Greenwich Connect Distance Learning Contemporary approaches and strategies A report for the Distance Learning Working Group

Mark Anderson June 2014

  1

Distance Learning: contemporary approaches and strategies A report for the Distance Learning Working Group   Contents Executive summary 2

Part One: Introduction 3

Part Two: Massive Open Online Courses 5

Part Three: Forum-centred courses 10

Part Four: Multi-platform courses 13

Part Five: Summary of points for reflection 17

Bibliography 19

  2

Executive summary    Distance Learning: contemporary approaches and strategies was produced for the Greenwich Connect Distance Learning Working Group as part of our research into the online technology-enhanced distance learning landscape in the higher education sector. The report is comprised of five sections:

1. The introduction in Part One outlines the purpose, scope and structure of the report;

2. Part Two examines some of the lessons that can be learned from MOOCs as rapidly intensifying and much-studied forms of distance learning;

3. In Part Three, issues of learner socialisation and community building are discussed in relation to forum-based courses;

4. Part Four describes ‘multi-platform’ online courses that emphasise collaborative networked learning;

5. The final section summarises the main themes of the discussion, and offers five key points for reflection that have emerged from this report.

The suggested issues for reflection are summarised in the following points, framed here as questions:

• What can we learn from MOOCs about online pedagogy and principles of effective course design that could enhance our own online/distance offerings?

• What strategies for learner engagement can we embed into course designs with the goal of facilitating collaborative and creative learning activities?

• How can we nurture and sustain a strong sense of community among course participants throughout and beyond our online programmes?

• How can we best incorporate open educational resources to encourage learner exploration, discovery and evaluation of a range of content?

• What are the challenges around incorporating external platforms and social networks within our learning designs?

  3

Part One Introduction This report, Distance Learning: contemporary approaches and strategies, has been produced by Greenwich Connect as part of our research into the online technology-enhanced distance learning landscape in the higher education sector. The document is intended to inform the Distance Learning Working Group (DLWG) at the University of Greenwich, which will convene for the first time on 16th June, 2014. The DLWG is a gathering of academic, professional and support staff from across the institution who have relevant experience and/or interest, and who would like to participate in developing ideas around the implementation of the Greenwich Connect Operational Strategy in relation to ‘Activity Three: Distance Learning’. By gaining some understanding of how other institutions in the sector are developing and delivering online distance learning, the DLWG will be better positioned to develop an informed, coherent and effective strategy for distance learning that embeds best practice within its design frameworks. This report represents a first step in the process of developing such an understanding. Objectives and scope This short report is not intended to be comprehensive. This is partly because there are hundreds of online learning programmes on offer in the UK alone, each influenced by specific motivations, academic personalities, institutional cultures and pedagogical values. It would be impossible to discuss all of them in any depth. Secondly, there are challenges around gaining access to relevant information about such courses. While some institutions have published evaluations of their distance learning provision, many have not. The reports that are available are variable in detail and scope, and do not always present a balanced or objective account of the strengths and weaknesses of the programmes they evaluate. Furthermore, there is an imbalance in the more recently available literature in favour of a particular type of online distance programme, the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) that has started to flourish on the higher education landscape over the last two or three years. Large amounts of learner data are automatically generated by the MOOC platforms. This, combined with the desire of institutions to statistically justify their investment in the MOOC space, has given rise to an emphasis on primarily quantitative data in the ‘MOOC Reports’ that have started to emerge across the sector.

