10 ways to design sticky MOOCs
Increasing
persistence
Many of the arguments around course completion in MOOCs are,
I have argued, category mistakes, based on a false comparison with traditional
HE, semester-long courses. We should not, of course, allow these arguments to
distract us from making MOOCs better, in the sense of having more sticking
power for participants. This is where things get interesting, as there have
been some features of recent MOOCs that have caught my eye as providing higher
levels of persistence among learners. The University of Derby ‘Dementia’ MOOC,
full title ‘Bridging the Dementia Divide: Supporting People Living with
Dementia’ is a case in point.
1. Audience sensitive
MOOC
learners are not undergraduates who expect a diet of lectures delivered
synchronously over a semester. They are not at college and do not want to
conform to institutional structures and timetables. It is unfortunate that many
MOOC designers treat MOOC learners as if they were physically (and
psychologically) at a University – they are not. They have jobs, kids, lives,
things to do. MOOC designers have to get out of their institutional thinking
and realize that their audience often has a different set of intentions and needs.
The new MOOCs need to be sensitive to learner needs.
2. Make all material available
To be
sensitive to a variety of learners (see why course completion is a wrong-headed
measure), the solution is to provide flexible approaches to learning within a
MOOC, so that different learners can take different routes and approaches. Some
may want to be part of a ‘cohort’ of learners and move through the course with a
diet of synchronous events but many MOOC learners are far more likely to be driven
by interest than paper qualifications, so make the learning accessible from the
start. Having materials available from day one allows learners to start later
than others, proceed at their own rate and, importantly, catch up when they
choose. This is in line with real learners in the real world and not
institutional learning.
2. Modular
The idea of
a strictly linear diet of lectures and learning should also be eschewed, as
different learners want different portions of the learning, at different times.
A more modular approach, where modules are self-contained and can be taken in
any order is one tactic. Adaptive MOOCs, using AI software that guides learners
through content on the basis of their needs, is another. 6.16% of the dementia
MOOCs didn’t start with Module 1.
This tracked data shows that some completed the
whole course in one day, others did a couple of modules on one day, many did
the modules in a different order, some went through in a linear and measured
fashion. Some even went backwards. The lesson here is that the course needs to
be designed to cope with these different approaches to learning, in terms of
order and time. This is better represented in this state diagram, showing the different
strokes for different folks.
Each circle is a module containing the number of
completions. Design for flexibility.
3. Shorter
MOOC
learners don’t need the 10-week semester structure. Some want much shorter and
faster experiences, others medium length and some longer. Higher Education is
based on an agricultural calendar, with set semesters that fit harvest and
holiday patterns. The rest of the world does not work to this pre-industrial
timetable. In the Derby Dementia
MOOC, there is considerable
variability on when people did their learning. Many took less that the six
weeks but that did not mean they spent less time on the course, Many preferred concentrated
bouts of longer learning than the regular once per week model that many MOOCs
recommend or mandate. Others did the week-by-week learning. We have to
understand that learning for MOOC audiences is taken erratically and not always
in line with the campus model. We need to design for this.
4. Structured & unstructured
I personally find the drip-feed, synchronous, moving through
the course with a cohort, rather annoying and condescending. The evidence in
the Dementia MOOC suggests that there was more learner activity in unsupported
periods than supported periods. This shows a considerable thirst for doing things
at your own pace and convenience, than that mandated by synchronous, supported
courses. Nevertheless, this is not an argument for a wholly unstructured
strategy. This MOOC attracted a diverse set of learners and having both
structured and unstructured approach brought the entire range of learners
along.
You can see that the learners who experienced the structured
approach of live Monday announcement by the lead academic, a Friday wrap-up
with a live webinar, help forum and email query service was a sizeable group in
any one week. Yet the others, who learnt without support were also substantial
in every week. This dual approach seems ideal, appealing to an entire range of
learners with different needs and motivations.
5. Social not necessary
Many have
little interest in social chat and being part of a consistent group or cohort.
One of the great MOOC myths is that social participation is a necessary
condition for learning and/or success. Far too much is made of ‘chat’ in MOOCs,
in terms of needs and quality. I’m not arguing for no social components in
MOOCs, only claiming that the evidence shows that they are less important than
the ‘social constructivist’ orthodoxy in design would suggest. In essence, I’m
saying it is desirable but not essential. To rely on this as the essential pedagogic
technique, is, in my opinion, a mistake and is to impose an ideology on
learners that they do not want.
