, gradually disengage in peer interaction, not
establishing strong links between theory and practice, and completing assessment for the sake
of certification. Lessons from this study reinforces the need to integrate course content and
activities with actual participants professional needs, combine theory and practice, connect to
real participant situations to easy knowledge contextualization and provide instruments for
knowledge application and learning reflexion.

Extending MOOC Capabilities with Dedicated Networks: The e-Portfolio Training Case
Marcelo Maina et al.
186 Expanding Learning Scenarios – EDEN Annual Conference Proceedings, 2015, Barcelona
ISBN 978-615-5511-04-2
Based on MOOC research and documented experience, we paid attention to other
conclusions that suggest avoiding recording long lectures or reifying content. To facilitate
access we follow recommendations of moving away from rigid weekly pacing or even closed
cohorts within time constraints (begin-end of the course). We also consider diversifying
assessment diminishing the importance of automatic assessment and concentrating on
learning outcomes and participants’ productions for peer/social appraisal/discussion. And to
better conciliate different audiences and interests we question curriculum linearity by
allowing personalization.
Our proposal stands on seven independent modules aiming at providing conceptual and
instrumental knowledge for the creation of an e-portfolio strategy and prototype solution,
regarding individual or institutional objectives. They are structured as an activity-oriented
flexible path:
x M1: Understand e-portfolios: an introduction and overview of e-portfolios.
x M2: Set the e-portfolio purpose/s: an exploration of the potential of e-portfolios and
the establishment of personal purposes.
x M3: Outline an e-portfolio strategy: a strategic and programmatic decision on how the
e-portfolio will help reach the purposes.
x M4: Design an e-portfolio ecosystem: an examination of different ways to implement
an e-portfolio taking into account the evolving social web landscape.
x M5: Evaluate the e-portfolio solution: the development on an evaluation method and
instruments to ensure the e-portfolio quality.
x M6: From the individual to an organizational initiative: an oriented process of
transforming e-portfolio individual initiatives into organizational projects.
x M7: From programmatic to systemic change: an exercise of rethinking e-portfolios and
their impact not as an isolated project but as organizational paradigm change.
Modules are organized around activities linking theory and practice. Conceptual content is
presented in rich media formats using a variety of sources including videos, online
presentations, interactive content, and readings. We have identified quality open educational
resources for reuse and we have elaborated a set of valuable documents that will be used in the
course. We have developed an extensive literature review for the development of an e-
portfolio matrix as a conceptual and instrumental artefact supporting reflection and decision
making around e-portfolio implementation (Maina, Guàrdia, Alsina & Barberà, 2014) (useful
in modules 2, 3, 6 and 7). Another important resource elaborated within the project is a set of
implementation guidelines for teachers, organizations and consortia (of particular interest for
modules 6 and 7). Last, we have written a competency recognition and accreditation
framework of value for all modules.
All content is free of use. Each activity is provided with illustrative examples showcasing
diverse situations and cases of e-portfolio use. We follow principles of scaffold learning
applied to online learning by means of supporting instruments. Most of the activities are
accompanied with templates and guidelines.

Extending MOOC Capabilities with Dedicated Networks: The e-Portfolio Training Case
Marcelo Maina et al.
Expanding Learning Scenarios – EDEN Annual Conference Proceedings, 2015, Barcelona 187
ISBN 978-615-5511-04-2
To support the sense of ownership the participant is encouraged to set its personal goals and
decide on the number of modules to take and the pace for doing so.
The modules will be delivered in first place as a MOOC within the EMMA platform, a
development of the homonym European project (www.europeanmoocs.eu). This action is
understood as an initial open cohort that launches the initiative. The first MOOC iteration
will have an official end but the learning space is intended to rest opened with a non-stop
enrol approach. Dron and Anderson (2014) typology of social forms of learning clearly states
the interplay between different level of social interventions for learning raging from the
individual predisposition to interact, to “groups”, to “nets” (connections of “nodes—such as
people, objects, or ideas—and edges”, p.76) and finally “sets” (“made up of people who are
bound together by commonalities or shared interests”, p.77). This MOOC is part of a greater
effort within the EPNET project which has established a network of interested people and that
interacts through the Europortofolio portal (europortfolio.eu) and a set of local chapters
(Figure 1).
We envision providing an environment that connects the learning space (MOOC) with the
Europortfolio network. This environment will support lasting debate spaces, open folders for
participant-productions’ sharing, and functionalities for easing social interaction: RSS feeds
notifying content addition, notifications of new messages to interest-focused groups, list of
contacts with associated digital profiles. Once a person enrols and registers to this interrelated
environment, it may benefit from previous participants contributions, and in turn contribute
to the growing of the community and the publishing of its own productions and ideas.
Figure 4. A view of the Europorfolio portal giving access to resources and the Network