  4

Some of this quantitative data is interesting and useful, particularly in relation to student retention and satisfaction. It is, however, generally lacking in terms of insights into the richness of the learner experience and the quality of pedagogical approaches. There is room for more qualitative research in these areas, and some scholars have started to make progress in that direction (e.g. Eynon et al., 2014). Report structure In this report, a small selection of online distance learning courses are discussed, with a summary of their key technological frameworks, pedagogical approaches, and indicators of success where such information is available. The aim is to demonstrate a few of the main types of online distance course that currently represent best practice, or at least leading-edge experimentation. The distinctions made here between different kinds of courses are for convenience only. We do not suggest that they are mutually exclusive, concrete, sustainable or even universally recognised categories (Bayne and Cross, 2013). Indeed, just as online pedagogies are constantly evolving, so are our definitions of what it means to teach and learn online. Course designers may want to experiment with a blend of several strategies to cater for the needs of their particular learners. We begin by looking at MOOCs. In particular, we review some of the quantitative evaluation data that has been published by the University of Edinburgh, which was an early-adopting institution in the UK. Our analysis focuses mainly on aspects of course design, participation statistics, and feedback about learner satisfaction. Then, the pedagogy and implementation of forum-based courses are described. Perhaps because of the frequent, in-depth tutor participation (and therefore high costs) involved in these courses, they tend to cater to fee-paying students and the learning spaces are usually password-protected. Our discussion is therefore limited to a brief overview of the driving pedagogical values and technologies behind this type of programme. In Part Four we look at multi-platform courses that are based upon, or at least inspired by, a connectivist approach to course design. Our analysis includes a brief overview of the Open Course in Technology Enhanced Learning (ocTEL) currently being offered by the Association for Learning Technologists (ALT), and an evaluation of the OLDS MOOC run by the Open University in 2013. The report concludes with a summary points for reflection – key issues that have arisen from this research that seem relevant to the goals of the Distance Learning Working Group. A report on such a dynamic and rapidly developing topic can only ever be preliminary, or at best a work-in-progress. We look forward to updating this report at regular intervals, elaborating upon the current observations and sharing new insights as they emerge. We welcome your thoughts and feedback at greenwichconnect@greenwich.ac.uk.

  5

Part Two Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) The insights into effective online course design and pedagogies that continue to be offered by MOOCs, both in the UK and overseas, are interesting and potentially valuable to us, regardless of whether or not Greenwich University intends to become active in the MOOC space. As the analysis and evaluation of MOOC learning analytics data continues to evolve, and as qualitative research into learner motivations and experiences proliferates, the richness of the MOOC phenomenon as a source of case studies, models and cautionary tales seems likely to grow. In this section we discuss some of the recently published data from the University of Edinburgh, which was one of the first UK institutions to offer MOOCs on the US-based Coursera platform. University of Edinburgh The University of Edinburgh launched six MOOCs on the Coursera platform in January 2013, and published an evaluation report in May (MOOCs@Edinburgh Group, 2013). Five of the courses ran for five weeks, and one ran for seven weeks. There were no barriers to entry or exit, and there was an option to study without engaging with quizzes or social media. This possibility for minimal engagement inevitably made it difficult to gather accurate data about participation. Each of the university’s three academic colleges offered two MOOCs. Humanities and Social Sciences: • Introduction to Philosophy • E-learning and Digital Cultures Science and Engineering: • Artificial Intelligence Planning (Masters Level) • Astrobiology and the Search for Life on Other Planets Medicine and Veterinary Medicine: • Equine Nutrition • Critical Thinking in Global Challenges

  6

In the report, the university states that its intentions for developing the MOOCs were: • Gaining outreach to new audiences. • Experimenting with online delivery methods at large scale. • To learn lessons that can be applied elsewhere in educational portfolio. • Reinforcing their position as a leader in educational technology in higher education. • Remaining open to possibilities of monetisation, although this was not an explicit aim. It is interesting to observe that student-centred goals such as “creating valuable learning experiences” or “creating learning opportunities for otherwise excluded students” do not feature in the university’s reported intentions at all. At the institutional level at least, the entire initiative seems to have been geared towards creating benefits for the university. This is an important distinction to consider when making comparisons with other distance learning providers that more explicitly develop teaching and learning initiatives around learner needs and educational goals. It is also important to distinguish between institutional intentions and the motivations of the individual course leaders and teams who are designing and delivering the programmes ‘on the ground’. Perceived risks The university recognised that, despite the experience they already had delivering other kinds of online courses, the minimal direct learner support offered in MOOCs, as well as the large numbers of learners presented pedagogical challenges, and these in turn posed a risk to reputation:

“We saw the tension between our modest-enrolment, richly-tutored, taught online courses and the massive, very lightly tutored MOOCs, and wished to see what lessons we could transfer between the two modes.” (MOOCs@Edinburgh Group, 2013: 6)

