Paper by Anja Lorenz at the EMOOCs2016 in Graz

1. The
MOOC Production Fellowship
Reviewing the first German MOOC funding
program
#emoocs2016, Graz
Slides: http://bit.ly/emoocs2016-fellowship
Anja Lorenz, FH Lübeck

2. searches for the terms “mooc” in Germany
https://www.google.de/trends/explore#q=mooc&geo=DE&date=1%2F2011%2062m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1
MOOC iniciatives driven by
single persons or groups
#OPCO11, #OPCO12, Jörn Loviscach (2012) etc.

3. The funding program
aim: stimulate MOOCs in Germany
by the Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft*
and the MOOC platform iversity
10 MOOCs | 25,000 € per MOOC
* translated: Donors’ association for the promotion of humanities and sciences in Germany

4. searches for the terms “mooc” in Germany
https://www.google.de/trends/explore#q=mooc&geo=DE&date=1%2F2011%2062m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1
appliance period for the MOOC
production fellowship
voting period for the MOOC
production fellowship

5. Supported MOOCs
Changemaker MOOC – social
entrepreneurship GER
Mathematical thinking and working
methods GER
International agriculture
management GER, RUS
Europe in the World: Law and Policy
Aspects of the EU in Global
Governance ENG
Details:
https://moocfellowship.org/
Section chirurgica – anatomy
interactive GER
The future of storytelling ENG
Fascination of crystals and symmetry
GER
Monte Carlo Methods in Finance ENG
Design 101 ENG
DNA – from structure to therapy ENG

6. Research Design
funded
MOOCsF
non-
funded
applicantsNF
online
survey
guided
interviews
final
statements
via email
online
survey
07.07.–12.08.201505.07.–05.08.2015 since 18.08.2015
since 10.08.2015
funded MOOCs: 10 replies (100%)
non-funded appl.: 41 replies (≈16%)

7. Summary of the fellowship program
Funded MOOCs by numbers

8. Summary of the funding program 1|2
250,000 € funding for 10 MOOCs
>260 applications
224,446 learners
6,921 issued certificates3.1%

9. Summary of the funding program 2|2
109 MOOC Maker (lecturers, video team, tutors…)
95 weeks of preparation
50 weeks of follow-up work
5+3a
MOOCs are still accessible
4+2a
+1b
MOOCs were and are repeated
a
on another platform b
concretely planned

10. experiences of the funded projects
Making MOOCs

11. Realisation: success stories (F)
reached a wide audience7
probably first Russian-speaking MOOC (Agrar), “global class”, unimagible in other learning scenarios
individual and personal experiences with the learners
5
MOOC too difficult → made another MOOC to understand this one; Serbian learner contributes subtitles; history of
arts student was happy to met experts of rost structure (crystals)
Impact on own courses/projects3
participation at the yooweedoo competition: 4x, 15 further universities joined the project
team work2
good platform, positive feedback, surprisig easy tutoring of the course each 1
ended up with a personal meeting 1 festival & exhibition“blue flower”, 183 items, 80 P fr. all over the world

12. What does it need and cost to make a MOOC?
Financiation & realisation

13. costs per MOOC+ x h of own work 100 €/min + 8,000€ tutoring

14. Financing of own co-payment (F)
own work inside and outside of working hours10
also on holidays, via regular budgets, extra work without crediting on teaching
responsibilities (lowered interest of the university administration after leadership change),
2,000h explicitly in secondary employment
other funded projects 2
use of university’s resources 2 extra budgets, budgets for tutors
"time donations" by external persons 1 guest speakers

15. Feedback
What did the learners say?
What did the own university say?

16. Feedback of participants(fraction) (F)
overall good feedback6
learners were grateful4
individual and personal feedback3
a collegue from crystallography stated it was the best basics course, best course out of 15 MOOCs, cannot await the
next chapter
uncertainty among own students2
use for own study/relevance for exams

17. Feedback of the own institution (+)(F)
strong perception and support 4
PH encourages teaching experiments, payd tutors from institution’s budget
motivates the discussion on MOOCs at the own institution 2
stimulates technology enhanced learning in general
university realised or plans further MOOCs2
edX, continue employment of the video team
satisfied and happy team2
interest of further institutions 1
federal government department Schleswig Holstein

