However, all six MOOCs also failed to meet the following standards:
- The module/unit learning objectives describe outcomes that are measurable and consistent with the course-level objectives.
- Course instructions articulate or link to the instruction’s accessibility policies and services.
- Course instructions articulate or link to an explanation of how the institution’s academic support services and resources can help students succeed in the course and how students can access the services.
- Course instructions articulate or link to an explanation of how the instruction’s student support services can help students succeed and how students can access the services.
“It is not surprising that none of these MOOCs performed well [on Standard 7: Learner Support],” say the researchers, as this standard focuses on students attending a course for college credit. “MOOCs, for the most part, are not designed as for-credit college courses. Rather, they are designed as professional development exercises.”
Yet, the researchers contend that many MOOCs could easily be updated to address Standard 7.
But should QM act as the measurement standard for credit-bearing MOOCs?
The Challenges with MOOC Quality Standards
Lowenthal and Hodges emphasize that though QM is a comprehensive and well-adopted quality measurement for online learning, MOOCs are a breed of their own, and come with a set of unique challenges in measuring their instructional and design quality.
First, the researchers point out that MOOCs are not known for their high-quality learning activities and learner interactions, so technically a course could meet QM standards, but still be a relatively boring course. “Thus, perhaps more differentiation needs to be made between a quality course and a truly high quality or exceptional course.”
Second, not all MOOCs provided by third-party platforms are designed to offer the same type of learning experience (self-paced vs. facilitated).
Third and final, MOOCs often have a “similar instructional approach that relies heavily on professionally-produced videos, readings and quizzes, all with minimal instructor contact.” Though production value helps, the researchers say that there might be limitations to the QM rubric if such simply designed courses can pass a review and be deemed “quality” courses. The QM rubric might focus too much on the basics, like learning objectives, and not enough on instructional approaches for “active engagement, communication, and collaboration.”
Lowenthal and Hodges emphasize that though the study sampled a very small number of courses, and therefore, the results of the study should be viewed in this context, it’s also important to remember that this data can serve to “advance our discussions about MOOCs beyond mere hyberbole,” they conclude. “For instance, can MOOCs meet the same design requirements as other for-credit online courses? If not, where do they fall short? Questions such as these are important as institutions struggle with offering credit for completing MOOCs.”
The researchers also hope this study has the possibility of informing and further evolving online quality assurance systems, like QM, by analyzing MOOCs—a non-traditional format of online learning.
For much more detailed information, including methodology, ratings on QM for each course studied, the choice to exclude cMOOCs and more, read “In Search of Quality: Using Quality Matters to Analyze the Quality of Massive, Open, Online Courses (MOOCs).”
- 25 education trends for 2018 - January 1, 2018
- IT #1: 6 essential technologies on the higher ed horizon - December 27, 2017
- #3: 3 big ways today’s college students are different from just a decade ago - December 27, 2017
Comments are closed.