There were also ethical and operational concerns about working with a for-profit US based corporation, but these were eased as a result of peer university participation, and the proposal for an ‘academic board’ which would guide Coursera. Course design The course designers estimated that the time required to produce one 5-6 week MOOC was around 30 days of academic faculty time, plus support and coordination time and direct costs (mainly video production and copyright clearance). The academic teams were responsible for developing the structure of their own courses, but with oversight and input from the whole MOOC development group, and with Quality Assurance processes in place to ensure high quality. They did not want to impose a template to which all the MOOCs must conform, and instead “encouraged pedagogical innovation” (MOOCs@Edinburgh Group, 2013: 11)

  7

Each course adopted a different course structure, and some experimented with “content delivery and collaboration methods outwith the Coursera VLE” (MOOCs@Edinburgh Group, 2013: 1). Some teams went with the standard Coursera video-centred format, while others experimented with more learner-generated content and social pedagogies. In the end, the design and structure of each course was different, and used different tools. Tools and platforms used from outside of the Coursera platform were incorporated in the following ways:

• AI Planning held meet-up sessions in Second Life. • Equine Nutrition and Education & Digital Culture held synchronous Google Hangout

sessions with the academic team in which they responded to issues and questions raised by learners. They embedded the video resources for later viewing on demand.

• Introduction to Philosophy produced short end-of-week ‘reflection and response’ videos.

• Twitter was used generally for community building and question collation. The MOOC ran parallel with a module in the MSc Digital Education course, and students on that programme acted as TAs for the MOOC. All MOOCs used a number of either MSc or PhD teaching assistants, varying in number from 2 to 4. They monitored forum discussions and assisted with general course administration. They also participated in the end of week live Google Hangout sessions, and spent a “small amount” of time online everyday that the courses were live (MOOCs@Edinburgh Group, 2013: 11). The MOOCs were designed from scratch, so although they drew from existing courses where appropriate, they were all intended as new programmes, and not adaptations of existing programmes. If digital content already existed, they found they had to modify it significantly, especially to address copyright issues given that Coursera is a for-profit organisation. Participation statistics The total initial enrolment across all six MOOCs was just over 309,628 people. Of these, however, only 123,816 (40%) were considered to be ‘active learners’. Participants were recognised as active learners if they accessed the course sites within the first week of launch.

• In total, 165,158 active learners engaged with content over the life span of the courses, and 90,120 engaged with content in Week 1.

• As an indication of levels of engagement towards the end of the courses, 36,266 engaged with assignments in Week 5 (an average of 29% of initial active learners).

• At the end of the courses 34,850 participants earned Statements of Accomplishment (21% of active learners, 12% of total enrolment).

  8

Learner satisfaction One week before the course began, a survey was sent out to 217,512 email accounts. Replies were received from 45,182 individuals (21% response rate). A second survey distributed at the end of the course generated 15,351 responses. Here is a brief account of some of the interesting statistics. Entry survey summary: 75% said this was their first experience of a MOOC. 53% were only enrolled on a single MOOC. 203 countries were represented. 28% were in the US. 11% were in the UK. 33% were between 25-34 years of age. Highest categories of current employment were ‘Teaching and education’ (17%) and ‘Student’ (15%). 70% had a degree. 40% had postgraduate degrees. Exit survey summary: 98% said they “got out of the course(s) what they wanted”. Most were happy with the length, pacing and level. Most spent 2-4 hours per week on the MOOC. Outlook From a presentation given by Prof. Jeff Haywood, Edinburgh’s Vice Principal Knowledge Management, some insights can be gained into the university’s future plans for MOOC development (video available at http://youtu.be/3J06KarEtPw). Edinburgh now runs courses on both Coursera and FutureLearn platforms. The university is planning to launch 20 to 25 new MOOCs this year, bringing the total up to around 30. They estimate that this will represent a total investment of £1 million. Haywood says that developing MOOCs is less challenging for them now, as they have a framework in place and some experience. In contrast to the intentions stated in the report, he states that they want to use their MOOCs to widen access to education, particularly targeting people who otherwise would be excluded. Haywood suggests that, for learners who would not otherwise be able to access education, their experiences on the MOOCs were “transformational”. However, he does not refer to any evidence for this, and there is little in the report to suggest that any student described their experience in these terms.

