Accreditation of Moocs

Abstract

Higher education institutions face conflicting challenges; they must equip students with up-to-date knowledge in fields in which knowledge is constantly being renewed, while they also need to guide students to examine reality through broad-based observation and consider different scientific disciplines. They operate within different constrictions such as: learning program boundaries, budgetary constrictions, and lack of accessibility to experts in different areas, and the range of courses offered to students is limited. To cope with these constrictions, Ort Braude Academic College of Engineering opened an experimental program. As part of this program, students were allowed to study MOOC courses under the college’s supervision, and were eligible for accreditation if they completed the courses successfully. Only 15 out of the 600 students offered the program, registered for these courses. Only seven were accepted for the program. This paper describes the background for the college’s decision, the registration process and supervision of students, detailing students’ challenges and achievements in the MOOC courses. Students who completed the MOOC courses reported that they enjoyed meaningful learning, requiring serious efforts in comparison to the courses that the MOOC courses replaced. Given this positive feedback by the students, it was decided to continue with the experiment.

Research on MOOCs in Major Referred Journals

“…This finding can be explained by the fact that platforms and features of MOOCs advance quickly, allowing several new types of content to be integrated into MOOCs (Cisel & Bruillard, 2013). Our results also determined that science, technology, and mathematics, as well as social science, education, and humanities were the content categories covered most, which corresponds with findings from Pundak, Sabag, and Trotskovsky (2014). Second, content was mainly defined in terms of MOOCs' objectives, prerequisites required for participation in the MOOC, teaching scenarios, and, rarely, through strategies used to convey content.…”

Does Formal Credit Work for MOOC-Like Learning Environments?

“…Though MOOCs partly eliminated the deficiencies of OER, it has also unique criticisms such as lack of interaction between instructors and students (Hill, 2013;Billington & Fronmueller, 2013), unavailable course credits (Shen & Kuo, 2015), reliability of learning (Pundak et al, 2014), questionable course quality (Chen, 2014), sustainability (Universities UK, 2013), ineffective assessments (Shen & Kuo, 2015), and a high dropout rate (Daniel, 2012;Fischer, 2014;Sandeen, 2013a;Yousef, Chatti, Schroeder, & Wosnitza, 2014). These deficiencies will likely continue until MOOCs mature or transform to a new form.…”

“…Similarly, Sandeen (2013a) argued that online identity management must be resolved before awarding credit for MOOCs. That is, it should be ensured that the person who enrolls in the course is the same person who takes the exam (Pundak et al, 2014;Sandeen, 2013a). In a survey conducted with professors who taught MOOCs, only a quarter of them stated that those who passed the MOOC deserved credit (Kolowich, 2013b).…”

“…The majority of MOOCs provide planned and programmed online learning experiences with assessment models such as peer evaluation or online quizzes (Raposo-Rivas, Martinez-Figueira, & Campos, 2015). They mostly feature a course syllabus with fixed start and end dates (Pundak, Sabag, & Trotskovsky, 2014), as well as recognition in the form of a certificate of completion or participation (OpenupEd, 2015).…”

Promoting sustainable human development in engineering: Assessment of online courses within continuing professional development strategies

“…Besides, other initiatives remarks that online learners, compared with blended, report the perception of more workload and less clear courses' instructions (Lim et al, 2007). This suggests important consideration regarding psychological state of learners that has to be taken into account in designing clear online instruction and in handling learners' questions and requests (Pundak et al, 2014); specifically ensuring, as reported by Swan et al (2001): i) frequent and quality interaction with instructors; ii) dynamic Table 1 GDEE Competencies, adapted from (CSCT, 2008;Segal as et al, 2010;Svanstr€ om et al, 2008;Wiek et al, 2011).…”