18. Feedback of the own institution (-) (F)
no/few perception4
not until winnig of the Ars Legendi price for excellent teaching, forbid to make the MOOC during working hours
no further MOOC activities3
because of management change: after high encouragement only few support 1

19. Online survey, n=41 (16.4%)
Non-funded applicants

20. Did you nevertheless realize your MOOC?

21. costs of the MOOC
+ 1,600 h of own full MOOC curriculum

22. How did you finance your MOOC? (n=13)
additional
work and
free time
budgets for
tutors, within
regular
teaching
other project
or federal
funding,
sabbatical
semester

23. How to support MOOC makers?
Funding and measures

24. Would you participate again in a similar competition today? (n=49; F+NF)

25. Should institutional and university administrators, political and/or NGO actors (e.g.
foundations) promote and support MOOCs in general (more than they did until now)? (n=49;

26. Should MOOCs be funded? (F+NF)
Why? (fraction)
open up universities6
more promotion of OER
in general4
gather experience4
it is a learning format of the
future 1
Why not? (fraction)
risk of budget cuts 2
expensive production that
cannot be realized out of
regular budget 2
no public taskP
2

27. What kind of support is needed? 1|2 (F+NF)
crediting MOOCs as teaching hours 13
financial funding12
overall production support12
implement or improve IT services for MOOCs 11
recognition as academic effort5

28. What kind of support is needed? 2|2 (F+NF)
flagships, best practice 2
cooperation 2
legal protection 2
training for MOOC video production 2
development of sustainable concepts 1
international evaluation 1
information campaigsn for decission-makers at universities 1
political commitment for OER 1

29. Conclusion?
Conclusion

30. … out of the interviews (F)
gratefulness for the opportunity to realize a MOOC4
sentimental value more than financial funding, brave, viral effects estimated
unsure if "massive Open" is the ideal solution2
missing prior knowledge, unknown participants
stimulates also the reflection of their own teaching 2
valuable eyperience2
unsure concerning the responsibility for own students 1 ensure tutoring
MOOCs are media as books are → they are as good as teachers 1

31. Johnson et al. 2015

32. Thank you!
#emoocs2016, Graz
Slides: http://bit.ly/emoocs2016-fellowship
Anja Lorenz
Fachhochschule Lübeck
Anja Lorenz
@anjalorenz
anja.lorenz@oncampus.de
http://about.me/anjalorenz

33. References
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015).
NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin,
Texas. Retrieved from
http://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2015-higher-e
ducation-edition/ page 2

34. Further Data
Attachement

35. Conditions and funding
The funding program

36. Conditions
offered for free
meet academic standards
at least one assistant, associate or full professor at a
university or college in the applicants team

37. Funding
25,000 € to realize the MOOC
conceptual support by workshops
technical support for the iversity platform

38. Call for tenders2013
3rd
April application deadline → 260 submissions
1st
–23rd
May voting stage for early feedback
20th
/21st
June final jury decission

39. searches for the terms “mooc” and “iversity”
https://www.google.de/trends/explore#q=mooc%2C%20iversity&geo=DE&date=1%2F2011%2062m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1

40. Further realized MOOCs (named voluntaryly, NF)
several MOOCs for the Virtual
Linguistics Campus
Controlling – A Critical Success
Factor in a Globalised World
Game AI
Algorithms and data structures
Ear Training for Sound People
Pete the project manager –
learning project management
Molecular Basis of
Nutrition-related Diseases
Intercultural Competence/
Intercultural Campus
Vehicle Dynamics
Charlemagne – Pater Europae!
"Web Engineering" (3 parts)

41. 224,446 Learners by comparison
52,006 Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
+ 49,772 University of Cologne
+ 46,613 Goethe University of Frankfurt/Main
+ 42,592 University of Münster
+ 33,540 Humboldt University of Berlin
= 224,523 students
source: wikipedia

42. Why making MOOCs?
Motivation

43. Why did you apply? (F+NF)
personal interest for MOOCs59%
potential of high outreach41% education-idealistic motivation
support (financial, didactical, technical) 14% best way: do it on your own
general interests for online teaching12%
follow-up for actual courses/projects10% yoweedoo, anatomy
working in the MOOC team 6%
offer something special for students 2%
university marketing 2%

44. Motivation for repetition (F)
Sustainability40%
combined regular courses/projects30% Architecture 101, yooweedoo,
MatheMOOC, anatomy
reach at first run 10%
improvements by repetition10%
reuse in other courses 10%

