Expert Perceptions of the Feasibility of MOOCs

Expert Perceptions of the Feasibility of MOOCsReporting on a Modified E-Delphi Study

Shalin Hai-JewPaper Forum2014 Big XII Teaching and Learning ConferenceOklahoma State UniversityStillwater, OklahomaAug. 4 – 5, 2014

Expert Perceptions of the Feasibility of MOOCs

2 Presentation description

For any innovation to take, experts and other decision-makers in a field have to buy into the endeavor. This is likely so for the adoption of MOOCs. To determine the feasibility of MOOC adoption, a modified e-Delphi study was conducted recently to capture the thinking of an expert panel of individuals involved in e-learning. This presentation describes the processes of setting up the modified e-Delphi study, beginning with the extensive literature review undertaken for the development of the survey instrument (and the use of NVivo 10 to code the sources). The major findings from this qualitative and mixed methods research suggests critical design, policy, and other structural issues that need to be addressed individually and collectively in order to roll out successful MOOCs.

Caveats: This is a quick view, with various types of data reduction from the content analysis of the responses in the modified e-Delphi study.


3 Welcome!

What are your interests re: this presentation?

Any experiences with modified e-Delphi studies?

What are your experiences with MOOCs? (Designing? Creating? Teaching? Administering? Supporting? Taking?)


4 A modified e-Delphi study

A classic Delphi study (a structured group procedure):

Delphi study as a research method originating in the 1950s by the RAND Corporation (“Research ANd Development”); first described in research in Dalkey & Helmer, 1965

Seating an expert panel from the same field or widely disparate ones

Working with experts in a field (or in unrelated fields) on a difficult problem

Eliciting insights individually (and anonymously) in an unstructured way in an early exploration phase and then moving to structured elicitation of the experts


5 A modified e-Delphi study (cont.)

A classic Delphi study (a structured group procedure) (cont.):

Sharing the expert insights and tacit knowledge; examining whether there is a move toward consensus or convergence on a difficult or complex problem

Evolving the process based on new information

Forecasting (~ Delphic oracle) and enhancing long-range human policy-making and decision-making


6 A modified e-Delphi study (cont.)

A modified e-Delphi study:

May be one-stage or multi-stage; may manifest differently over time

Brings in various sampling technologies including through information and communication technology (ICT)

Enables geographically distributed expert panels

Uses a range of survey techniques and technologies (with a focus on experts and on forecasting and on policymaking)

Does not strive for consensus per se (researchers expect a wide range of responses, including dissensus)


7 An overview of the research workflow


8 The extant literature on MOOCs (in 2013)

Impetuses for MOOCs

Types of MOOCs

Teaching and learning platforms with digital content delivery, comment ecosystems, mass assessments, back-end tracking, and augmentation by social media

Teaching strategies

Application of automation

Research on MOOC learning experiences and learner “types” (such as completing, auditing, disengaging, and sampling)

Funding


9 The extant literature on MOOCs (cont.)

Challenges with learner participation, retention, and completion

Big data research potentials

Types of courses and course contents

Credentialing and badging


10The survey instrument For the modified e-Delphi study


11 The open-ended survey instrument

About You

Part 1: Impressions of MOOCs (open-ended questions with text-based responses for all sections with a few exceptions)

Experiences

Impressions

Sentiments

Part 2: Local Adoptions of MOOCs as Course Offerings

Benefits of MOOCs (for stakeholder groups, for reputation, for budgets, for resources)

Pre-requisites for adoption


12 The open-ended survey instrument (cont.)

Part 3: Ensuring MOOC Quality

Strategies for managing learner “massiveness”

Definition of “quality learning” in MOOCs

Student identity in MOOCs

Criteria for course topics selection for MOOCs

Preferred instructor characteristics

Part 4: MOOCs in the Future

MOOC platforms as disruptive technologies or not

Open-courseware movement? Open-source movement? As critical parts of MOOCs?

Informal learning and certification or badging? Formal learning?

Long-term potentials?


13Sliders Indicating Future Likelihood for the “Potential Scenarios” (last) Question


14 The open-ended survey instrument (cont.)

Potential Scenarios

Near-term and midterm scenario for MOOCs

Popularity

Use by universities for formal learning and college credit? Use by corporations for training?

Star professors or common professors

Learner-taught MOOCs

Used for development in developing countries

Cobbled MOOC platforms using Web 2.0 technologies

Copyright or open-source

Big data advancements and insights


15 Seating the e-Delphi expert panel

Announcements through professional electronic mailing lists; announcements in the microblogging site Twitter (social network connectivity), and others

Self-identified and self-selected experts

Anonymous respondents

A fairly small dataset (may range from a few to a thousand or so traditionally)

Some 103 total respondents but not responses on all questions


16 Panel: Years spent in online learning in any capacity

17 Panel: Professional roles

18Panel: Direct experiences with MOOCs

19 Panel: Types of workplaces


20 Panel: Years in the current professional position

9.5 years average

Median: 10 years

Range from 1 – 30 years in the current professional position

21 Panel: Direct experiences w/ MOOC courses

22 Panel: Ways respondents learned about MOOCs (check all that apply)

23 Panel: Familiarity measures with MOOCs

24 Panel: Familiarity measures with MOOCs (on a bell curve)


25Some findings…

26 Potential positive social implications of MOOCs in a globalist context

27 Potential negative social implications of MOOCs in a globalist context

28 Possible benefits of MOOCs to the local university

29 Anticipated pre-requisites for launching MOOCs

30 Understood strategies for managing massive numbers of students


31 A Wordle™ of text responses for the definition of quality in MOOCs

32 Identity verification strategies for MOOC learners


33 Strategies for the selection of MOOC course topics

Current areas of research to spark innovations

General areas

University specialists

Learning groups of non-traditional and mid-career professionals to meet employer needs

Long-tail niche courses

Topics that other MOOCs haven’t covered

Future focused topics

“Why not anything?”

