Introduction
The MOOC OER was positively received by the ETEC 565M Peer Group. Many peers participated in all of the activities, including the iTunes U Activity # 5, which was optional for those with iDevices. There was also lots of interaction between peers in the activities, sharing personal experiences and knowledge. Positive feedback was also given for all the activities. Many people were interested in knowing how to set-up the Live Chat option within Weebly so they can also incorporate it in their own design.
Brenda created the What is a MOOC? Section of the OER, as well as the Impact of MOOCs on Professional Development and Continuing Education Section. Brenda was an asset in encouraging discussion on all the discussion boards and twitter feeds.
Jenny created a step-by-step guide as a reference of the things to consider when developing a MOOC as well as design considerations during the development of a MOOC. Jenny also monitored and interacted with the peers who participated in the end discussion in Activity #2: Hands on Experience In edX.
Kevin was in charge of the development and design of the Mobile MOOC OER section. Within this section, he designed all of its content along with the embedded Google questionnaire, discussion Activity # 4, and the additional bonus activity for anyone who had access to iTunes University. Next, he setup the Twitter feed and embedded discussion for Activity #1 along with implementing the live chat feature for the website. Finally, he was in charge of putting together the site’s navigation, badge design, and was the inspiration behind the “Who Said What?” hidden mobile activity.
Janna put together most of the Impact On Education Section of the OER, including writing and creating the video on the Impact of MOOCs on Education, and the Pro vs CON Infograph. Janna also did a lot of the website formatting and editing.
Observations
While not everyone tweeted a resource, those that did in Activity #1 generated a lot of discussion and provided a variety of different perspectives about the benefits and challenges of MOOCs. The wide ranging topics included the culture of MOOCs with Shu’s resource “Are MOOCs hurting existing education systems in developing countries” and Paul P’s resource about the cultural ceiling; completion rates and accreditation with Gordon’s tweet about Katy Jordan’s study, and Mary’s tweet about “The Science of Happiness”; and how MOOCs are evolving with Ed’s “MOOCs Find Their Audience” contribution to name a few. This provided a good general understanding of MOOCs and their pros and cons before moving on to the hands-on activities.
In Activity #2, participants had the opportunity to explore using the edX platform. They were asked to try adding content, embedding videos, creating quizzes, and participating in the discussion. For most participants, this is their first time using a MOOC platform. Everyone commented on how easy it was to use the platform without any prior training required. Some participants even started exploring other tools such as the Wiki as well as looking into the mobile capabilities of the platform.
Participants were asked to develop their own MOOC program in Activity #3. Feedback and comments showed that students for the most part enjoyed the idea of being able to develop a personalized learning program. There was some insightful comments about choosing MOOCs with care, based on “what courses are better suited for an online platform”, as well as the potential “value” and quality of the courses based on the institutes that developed them.
A few points of interest as it relates to the compiled content for mobile MOOCs. Firstly, the embedded Google questionnaire showed an interesting look into the participants knowledge and experience with MOOC’s and mobile devices within education. As the questionnaire revealed, about 50% of our peers have had some type of experience using MOOCs, although 96% used mobile devices in education, with 21% had used mobile devices alongside MOOCs. (see appendix 1). Discussion within activity #4 in the mobile MOOC OER section correlates this observation as many comments reveal that students did not have an opportunity to experience MOOC mixed with mobile learning. Robert started this ongoing conversation stating “I have never used MOOCs, though I had heard of them” with Paige realizing that “they have lots of potential” to Elaine stating “I didn't even consider the time it takes to creating MOOC courses”. Secondly, an unforeseen advantage from implementing the live chat feature on the site provided students direct access to our group members at specific times allowing for synchronous communication and learning to take place; an unexpected adjunct to our mobile MOOC design. This prompted our team to discuss the advantages of synchronous and asynchronous learning in relation to our mobile MOOC OER as it could apply to the ubiquitous nature of mobile devices within a MOOC environment. Finally, the optional iTunes U activity provided undiscovered evidence on how student learning can flow despite changes in time and location. Course content, tests, and discussions were pushed out to students throughout the week without the worry of time or place. In addition, students who participated commented on how the iTunes U platform could send notifications to their mobile devices to make them aware of additional learning activities, tests, and comments made by others. This prompted our group to ensure that further information on coherence learning within the context of time and space was included within the mobile MOOC OER section.
Conclusion
Overall, as a group we were very happy with the MOOC OER and with how well we “jelled” as a team. Everyone worked to communicate with one another and shared the workload. Everyone came from different backgrounds, bringing different knowledge and skills to the team. We learned from one another and built on each others ideas. We feel that we created a product that we can be proud to include in our learning portfolios.
