1. Designing effective MOOCs
Positional paper for the Design Issues and Participation in MOOCs Symposium
at the Internationalization, Cross-border Education and E-learning Conference,
Nicoria, Cyprus, 4-5th
June 2015
Gráinne Conole, Bath Spa University, UK
g.conole@bathspa.ac.uk
MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) have gained traction 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 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, CCK08, promoted a
Connectivist approach to learning. Learners were encouraged to create their own
Personalised Learning Environment and to engage with 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 video, supported by e-
assessment elements. These MOOCs have been labelled xMOOCs.
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. 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 there main reason is to
get a feel for the MOOC experience and look at how it sits alongside their
traditional educational offerings.
However this division 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.
1

2. 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
encourage 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. These might be structured in a particular way, for example
using the JIGSAW pedagogical pattern (Hernándex-Leo, Asensio-
Pérez et al. 2010). In the JIGSAW approach, participants are grouped
into teams of four, each member is assigned a part of a problem to
research, once they have done this, they meet with others from other
teams who have been looking at the same issue and share their
knowledge and understanding. The final stage is that they return to
their home team and share and combine their findings to complete
the problem.
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 statement 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
2

3. 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 design 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 one or more 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. 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.1
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 experience a stimuli, with
learners encourage to contemplate on their learning. An example of a
construvisit MOOC is a coursera’s course on songwriting.2
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
1
http://www.openculture.com/free_mandarin_chinese_lessons
2
https://www.coursera.org/course/songwriting
3

4. on Learning Design ran by the Open University, UK.3
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.4
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.5
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.
3
http://www.olds.ac.uk/
4
https://www.coursera.org/course/clinicalneurology
5
http://cck11.mooc.ca/
4

5. Figure 1: The 7Cs of Learning Design Framework
Figure 1 illustrates 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. 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-base, 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. 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. Similarly, the Collaborate C is about
fostering mechanisms to enable collaboration or group work. Finally, the
Consider C, is concerned with ways in which reflection and demonstration of
learning achievements can be promoted. Assessment might be diagnostic,
formative or summative. 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. Finally, the Consolidate C is about implementing the
design in a real-life context and evaluating its effectiveness.
5

6. Finally the 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.
Finally, the key value of MOOCs for me is that they are challenging traditional
educational institutions and having to make them think 31 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.6
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 look harder at what they are providing their
students, signifies their importance as a disruptive technology. For me therefore,
whether they survive or not, 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
6
http://enikki.mitsubishi.or.jp/e/event/index6.html
6

7. Finally the 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.
Finally, the key value of MOOCs for me is that they are challenging traditional
educational institutions and having to make them think 31 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.6
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 look harder at what they are providing their
students, signifies their importance as a disruptive technology. For me therefore,
whether they survive or not, 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
6
http://enikki.mitsubishi.or.jp/e/event/index6.html
6