  9

In addition to reaching out to an international audience, the university will focus on building a learning community in and around Edinburgh. Schools will also be key areas of focus. The MOOCs will be positioned as part of a “lifelong learning portfolio”. Learners will be encouraged to take MOOCs produced by other institutions as part of their degree courses at Edinburgh, and materials created for Edinburgh’s own MOOCs will be repurposed for use in their on-campus courses. Learning analytics will be studied to improve the content and delivery better of the MOOCs, and they are investigating ways to introduce formal assessment. This may include proctored exams (which FutureLearn is moving towards) or the Signature Track facility offered by Coursera. There are certainly plans to offer some form of academic credit for the Edinburgh MOOCs.

  10

Part Three Forum-centred courses The types of MOOC we described in Part 1 attempt (to varying degrees) to encourage conversations about course material by providing commenting facilities built into the platform. But in many cases the opportunity for peer dialogue appears to be more of an afterthought than an embedded element of the teaching and learning strategy. In short, it seems clear that the pedagogy behind the design of such courses puts content, not conversation, at centre stage. By contrast, forum-based courses revolve heavily around guided, fully participatory online conversations between the teacher and students, and between students. Peer-to-peer debate is considered an important pedagogical element to embed within learning design because it allows learners to engage in the “creative cognitive process of offering up ideas, having them criticised or expanded on, and getting the chance to reshape them (or abandon them) in the light of peer discussion” (Rowntree, 1995: 207). As a framework for this kind of collaborative knowledge construction, asynchronous discussion forums can provide a digital environment for a range of learner engagements and activities. But if the success or failure of a course depends on effective dialogue, collaboration and social interaction, then the concept of “designing for participation” becomes key (Salmon, 2006: 145). Tutor-guided communication between learners should be at the heart of the learning design. Tools and technologies There are a variety of synchronous communication tools that can facilitate online dialogue, including Instant Messaging (IM), micro-blogging (e.g. Twitter), Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) conferencing, virtual classrooms like Adobe Connect, and Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs) such as Second Life. Asynchronous discussion forums are frequently used for online courses because they offer some particular pedagogical advantages for distance learning. For example, as the conversations are not conducted in real time it is not necessary for all participants to be logged in simultaneously in order for them to fully engage with the debate or activity. This is important for distance courses in which participants may be living in a variety of countries in different time zones. Learners can log in at a time that suits them, read the contributions that others have made, log out and consider the postings and their potential response, and then log in again later to post. This flexibility in timing also offers learners an opportunity to really think about the composition of a post, and to refine it before publishing for all to see. Discussion forum technology is readily available, being built in to VLEs like Moodle, Canvas and Blackboard, and many other types of platforms and plugins.

  11

Social isation and competence-building Regardless of the chosen technology, however, effective dialogue-based online learning can only flourish after participants have experienced a socialising period of induction, during which they are helped to become comfortable and competent in the online learning environment. The seeds for creating a functional and self-supporting learning community need to be sown at the very beginning of the experience (Downing et al., 2007: 212). For these purposes, Gilly Salmon’s ‘Five Stage Model’ (2011) is often adapted and used for programmes like those offered by OUDCE to provide a scaffolding process for the development of learners’ technological and emotional competence in online communication. The model describes a sequence of five steps that online learners should be guided through as their learning experience progresses, based on the assumption that “participants learn about working online along with learning about the topic, and with and through other people” (Salmon, 2011: 31, original emphasis). The goal is to build a learning community by deliberately cultivating among learners a sense of belonging, trust, and a willingness to share and contribute from the outset.