The MOOC OER was positively received by the ETEC 565M Peer Group. Many peers participated in all of the activities, including the iTunes U Activity # 5, which was optional for those with iDevices. There was also lots of interaction between peers in the activities, sharing personal experiences and knowledge. Positive feedback was also given for all the activities. Many people were interested in knowing how to set-up the Live Chat option within Weebly so they can also incorporate it in their own design.
Brenda created the What is a MOOC? Section of the OER, as well as the Impact of MOOCs on Professional Development and Continuing Education Section. Brenda was an asset in encouraging discussion on all the discussion boards and twitter feeds.
Jenny created a step-by-step guide as a reference of the things to consider when developing a MOOC as well as design considerations during the development of a MOOC. Jenny also monitored and interacted with the peers who participated in the end discussion in Activity #2: Hands on Experience In edX.
Kevin was in charge of the development and design of the Mobile MOOC OER section. Within this section, he designed all of its content along with the embedded Google questionnaire, discussion Activity # 4, and the additional bonus activity for anyone who had access to iTunes University. Next, he setup the Twitter feed and embedded discussion for Activity #1 along with implementing the live chat feature for the website. Finally, he was in charge of putting together the site’s navigation, badge design, and was the inspiration behind the “Who Said What?” hidden mobile activity.
Janna put together most of the Impact On Education Section of the OER, including writing and creating the video on the Impact of MOOCs on Education, and the Pro vs CON Infograph. Janna also did a lot of the website formatting and editing.
Observations
While not everyone tweeted a resource, those that did in Activity #1 generated a lot of discussion and provided a variety of different perspectives about the benefits and challenges of MOOCs. The wide ranging topics included the culture of MOOCs with Shu’s resource “Are MOOCs hurting existing education systems in developing countries” and Paul P’s resource about the cultural ceiling; completion rates and accreditation with Gordon’s tweet about Katy Jordan’s study, and Mary’s tweet about “The Science of Happiness”; and how MOOCs are evolving with Ed’s “MOOCs Find Their Audience” contribution to name a few. This provided a good general understanding of MOOCs and their pros and cons before moving on to the hands-on activities.
In Activity #2, participants had the opportunity to explore using the edX platform. They were asked to try adding content, embedding videos, creating quizzes, and participating in the discussion. For most participants, this is their first time using a MOOC platform. Everyone commented on how easy it was to use the platform without any prior training required. Some participants even started exploring other tools such as the Wiki as well as looking into the mobile capabilities of the platform.
Participants were asked to develop their own MOOC program in Activity #3. Feedback and comments showed that students for the most part enjoyed the idea of being able to develop a personalized learning program. There was some insightful comments about choosing MOOCs with care, based on “what courses are better suited for an online platform”, as well as the potential “value” and quality of the courses based on the institutes that developed them.
A few points of interest as it relates to the compiled content for mobile MOOCs. Firstly, the embedded Google questionnaire showed an interesting look into the participants knowledge and experience with MOOC’s and mobile devices within education. As the questionnaire revealed, about 50% of our peers have had some type of experience using MOOCs, although 96% used mobile devices in education, with 21% had used mobile devices alongside MOOCs. (see appendix 1). Discussion within activity #4 in the mobile MOOC OER section correlates this observation as many comments reveal that students did not have an opportunity to experience MOOC mixed with mobile learning. Robert started this ongoing conversation stating “I have never used MOOCs, though I had heard of them” with Paige realizing that “they have lots of potential” to Elaine stating “I didn't even consider the time it takes to creating MOOC courses”. Secondly, an unforeseen advantage from implementing the live chat feature on the site provided students direct access to our group members at specific times allowing for synchronous communication and learning to take place; an unexpected adjunct to our mobile MOOC design. This prompted our team to discuss the advantages of synchronous and asynchronous learning in relation to our mobile MOOC OER as it could apply to the ubiquitous nature of mobile devices within a MOOC environment. Finally, the optional iTunes U activity provided undiscovered evidence on how student learning can flow despite changes in time and location. Course content, tests, and discussions were pushed out to students throughout the week without the worry of time or place. In addition, students who participated commented on how the iTunes U platform could send notifications to their mobile devices to make them aware of additional learning activities, tests, and comments made by others. This prompted our group to ensure that further information on coherence learning within the context of time and space was included within the mobile MOOC OER section.
Conclusion
Overall, as a group we were very happy with the MOOC OER and with how well we “jelled” as a team. Everyone worked to communicate with one another and shared the workload. Everyone came from different backgrounds, bringing different knowledge and skills to the team. We learned from one another and built on each others ideas. We feel that we created a product that we can be proud to include in our learning portfolios.