Extending MOOC Capabilities with Dedicated Networks: The e-Portfolio Training Case
Marcelo Maina et al.
188 Expanding Learning Scenarios – EDEN Annual Conference Proceedings, 2015, Barcelona
ISBN 978-615-5511-04-2
Final remarks
This paper presents new ways of expanding learning scenarios by means of an extended
MOOC that differentiates from traditional ones in several ways. Firstly, it is the result of a
coordinated effort of organizations, including three different and directly involved
universities. Secondly, it is inserted in a broader action of fostering e-portfolio adoption
through the creation of a European network of experts, researchers and users. Thirdly, it
makes use of innovative scaling up pedagogies for crowd learning, focusing on scaffold and
self-regulated learning together with the implementation of the latest notions of social
learning including net and set learning. Finally, it pretends to act as a synergy element of the
network, both providing and nourishing from each other.
References
1. Baker, C.; Rynearson, K. and Edwards, A. (2014). The Targeted Open Online Course
(TOOC) Model: Benefits and challenges for institutions of Higher Education. Sloan-C: 7th
Annual International Symposium. Dallas, TX, 2014, April 10. http://alturl.com/fmqwz
2. Bates, T. (2012). What’s right and what’s wrong about Coursera-style MOOCs? In online
learning and distance education resources, 2012, August 5. Retrieved from:
http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/05/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-about-coursera-style-
moocs
3. Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and
possibility. Available online at http://www.tonybates.ca/wp-content/uploads/Making-
Sense-of-MOOCs.pdf
4. Docebo (2014). E-Learning Market: Trends & Forecast 2014–2016. Athens, GA: Docebo.
5. Dron, J. and Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching crowds: Learning and social media. Athabasca,
CA: AU Pres.
6. Elaine Allen, I. and Seaman, J. (2015). Grade Level: Tracking Online Education in the
United States. Newburyport, MA: Online Learning Consortium.
7. Goral, T. (2013). Make Way for SPOCS: Small, Private Online Courses May Provide What
MOOCs Can’t. In University Business, 16(7). http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-
337618040/make-way-for-spocs-small-private-online-courses
8. Griffiths, R. (2014). MOOCs in the classroom? Results from a controlled study of blended
MOOCs in public universities. Educase, ELI Webinar, 3 November, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/events/eli-webinar-moocs-classroom/2014/moocs-classroom-
results-controlled-study-blended-moocs-public-universities
9. Guàrdia, L.; Maina, M. and Sangrà, A. (2013). MOOC Design Principles. A Pedagogical
Approach from the Learner’s Perspective. In eLearning Papers, 33. Retrieved from
http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/article/MOOC-Design-Principles.-A-
Pedagogical-Approach-from-the-Learner%E2%80%99s-Perspective

Extending MOOC Capabilities with Dedicated Networks: The e-Portfolio Training Case
Marcelo Maina et al.
Expanding Learning Scenarios – EDEN Annual Conference Proceedings, 2015, Barcelona 189
ISBN 978-615-5511-04-2
10. Haggard, S.; Brown, S.; Mills, R.; Tait, A.; Warburton, S.; Lawton, W. and Angulo, T.
(2013). The Maturing of the MOOC: literature review of massive open online courses and
other forms of online distance learning. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills,
UK Government.
http://www.academicpartnerships.com/sites/default/files/Making%20Sense%20of%20MO
OCs_0.pdf
11. Ho, A.D.; Reich, J.; Nesterko, S.O.; Seaton, D.T.; Mullaney, T.; Waldo, J. and Chuang, I.
(2014). HarvardX and MITx: the first year of open online courses, fall 2012-summer 2013.
Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2381263 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2381263
12. Jaschik, S. (2013). Feminist Anti-MOOC. In inside higher ed, August 19, 2013.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/19/feminist-professors-create-alternative-
moocs#ixzz2lMs1l5JH
13. Liyanagunawardena, T.; Adams, A. and Williams, S. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study
of the published literature 2008-2012. In The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 14(3), (pp. 202-227). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1455/2531
14. Maina, M.; Guàrdia, L.; Barberà, E. and Alsina, I. (2014). Matriz diagnóstica sobre usos y
propósitos de los eportfolios. CIDUI 2014: Congreso Internacional de Docencia
Universitaria e Innovación. July 2-4, Tarragona, Spain.
15. Mazoue, J.G. (2014). Beyond the MOOC Model: Changing Educational Paradigms. In
Educause Review, 10 November, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/beyond-mooc-model-changing-educational-
paradigms
16. Milligan, C. and Littlejohn, A. (2014). Supporting professional learning in a massive open
online course. In The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
15(5). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1855/3071
17. Mulder, F. (2013). MOOCs European Style … [Pdf presentation]. SURF Academy Seminar
MOOC. Utrecht, Netherlands, 2013, February 26. http://alturl.com/5hmvc
18. Najafi, H.; Evans, R. and Federico, C. (2014). MOOC integration into secondary school
courses. In The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5).
Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1861/3098
19. Rodriguez, C.O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and
distinct course formats for massive open online courses. In European Journal of Open,
Distance and E-Learning, 2012/II. Retrieved from
http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2012&halfyear=2&article=516
20. Ross, H.M. (2012). Instead of a MOOC, How About a SOOC? In Educatus, 29 October,
2012. http://words.usask.ca/gmcte/2012/10/29/instead-of-a-mooc-how-about-a-sooc/

Extending MOOC Capabilities with Dedicated Networks: The e-Portfolio Training Case
Marcelo Maina et al.
190 Expanding Learning Scenarios – EDEN Annual Conference Proceedings, 2015, Barcelona
ISBN 978-615-5511-04-2
21. Straumsheim, C. (2013). Don’t Call It a MOOC. In inside higher ed, August 27, 2013.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/27/ut-austin-psychology-professors-
prepare-worlds-first-synchronous-massive-online
22. University of Exester (2013). MOOCs and Mini MOOCs. Retrieved from:
http://as.exeter.ac.uk/support/educationqualityandenhancementprojects/current_projects
/mooc/mini-moocs/
23. Zimmerman, B.J. (1998). Developing sef-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An
analysis of exemplary instructional model. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (eds.), Self-
regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice, (pp. 1-19). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
View publication statsView publication stats