  12

Part Four Multi-platform courses Connectivist approaches to teaching and learning form the pedagogical framework for many of the multi-platform type of online courses that have become increasingly common over the last few years. The connectivist philosophy, pioneered by George Siemens (2005) and Stephen Downes (2012), arose from their early experiments with what might be described the ‘original form’ of MOOCs. Today, we often refer to them as ‘cMOOCs’ but use of the term ‘MOOC’ to describe them can be misleading. Instead of hosting tens of thousands of learners, many courses of this type have more modest communities of a few hundred students, which typically reduces to a core group of a few dozen active learners by the end of the programme. This process brings such courses much more in line with the dimensions of ‘traditional’ online programmes. Connectiv ist approaches to learning Connectivism is driven by the observation that, in a digital society, the “half-life” of knowledge – the length of time for which it remains relevant – is much shorter today than it was in the past, and continues to rapidly diminish. We therefore need to develop new ways of teaching and learning that are less focused on transmitting knowledge itself, and more about equipping the learner with the skills to find out what they need to know, when they need to know it. This type of knowledge, connectivists argue, does not reside within people but is contained externally in networks. The knowledge becomes ‘learning’ when individuals connect to a network and access it. Within such a framework, concepts such as informal, situated and authentic learning, and participating in communities of practice, become emphasised. “Informal learning is a significant aspect of our learning experience. Formal education no longer comprises the majority of our learning. Learning now occurs in a variety of ways - through communities of practice, personal networks, and through completion of work-related tasks.” (Siemens, 2005: 1). Online courses that embrace this philosophy tend to be very loosely structured and learner driven. There is usually one central online space where materials are provided, learning activities are suggested and conversations take place. But learners are encouraged to participate through external platforms and networking tools of their choice. Their dispersed contributions can be aggregated within the central platform using an RSS feed or similar technology.

  13

The Open Course in Technology Enhanced Learning (ocTEL) The seven-week ocTEL programme provides a useful example of a multi-platform course structure. The main course homepage provides a central hub for resources, communications from the facilitators, and weekly tasks and activities for learners to complete. This is a WordPress site, with social networking and forum facilities added via the BuddyPress and bbPress plugins. An important feature of ocTEL is that learners can choose what they want to do and when they want to do it. Because of this built-in flexibility, ocTEL is described as “impossible to fail”. Participants are encouraged to think of it more like a “festival”. There is no expectation that they will engage with the programme in a linear fashion, but they can dip in and out as they pursue the topics, activities or materials that most interest them. For motivation, and to offer some level of recognition for learning achievements, a system of digital badges is used. Learners earn badges for engaging with particular activities and sharing evidence of their output with other learners, whether their contributions are made via social media platforms, Twitter, personal blogs or other avenues. Launched for the first time in 2013, ocTEL is currently in its second iteration, and no evaluative data has yet been published. However, a similar course run by the Open University, the Open Learning Design Studio MOOC (OLDS MOOC) has been evaluated, and some of the insights are relevant to our discussion. The OLDS MOOC The OLDS MOOC ran for nine weeks between January and March 2013, and a summary report of participant feedback has been published (Cross, 2013). It was a course about designing courses, and was aimed at academics, education developers, HE staff, UK education institutions, and professional bodies. One of the aims of the course was that it would "help raise the visibility of learning and curriculum design approaches, resources and tools amongst practitioners” (Cross, 2013: 1). Course design The MOOC was developed by seven universities, and each one ‘hosted’ a week of the course. The Open University was the lead partner. The University of Greenwich was also one of the group.

  14

The full list of universities that developed the course is as follows: • The Open University (lead partner) • Goldsmiths, University of London • London Knowledge Lab • University of Greenwich • University of Leicester • University of Oxford • University of Georgia (US) The course design emphasized the use of open source tools, and particularly the Cloudworks platform, which was developed by the Open University. It guided learners through the process of designing a course, and adopted a project-based approach that encouraged learners to collaborate with each other, and to participate in group discussions. The course was facilitated completely online, and incorporated regular facilitator summaries, weekly video convergence sessions, and daily support by the designated week leader and other facilitators. Original content produced for the course included the following: • about 50 hours of learning activities • specially created web pages • threads in the technologies being used • weekly video introductions • video tutorials for the OULDI design packs • slides about OER and prototypes • a document about Learning Design and Formative Evaluation The course also made use of a range of pre-existing resources that had been created for earlier programmes. The course space was formed from a collection of open, freely available online public spaces and social media technologies. Each week of the course had a dedicated page in Google sites containing: • a summary of the week • an introductory video • learning outcomes • instructions for each of the week’s activities There were links from this page to activity pages containing embedded content. The activity pages could be either Cloudworks webpages or Google Groups forum pages. Each week also had its own webpage on the Cloudworks platform. In addition, each activity also had its own page on Cloudworks. Participants could either