45. Marketing
How do you promote a MOOC?

46. Marketing (F)
iversity 10 40,000 students were enough (Design 101)
own networks6
social media 5
press releases4
email marketing2
webpage 2
other platform | print ads | contest Tickets for Bayreuth Festival (MatheMOOC)
may not use internal channels each 1

47. Marketing success
Did they reach the target group?

48. Reaching the audience (F)
Academics
majority were academics3
very special target group3
alternative to very expensive courses (Finance)
no concrete integration of own students 2

49. Reaching the audience (F)
“beyond”
also amateurs5 beyond academics
very extended audience4
international participants 3
all ages represented 2 14–80
disappointed at the few medicine students | missing basic knowledge of amateurs each 1
non-German-speaking learners in German MOOC 1 were either not active

50. Collaboration
How was the collaboration?

51. Review of the collaboration (P)
with the Stifterverband
very good9
unbureaucratic7 easy accounting and reporting
Workshops6 helpful contact to other MOOC makers
good support4 interested but notintrusive
few contact4 stayed in the background, not much contact needed

52. Review of the collaboration (F)
with iversity
positive7
good support for experiments
feature requests4
MOOCs needed to be adapted for technical reasons
→ very different experiences concerning service quality

53. Degree of interaction
How active were the learners?

54. Degree of learners’ activity (F)
high mismatch of active vs. registered learners7
i. e. English-speaking registered learners in German MOOCs, partly long time from registartion to start
a very active core 3 vs. few interaction2
no consideration 3 vs. heavy integration of Social Media2
specialist questions and interaction, answering questions and
healped each other 2 vs. interaction took off slow2
forum features were not sufficient2
interaction with several cultures 1 daytimes without electricity, buy data volume at the start of the month
local groups 1

55. To which challenges were you faced?
Difficulties

56. Realization: that doesn’t work that well 1|2 (F)
platform problems8
features, measure of performance, forum, data security
MOOC format as challege for contents6
enter maths, niveau of the learners
production effort5
only manageble in a good team

57. Realization: that doesn’t work that well 2|2 (F)
Copyright 3
uncertainty, copyright from the publisher for 3 years, buying images
only few interaction 3
rate of registrations and participants, only few exams
critical sustainability 1
efford for update
assessments 1
filter effects of exams, identification

58. Further feedback
What do the learners say?

59. Feedback of learners individual option (F)
complaints that it is not an English MOOC 1
owns students take it positive 1
no evaluation proceeded 1
no negative critics 1
partly too high requirents 1
sporadic critics 1
comparison difficult 1
few feedback 1
appreciation of the learning offers 1

60. Further Statemenst (F)
very dependant on team and platform2
winnig data from collaboration as interesting approach 1 use reach
Idea: involve students into production 1
MOOCs would not reach financial stability 1
side projects 1
without regard of work not realizable 1
technische Details erschweren didaktische Freiheit 1
improving video learning 1
realized much as amateur 1
contradicting the education task 1 entertainment vs. education

61. Repetition of the MOOCs
Which experiences did they made?

62. Sustainability
What has become of the MOOC?

63. What has become of the MOOC after the first run?
no resources, changed
business model of
iversity
own website,
institution made
contracts with edX
additionally:
using the content for other
courses/projects
on YouTube CC-Licence

64. Platform and adoption for repetition (F)
iversity5 1–4times
small editing5 earse mistakes, additional content
other Platform planned 3
no videos’ remake 2
new task option 2 integrated martphone as tool, Impro-task
Community involved stronger 1 financing for cheaters cheaper
no updates 1

65. Success of repetition (F)
fewer as for the first run 4
about same numbers of learners 2
certificate track had no influence 1

66. Non-Fundet applicants
What becomes with these concepts?

67. Which platform did you use for your MOOC? How many participants had subscribed to
your MOOC? How many people had been in your team? (n=13)
Ø ca. 6,800 TN
1 to 50–30,000
Ø 4,4
Personen im
Team
1–15

68. Why did you do not do the MOOC? (n=28)
Blended Learning

69. Funding
How to support MOOC makers?

70. Reasons for/against reapplication (F+NF)
3x pro
gather important
experience5
realize topic4
stimulate the format 2
3x contra
no chance to win6
dissatisfaction with the
compatition5
too high efforts4