6. Adult
content
In line
with the idea of being sensitive to the needs of the learners, I’ve found too
many rather earnest, talking heads from academics, especially the cosy chats,
more suitable to the 18 year-old undergraduate, than the adult learner. You need
to think about voice and tone, and avoid second rate PhD research and an
over-Departmental approach to the content. I’m less interested in what your
Department is doing and far more interested in the important developments and
findings, at an international level in your field. MOOC learners have not
chosen to come to your University, they’ve chosen to study a topic. We have to
let up on being too specific in content, tone and approach.
7. Content as a driver
In another interesting study of MOOCs, the researchers found that stickiness was highly correlated to the quality of the 'content'. This contradicts those who believe that the primary driver in MOOCs is social. They found that the learners dropped out if they didn't find the content appropriate, or of the right quality and good content turns out to be a primary driver for perseverance and completion, as their stats show.
8. Badges
In another interesting study of MOOCs, the researchers found that stickiness was highly correlated to the quality of the 'content'. This contradicts those who believe that the primary driver in MOOCs is social. They found that the learners dropped out if they didn't find the content appropriate, or of the right quality and good content turns out to be a primary driver for perseverance and completion, as their stats show.
8. Badges
The
Dementia MOOC had six independent, self-contained sections, each with its own
badge for completion, and each can be taken in any order, with an overall badge
for completion. These partial rewards for partial completion proved valuable.
It moves us away from the idea that certificates of completion are the way we
should judge MOOC participation. In the Dementia MOOC 1201 were rewarded with
badges against 527 completion certificates.
9. Demand driven
MOOCs are made for all sorts of reasons, marketing, grant applications, even whim - this is supply led. Yet the MOOCs market has changed dramatically, away from representing the typical course offerings in Universities, towards more vocational subjects. This is a good thing, as the providers are quite simply reacting to demand. Before making your MOOC, do some marketing, estimate the size of your addressible audince and tweak your marketing towards that audience. Tis is likely to resultin a higher number of participants, as well as higher stickiness.
10. Marketing
If there's one thing that will get you more participants and more stickiness, it's good marketing. Yet academic institutions are often short of htese skills or see it as 'trade'. This is a big mistake. Marketing matters, it is a skill and need a budget.
9. Demand driven
MOOCs are made for all sorts of reasons, marketing, grant applications, even whim - this is supply led. Yet the MOOCs market has changed dramatically, away from representing the typical course offerings in Universities, towards more vocational subjects. This is a good thing, as the providers are quite simply reacting to demand. Before making your MOOC, do some marketing, estimate the size of your addressible audince and tweak your marketing towards that audience. Tis is likely to resultin a higher number of participants, as well as higher stickiness.
10. Marketing
If there's one thing that will get you more participants and more stickiness, it's good marketing. Yet academic institutions are often short of htese skills or see it as 'trade'. This is a big mistake. Marketing matters, it is a skill and need a budget.
Conclusion
The researchers at Derby used a very interesting phrase in
their conclusion, that “a certain amount
of chaos may have to be embraced”. This is right. Too many MOOCs are
over-structured, too linear and too like traditional University courses. They
need to loosen up and deliver what these newer diverse audiences want. Of course, this also means being
careful about what is being achieved here. Quality within these looser
structures and in each of these individual modules must be maintained.
Bibiography
Clark, D. (2013). MOOCs: Adoption
curve explains a lot. http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/moocs-adoption-curve-explains-lot.html
Hayes, S.
(2015). MOOCs and Quality: A review of the recent literature. Retrieved 5
October 2015, from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/MOOCs-and-
Quality-Literature-Review-15.pdf
Ho, A. D.,
Reich, J., Nesterko, S., Seaton, D. T., Mullaney, T., Waldo, J. & Chuang,
I. (2014). HarvardX
and MITx: The first year of open online courses. Re- trieved 22
September 2015, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263
Leach, M. Hadi, S. Bostock, (2016) A. Supporting
Diverse Learner Goals through Modular Design and Micro-Learning. Presentation
at European MOOCs Stakeholder SummHadi, S. Gagen P. New model formeasuring MOOCs completion rates. Presentation at European MOOCs Stakeholder Summit.
You can enrol for the University of Derby 'Dementia' MOOC here.
And more MOOC stuff here.