  15

contribute comments to these pages on Cloudworks, or add their own pages (called ‘clouds’) to the activity pages. Google Forms, Google Docs and other third party applications were used in some weeks. Bibsonomy (a bookmark and publication sharing site) was another platform used, and had both a central course page and individual week pages. Some learners extended the course environment by setting up Facebook groups. Learners were also invited to create their design portfolio on Cloudworks, blog about their experiences and create project team pages. A system of digital badges was employed as a mechanism for nurturing motivation and demonstrating achievement. Participation statistics

• 2420 participants registered for the course. • Of these, 1169 indicated on a survey that they planned to participate persistently. • The first week had 250 participants. This went down to 30 - 40 active participants

after week 2, with about another 50 - 150 ‘lurkers’ who accessed content but did not actively participate.

• Active participation dropped from 218 contributing members in week 1 to 20 contributors in week 6.

In week 8:

“The ratio of people viewing pages in the course space to actively participating (contributing something) remains between 4:1 and 10:1 (depending on the page). This is similar to the ratio observed for earlier weeks and highlights the fact that for most of those entering the course space their relationship to the course remained one of consumption rather than active participation.” (Cross, 2013: 7)

Learner satisfaction In the post-course student survey, participants were asked which of 16 key features of the programme they considered to have been important for their learning. They indicated the following:

• summaries by the facilitators • ability to opt out of groups and work on own • authentic design process structure in the course itself (course as an example of

what they were learning) • timetabled weekly activities • feeling part of a community • convergence video sessions (Google Hangouts)

  16

Interestingly, the social media elements and student interaction, and working in groups or pairs (social constructivist elements that the designers probably worked hard to build into the course) did not rank particularly highly among students as being important to their learning. Learners also reported dissatisfaction with trying to use multiple platforms, and found the main platform, Cloudworks, difficult to navigate. As one user reported:

“I … as have many others it seems, found the usability of the MOOC’s design problematic, with its variety of independent platforms that don’t integrate very well. For any online course to be successful … the technology has to be transparent – I’ve found it difficult to get past the technology this week and feel I’ve spent a lot of unproductive time as a result.” (Cross, 2013: 10)

Some learners also reported feeling overwhelmed, particularly in the first week, and that they were not given enough time to complete the learning activities. Overall, the report states that “64% were satisfied with the quality of the course and 50% felt that they had achieved their original learning goals” (Cross, 2013: 9). Of course, this also means that a whopping 46% of students were unhappy with the course quality, and half of all participants failed to achieve the goals they had set for themselves. It is difficult to see how these figures can be considered to represent success in terms of the learner experience. The section of the report that discusses the impact of the MOOC on participants’ changes of attitudes and practices in curriculum design seems tilted towards positive feedback. Indeed, it omits almost all references to negative feedback, with the exception of one quote which reports that “a key impact had been learning how ‘not to do’ a MOOC” (Cross, 2013: 13). Instead, numerous quotes are shared that report positive learner outcomes such as greater awareness, more confidence in using new design tools, deeper interest in the subject, and the embedding of the principles taught within participants’ professional work. The conclusion reached in the report is that “… this evaluation found a good range of case studies to indicate the experience and the tools presented in the MOOC will be useful for many who participated” (Cross, 2013: 13).