34 Criteria for the selection of faculty to lead MOOCs

35 MOOC platforms disruptive or evolutionary?

36 Intellectual property (IP) and MOOCs

37 MOOC suitability for various types of learning

38 Long-term potentials for MOOCs


39MOOC scenariosNear- and midterm


40 Summary of MOOC predictions

Little chance MOOCs will disappear in the near-term because of a lack of clear funding models

A fairly high probability MOOCs will be popularized beyond well-funded universities

A fairly high likelihood that MOOCs would be used for training by corporations

A low likelihood that MOOCs would be used as formal college courses

A high likelihood that MOOCs would be used as short courses, tutorials, and automated trainings

A low probability that star professors will be the main ones teaching MOOCs


41 Summary of MOOC predictions (cont.)

A better than chance likelihood that non-star professors will lead MOOCs

A 50% chance likelihood that MOOCs will be taught by the learners in that MOOC

A low probability that MOOCs will only be developed in advanced or well developed countries (a high probability that MOOCs will be adopted and developed in developing countries)

A high likelihood that MOOC platforms will be developed and maintained commercially

A high likelihood that MOOC platforms will be created by cobbling Web 2.0 technologies


42 Summary of MOOC predictions (cont.)

A high likelihood that MOOC learners will be separated into an elite tuition-paying core and a non-paying general public periphery

An equal chance that learners will be treated equally (without a paying elite vs. a general non-paying public)

A fairly high probability that MOOC courses would fall under copyright protection (and other intellectual property laws); also a fairly high probability that MOOCs will be released in an open-source way

A high probability of new insights of human learners and their needs from “big data” resulting from MOOCs; respondents also suggested that there is a low probability of not finding out new insights from the big data related to MOOCs (in a conversely-phrased “checking” question)


43 Iff and other conditionals

Actual and documented learning

Effective design

Respect for the individual learner and his /her personhood

Faculty voice and choices

Egalitarianism in terms of faculty leading

A clear (and fair) funding model

Useful research from the big data

Proper identification of learners

Proper crediting of learning (in the various contexts)…


44 Real-world test of the findings?

In the year since this study was conducted (June 2013), what predictions do you see as having been borne out? (Is this a valid test of the “predictions” of the modified e-Delphi study results? Are there extant trends that were not addressed here?

Any core changes to the status quo in regards to MOOCs?


45 Implications? Questions? Comments?

Are some of these findings intuitive? Others counter-intuitive? Elaborate.

How would you answer some of these survey questions? Why?

What other questions would you have asked in this instrument? Why?

In terms of variations on MOOCs (MCs, MOCs, MOCs, OOCs, OCs, OCs), which do you see as having the most potential? Why? (A recent suggestion involved the creation of LOOCs or “local open online courses”.)

What do you think is next?


46 References

Hai-Jew, S. (2014). Iff and other conditionals: Expert perceptions of the feasibility of massive open online courses (MOOCs)—A modified e-Delphi study. Ch. 13. In Hai-Jew’s Remote Workforce Training: Effective Technologies and Strategies. IGI-Global.


47

An addendum re: the research method


48 Some thoughts on modified e-Delphi studies

Overall

Serves as an effective research methodology that uses survey system technologies well (particularly those that incorporate multimedia elements like videos, audio files, slideshows, and images)

Works well as an open-ended method with plenty of designed open-ended questions (without any forced consensus or forced dissensus)

Seating Expert Panels

May be benefitted by the far-distance and near-in access to various experts

May be weakened by self-assertions of expertise by anonymous participants


49 Some thoughts on modified e-Delphi studies (cont.)

Creating Related Survey Instruments

Requires in-depth and thorough secondary research about the topic to create depth and breadth

Requires plenty of vetting of test instruments

Single or Multi-Staging?

May be more effective as a multi-stage process particularly for more complex issues


50 Some thoughts on modified e-Delphi studies (cont.)

Light Use

May work as a near-term and mid-term forecasting method (a kind of predictive analytics), if held lightly

If something has to be put at risk based on the results of the modified e-Delphi study, it would be good to conduct much more research

Additional Research Necessary about Effective Modified e-Delphi Study Methods

Would benefit from more research in terms of efficacy


51 The benefits of maintaining a research journal

Structured reflective practice around the research

A documented venue for questioning at every stage of the research work

Not released with the work at publication

52 Conclusion and contact

Dr. Shalin Hai-Jew

Instructional Designer

Information Technology Assistance Center (iTAC)

Kansas State University

212 Hale Library

Manhattan, KS 66506-1200

785-532-5262 (work phone)

[email protected]

A special thanks to the attendees at the SIDLIT Special Interest Group (SIG) lunch session on MOOCs who helped catch a few problematic charts, which have since been re-drawn and labeled. :P It’s always good to have many eyes on a work, especially before going public!

mailto:[email protected]

Expert Perceptions of the Feasibility of MOOCs

Education

moocs types of moocs

adoption of moocs

moocs criteria

successful moocs

feasibility of moocs

experts expert perceptions

modified e delphi study

adoption expert perceptions