1. CO-CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE THROUGH MOOC DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT Laura Morrison, MA Candidate Diana Petrarca, PhD Janette Hughes, PhD

2. MOOCS: A BRIEF BACKGROUND - Moocs – new open-access trend in online learning (Ldrs: Standford, MIT & Harvard) - Generally, no pre-reqs, no limit to number of participants & no marks that count toward a certificate or degree - Participation based purely on individual interest in the subject matter – self-directed - xMoocs (comparable to a traditional course) & cMoocs (connectivist learning model)

3. INTRODUCTION - Study involved one graduate-level class engaged in the creation of mini-mOOCs - Course based on a constructivist & connectivist pedagogy (students positioned as both producers and consumers) - In this case, students positioned as the experts on MOOC creation after spending most of the semester learning about effective online learning tools and the principles of online learning and course design - We investigated the pedagogical shifts or turning points the students encountered when considering online learning from the development & design perspective and from the collaborative peer-review process in which they participated

4. THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1.) What is the impact on learning for a student when designing and developing a MOOC? 2.) What is the impact on learning for a student engaged in a peer-review process of evaluating her colleagues' mOOCs?

5. LITERATURE REVIEW - Positive implications for education: Vardi, 2012; McFedries, 2011; Farrell, 2012; de Ward et al. - MOOCs not the answer to our educational shortcomings: Mackness, Mak & Williams, 2010; Tschofen & Mackness, 2012; Shah, 2012; Martin, 2012

6. METHODOLOGY - Ethnographic case study (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 2000) - Teacher & student as ethnographers – both socially & physically immersed in the case, accumulating local knowledge

7. SETTING - 36-hour course (3-hr classes over a 12-week semester) - "Learning Tools" course in the M.Ed. program at a tech-intensive university in Ontario - Fully online classes (Adobe Connect for the weekly classes & wikispaces for knowledge and resource sharing & knowledge/idea co- construction) - Weebly & Google platform (Gmail, G-chat, Google Drive) for MOOC construction and group work collaboration

8. CASE STUDY PARTICIPANTS - Participant researchers: course instructor & one female student - Course made up of 23 graduate students – 12 females & 11 males - Students' backgrounds ranged: college instructors, full-time teachers, facilitators in the private sector and school administrators. Ages ranged from 20s to 50+

9. DATA SOURCES - Participant observation: Actions & events surrounding the student's design & development of the MOOC observed over 3 months by the course instructor - Student's personal experiences, observation and conversations with the course instructor and peers recorded throughout the process -Open-ended interviews - Student generated artefacts associated with the student's MOOC

10. PROCEDURE - First – students examined & deconstructed WBLTs using Clark and Mayer's (2011) principles of design for e-learning - In pairs, students then created likert-scale criteria to evaluate WBLTs & a justification chart explaining the rationale for including each item (helped students develop a critical eye re: effective & sub-par tools) - Students then encouraged to audit a MOOC after discussing the difference between a learning tool and a learning environment - Final portion of the course devoted to the examination and creation of a MOOC - Through readings and class discussions, students' understanding of a MOOC was refined and students continuously reflected on & revised their MOOCs - Half-way through the course, the students were required to have a "lite" version of their MOOC so their peers could review, evaluate & provide feedback (anonymous, online survey)

11. FINDINGS – STUDENT LEARNING: DESIGNING & DEVELOPING A MOOC - The student participant-researcher became more familiar with the architecture of a MOOC & the difference between an x and cMOOC "An xMOOC isn't all that different from the traditional classroom…Creating our cMOOC, the proper principles of design needed to be put in place to ensure or maximize student learning." - She also realized how much it was possible to include collaborative And authentic learning in a cMOOC "We wanted students to feel like they were involved in an authentic and situated learning experience where work is shared with the wider learning community…I don't think I would have fully appreciated the design elements…or the educational benefits of a cMOOC without having gone through the efforts of creating my own."

12. FINDINGS – STUDENT LEARNING: DESIGNING & DEVELOPING A MOOC - MOOC creation was a motivating factor "I was never bored and although it was hard work thinking about all the deliberative elements that should or needed to be included…I was super encouraged to do the work…I could see when something wasn't quite right and instead of just thinking, "oh it's good enough" I just couldn't leave it!” - The peer collaboration process transformed how she saw group work "We were all able to pay close attention to what would make our MOOC really effective and run with it." "If I had a base idea for the MOOC and a general idea of its execution, when I presented my ideas to my group, they brought their own ideas and experiences and we were able to grow these ideas into really creative and engaging items for the MOOC."

13. FINDINGS – STUDENT LEARNING: EVALUATING PEERS' MOOCS AND THE PEER-REVIEW PROCESS - Peer review process allowed the student to see what others had produced in the class and evaluate, from a detached perspective, what was working and what wasn't & then to tailor her own MOOC to make it more effective "It really took seeing certain features, strategies, design elements and activities as a user (as opposed to the producer) to see why something either really works or doesn't work." - Most common mistakes on others' MOOCs: Text-heavy pages, lack of stream-lining & consistency with themes/layout design from page to page, assumption users had previous background in the subject matter presented

14. FINDINGS – STUDENT LEARNING: EVALUATING PEERS' MOOCS AND THE PEER-REVIEW PROCESS - Student also found feedback from other groups extremely helpful "It's funny because going into the peer-feedback portion, I thought our MOOC was fairly user-friendly, but the criticisms we found with the usersbility in other groups, we received similar feedback as well! It really highlighted that for us that of course we found everything makes sense to us cause we created it!"

15. CONCLUSION - Three main advantages made obvious from the study: i.) Students became more deeply familiar with MOOCs and what they have to offer ii.) Students gained a deeper understanding of the difference between an x and cMOOC iii.) Students gained a deeper understanding of the instructional and e-learning design involved in different MOOCs

16. FINAL THOUGHTS… " We were able to put theory into practice and apply what we had learned about instructional and multimedia design and Mayer and Clark’s (2011) principles of e-learning. It was so interesting to build the architecture of this mOOC knowing that every bit of instruction, every page, every activity was deliberatively planned according to sound educational theory. Some of the design principles were obvious and things I have used in my own pedagogical practice, but it was really affirming being armed with the knowledge that we were doing these things not just because it seemed right to do it one way or another, but because there was sound theoretical research behind choosing to construct, add and exclude various components of the mOOC. It takes out the guess-work regarding whether or not certain functions or features will be successful or not in terms of student usability or learning. In fact, creating the mOOC has improved not only my MOOC-creating skills, but also other areas of my own pedagogical practice. When designing lesson plans, Power Points, online learning tasks, I’ve been able to draw from what I learned when creating the mOOC. "

17. LAURA.MORRISON@UOIT.CA DIANA.PETRARCA@UOIT.CA JANETTE.HUGHES@UOIT.CA Thank You!