  17

Part Five Summary of points for reflection From this brief survey of current approaches to online distance learning, a number of key issues stand out which other providers and institutions seem to be wrestling with. These issues are summarized here as suggested points for reflection for the Greenwich Connect Distance Learning Working Group. Learning from MOOCs Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) are a high-profile development on the landscape of higher education distance learning in recent years. While the University of Greenwich may not have a specific intention to compete in the MOOC space, there are lessons to be learned from MOOCs that can enhance our own online/distance offerings. In particular, there are insights to be gained into online pedagogy, principles of effective course design, and approaches to embedding a range of learning technologies. Embedding learner engagement For effective online learning, student engagement needs to be embedded at the heart of course design. We might challenge ourselves to go beyond simply providing an online facility for learner commenting or feedback, setting quizzes or asking for responses to questions. Instead, we might explore ways to actively facilitate conversation (between teachers and learners and between learners), and design activities that encourage creative collaboration between learners as the very fabric of the programme. Building communities Developing a strong sense of community among course participants seems to be key to maximising learner retention. It is also critical for many collaborative teaching and learning activities to work properly throughout the duration of a programme. We might think carefully about how best to nurture a sense of community through a structured process of socialisation from the very earliest stages of a course, with the realization that this process may begin prior to the formal starting date. Learners’ technological and emotional competencies may also need to be incrementally developed. OERs and learner discovery Offering high-quality course content and materials is important, but content itself need not form the main focus for teaching and learning. It might rather be offered as a ‘spark’ for discussion and collaboration. Course facilitators should also explore the large collections of open educational resources (OERs) that are available for use. Encouraging learners to

  18

explore and evaluate a range of externally-produced resources is an important part of the learning experience. Learners are effectively robbed of this opportunity if all course content is created, validated and delivered by the teacher. Networked learning While most online distance courses will benefit from having a central online space to act as a hub for guidance, key communications, content and student support, course designers and facilitators may encourage learners to use external platforms and networks. This is important for nurturing learner confidence in using a range of networked technologies. It adds an element of authenticity to learning, and it helps learners to develop digital literacies, positive online identities and personal learning networks. Although conflicting interests around issues of institutional control of online spaces and quality assurance may need to be negotiated, the potential benefits outlined here will empower learners as digital citizens long after their course with us has ended. Indeed, for many, an experience of networked learning may form the basis for a lifelong relationship with education, and perhaps with the University of Greenwich.

  19

Bibl iography Bayne, S. and Cross, J. (2013) The pedagogy of the Massive Open Online Course: the UK view. York: The Higher Education Academy. Cross, S. (2013) Evaluation of the OLDS MOOC curriculum design course: participant perspectives, expectations and experiences. Milton Keynes: OLDS MOOC Project. Cuevas, H. M., Fiore, S. M., Bowers, C. A. and Salas, E. (2004) Fostering constructive and metacognitive activity in computer-based complex task training environments. Computers in Human Behavior 20 (2): 225-241. Downes, S. (2012) Connectivism and Connective Knowledge. Available online at http://www.downes.ca/files/books/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf. Last accessed: 10th June 2014. Downing, K. J., Lam, T., Kwong, T., Downing, W. and Chan, S. (2007) Creating interaction in online learning: a case study. ALT-J 15 (3): 201-215. Eynon, R., Gillani, N. and Hjorth, I. (2014) Conceptualizing learning and interaction in MOOCs. Presentation at the ESRC Breaking Boundaries Seminar Series, University of Oxford, UK. Grainger, B. (2013) Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Report 2013. University of London International Programmes. MOOCs@Edinburgh Group (2013) MOOCs@Edinburgh 2013: Report No. 1. The University of Edinburgh. Available online at https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/6683/1/Edinburgh_MOOCs_Report2013_no1.pdf. Last accessed: 10th June 2014. Pettenati, M. C. and Cigognini, M. E. (2009) Designing E-tivities to Increase Learning-to-learn Abilities [online]. eLearning Papers, University of Florence. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/909849/Designing_e-tivities_to_increase_learning-to-learn_abilities. Last accessed: 10th June 2014. Rowntree, D. (1995) Teaching and Learning Online: a correspondence education for the 21st century? British Journal of Educational Technology 26 (3): 205-215. Salmon, G. (2006) 80:20 for Emoderators. In I. Mac Labhrainn, C. McDonald Legg, D. Schneckenberg and J. Wildt (eds.), The Challenge of eCompetence in Academic Staff Development. Galway: CELT. Salmon, G. (2011) E-moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online (3rd Edition). Abingdon: Routledge. Salmon, G. (2013) E-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning (2nd Edition). Abingdon: Routledge. Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Available online at http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm. Last accessed: 10th June 2014.