MOOC Adaptation and Translation to Improve Equity in Participation

Authors

  • Freda Wolfenden The Open University, UK
  • Simon Cross The Open University,UK
  • Fiona Henry The Open University, UK

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v4i2.209

Keywords:

MOOCs, Teachers, Adaptation, India, capacity building,

Abstract

There is an urgent need to improve elementary and secondary school classroom practices across India and the scale of this challenge is argued to demand new approaches to teacher professional learning. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) represent one such approach and one that, in the context of this study, is considered to provide a means by which to transcend traditional training processes and disrupt conventional pedagogic practices. This paper offers a critical review of a large-scale MOOC deployed in English, and then in Hindi, to support targeted sustainable capacity building within an education development initiative (TESS-India) across seven states in India. The study draws on multiple sources of participant data to identify and examine features, which stimulated a buzz around the MOOCs, leading to over 40,000 registrations and a completion rate of approximately 50% for each of the two MOOCs.

References

Alcorn, A., Christensen, G., & Kapur, D. (2015). Higher education and MOOCs in India and the Global South. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47(3), 42 – 49. Retrieved from http://www.learntechlib.org/p/158453

Beatty, A., & Pritchett, L. (2012). From schooling goals to learning goals: How fast can student learning improve? Centre for Global Development, Policy Paper no.12, September 2012. Retrieved from http://www.cgdev.org/files/1426531_file_Beatty_Pritchett_Time_to_MLG_FINAL.pdf

Brown, J.S. (2005). New learning environments for the 21st Century: Exploring the edge. Retrieved from http://www.johnseelybrown.com/Change%20article.pdf

Castano-Munoz, J., Kreijns, K., Kalz, M., & Punie, Y. (2016). Does digital competence and occupational setting influence MOOC participation? Evidence from a cross-course survey. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 1- 19. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9123-z

Clow, D. (2013). MOOCs and the funnel of participation. Third Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK, 2013), Leuven, Belgium. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/36657/1/DougClow-LAK13-revisedsubmitted.pdf

Cross, S., & Whitelock, D. (2016). Similarity and difference in fee-paying and no-fee learner expectations, interaction and reaction to learning in a MOOC. Interactive Learning Environments. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2016.1138312

Cutrell, E., Bala,S., Bansal, C., Cross, A., Datha, N., John, A., Kumar, R., Parthasarathy, M., Prakash, S., Rajamani, S., & Thies, W. (2013). Massively empowered classroom: Enhancing technical education in India. TechReport. MSR-TR-2013-127. Retrieved from http://research.microsoft.com/enus/um/people/cutrell/publications-date.html

Czerniewicz, L., Deacon, A., Small, J., & Walji, S. (2014). Developing world MOOCs: A curriculum view of the MOOC landscape. Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies and Emerging Pedagogies, 2(3), 122-139. Retrieved from http://joglep.com/files/7614/0622/4917/2._Developing_world_MOOCs.pdf

Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168-182. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.010

Edwards, A. (2015). Recognising and realizing teachers’ professional agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 779- 784. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044333

Elmore, R.F. (1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601-616. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2149628

Elmore, R.F. (1999). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Education Review, 66(1), 1-26. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/designs/online/pdfs/reprints/5_elmor1.pdf

Fischer, G. (2014). Beyond Hype and Underestimation: Identifying Research Challenges For The Future of MOOCs. Distance Education, 35(2), 149-158. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.920752

Garrido, M., Koepke, L., Andersen, S., Mena, A., Macapagal, M., & Dalvit, L. (2016). Massive open online courses as a tool for workforce development in Colombia, the Philippines, and South Africa. Seattle: Technology & Social Change Group, University of Washington Information School. Retrieved from http://tascha.uw.edu/publications/massive-open-online-courses-as-a-tool-for-workforce-development-incolombia-the-philippines-and-south-africa/

Jordan, K. (2015). Massive Open Online Course completion rates revisited: assessment, length and attrition. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 341-358. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2112

Li, N., Verma, H., Skevi, A., Zufferey, G., Blom, J., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). Watching MOOCs together: Investigating co-located MOOC study groups. Distance Education, 35(2), 271- 233. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.917708

Liyanagunawardena, T., Williams, S., & Adams, A. (2013). The impact and reach of MOOCs: A developing countries’ perspective. eLearning Papers 33. Retrieved from http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/32452

Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2014). Supporting professional learning in a Massive Open Online Course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL), 15(5), 197-213. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1855

National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education. (2009). Towards preparing professional and humane teacher (NCFTE). New Delhi: National Council for Teacher Education.

Pompe, A. (n.d.). Advancing MOOCs for development initiative. Retrieved from https://www.coursetalk.com/advancingmoocs

Perna, L.W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R.F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S., & Evans, C. (2014). Moving through MOOCs. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 421-43. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14562423

Rienties, B., Toetenel, L., & Bryan, A. (2015). "Scaling up" learning design: Impact of learning design activities on LMS behavior and performance. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge - LAK '15, ACM, 315-319. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2723600

Sandeen, K. (2013). Integrating MOOCs into traditional higher education: The emerging ‘MOOC 3.0’ era. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(6), 34-39. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2013.842103

Safford, K., & Stinton, J. (2016). Barriers to blended digital distance vocational learning for non-traditional students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 135-150. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12222

Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2015). Stemming the flow: Improving retention for distance learning students. EDEN 2015 Annual Conference Proceedings, European Distance and E-Learning Network. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/44537/

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: University Press.

Wolfenden, F. (2015). TESS-India OER: Collaborative practices to improve teacher education. Indian Journal of Teacher Education, 1(3), 13-29.

Wolfenden, F., & Murphy, P. (2015). Problematising sustainable futures for

state level systemic change. Teacher Education. UFKIET, September 14-16, Oxford, UK.

Yadav, K. (2015). MobiMOOC — A massive open online course on horticulture — An effectiveness study, Uttar Pradesh State, INDIA. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/574

Downloads

Published

2017-06-13

How to Cite

Wolfenden, F., Cross, S., & Henry, F. (2017). MOOC Adaptation and Translation to Improve Equity in Participation. Journal of Learning for Development, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v4i2.209

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 2 (2017): ISSUE 2

Section

Research Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

 

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Received 2017-03-26
Accepted 2017-05-04
Published 2017-06-13