Quality Frameworks for MOOCs

Abstract

Abstract:The hype surrounding MOOCs has been tempered by scepticism about the quality of MOOCs. The possible flaws of MOOCs include the quality of the pedagogies employed, low completion rates, and a failure to deliver on the promise of inclusive and equitable quality education for all. On the other hand, MOOCs have given a boost to open and online education, have become a symbol of a larger modernisation agenda for universities, and are perceived as tools for universities to improve the quality of blended and online education, both in degree education and Continuous Professional Development. MOOC provision is also much more open to external scrutiny as part of a stronger globalising higher education market. This has important consequences for quality frameworks and quality processes that go beyond the individual MOOC. In this context different quality approaches are discussed, including possible measures at different levels and the tension between product and process models. Two case studies are described, one at the institutional level (The Open University) and one at a MOOC platform level (FutureLearn), and how they intertwine is discussed. The importance of a national or international quality framework which carries with it a certification or label is illustrated with the OpenupEd Quality label. Both the label itself and its practical use are described in detail. The examples will illustrate that MOOCs require quality assurance processes tailored to e-learning and open education, embedded in institutional frameworks. The increasing unbundling of educational services may require additional quality processes.

Quality Frameworks and Learning Design for Open Education

“…The full texts of the remaining 160 studies were assessed and none of these studies actually presented or referenced a holistic quality framework for Open Education. Among these studies were two publications with the terms quality models and frameworks in the title: Ossiannilsson, Williams, Camilleri, and Brown (2015) and Jansen, Rosewell, and Kear (2017). Ossiannilsson et al (2015) compare different quality models which focus on online education and summarize that all analysed quality models suffer certain deficiencies and that a holistic quality framework for Open Education is not existing.…”

Auditing the Accessibility of MOOCs: A Four-Component Approach

“…Quality evaluation Quality evaluation was adapted from the OpenupEd quality label influenced by the Quality Code at the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) 7 and based on the E-xcellence 8 approach of using a benchmark for quality assessment in MOOCs [8]. The label has been used to evaluate the quality in MOOC platforms such as FutureLearn and UNED Abierta [12]. There have been several projects about quality in MOOCs within OpenupEd: Score2020 and BizMOOC 9 .…”

The UKM Students Perception towards Cyber Security

“…As a precocious step, adults should monitor educate youngster especially children under-age in sharing information. Arifin et al (2019) said users at this age need parental guidance and support because they are still naïve or immature to understand the risks of Internet (Bonk, 2015;Jansen et al, 2016).…”