Advertisement

Towards Fostering Quality in Open Online Education Through OER and MOOC Practices

  • Ebba OssiannilssonEmail author
  • Zehra Altınay
  • Fahriye Altınay
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)

Abstract

This book chapter offers institutions a roadmap for establishing policies about the quality of open online education. The chapter also describes how institutions can enhance and assure quality through open education resources (OER) and massive open online course (MOOC) practices. Quality plays an essential role in innovation and drives changes in higher educational practices. The quality assessment of open online practices requires evaluation methods that are used to examine the potential for achieving quality. The increased digitization of openness and access has led practitioners of higher education to question the fundamental aspects of quality. This chapter discusses the quality of OER and MOOC practices and presents ways that both institutions and professionals can enhance their usability. In pedagogical enhancement, the use of media, increased personalization, open and shared content, participation, reflection, and social learning are the main measures used to assess the quality of MOOCs. Because the effects of international cooperation on higher education are important, the practice of OERs and MOOCs is strategic for the institutional management of internationalization as well as the mobility of students and academic staff. Student satisfaction and services for the participants—the learners—in higher education are essential. Therefore, OERs and MOOCs present strategic opportunities to ensure the quality of open online education.

Keywords

Change Innovation MOOC OER Quality 

References

  1. Bossu, C., Bull, D., & Brown, M. (2012). Opening up down under: The role of open educational resources in promoting social inclusion in Australia. Distance Education, 33(2), 151–164. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2012.692050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Camilleri, A., Ehlers, U. D., & Pawlowski, J. (2014). State of the art review of quality issues related to open educational resources (OER). European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.Google Scholar
  3. Castaño-Muñoz, J., Redecker, C., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2013). Open education 2030: Planning the future of adult learning in Europe. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28(3), 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. COL. (2015). Open Education Resources (OER): What, Why, How? Retrieved from https://www.col.org/news/speeches-presentations/open-education-resources-oer-what-why-how
  5. Conole, G. (2012). Fostering social inclusion through open educational resources (OER). Distance Education, 33(2), 131–134. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2012.700563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cope, E., & Leeds, J. (2015). MOOCs: Branding, enrollment, and multiple measures of success. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall183/leeds_cope183.html
  7. Cormier, D. (2016). Making the community the curricula. Retrieved from https://davecormier.pressbooks.com
  8. Creelman, A., Ehlers, U., & Ossiannilsson, E. (2014). Perspectives on quality: An account of the EFQUEL MOOC quality project. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2, 78–87.Google Scholar
  9. Dobbin, G., Diaz, V., & Brown, M. (2013). How online innovations are transforming learning a report on the ELI fall focus session. EDUCAUSE. ELI Paper 3.Google Scholar
  10. Downes, S. (2013). MOOC—diversity and community in online learning. Unpublished maerial. Keynote presentation 27th November 2013, delivered to 26e Entretiens Jacques Cartier, Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  11. D-Transform. (2015). Digital transform. Retrieved from http://www.dtransform.eu/about-us/
  12. European Commission. (2014). High-level group on modernization of higher education. Report to the European Commission on new modes of learning and teaching in higher education. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/reports/modernisation-universities_en.pdf
  13. Haggard, S., Brown, S., Mills, R., Tail, A., Warburton, S., Lawton, W., & Angulo, T. (2013). The maturing of the MOOC: Literature review of massive open online courses and other forms of online distance learning. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. UK, Government. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240193/13-1173-maturing-of-the-mooc.pdf
  14. Hockings, C., Brett, P., & Terentjevs, M. (2012). Making a difference—inclusive learning and teaching in higher education through open educational resources. Distance Education. Special Issue: OERs and Social Inclusion. 237–252. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2012.692066
  15. Kawachi, P. (2013). Quality assurance guidelines for open educational resources: TIPS framework. New Delhi: The Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA). Retrieved from http://cemca.org.in/ckfinder/userfiles/files/OERQ_TIPS_978-81-88770-07-6.pdf
  16. Kim, J. (2015, October 1). Insider/outsider MOOC divide. [Web Log Comment]. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/insider-outsider-mooc-divide#.Vg4iQaEwtQ5.twitter
  17. Lane, A. (2012). A review of the role of national policy and institutional mission in European distance teaching universities with respect to widening participation in higher education study through open educational resources. Distance Education, 33(2), 135–150. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2012.692067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Phelan, L. (2012). Politics, practices, and possibilities of open educational resources. Distance Education, 33(2), 279–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, A. (2015). Implicit theories about intelligence and growth (personal best) goals: Exploring reciprocal relationships. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 207–223. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morris, N., & Lambe, J. (2014). Studying a MOOC. Retrieved from www.palgravestudyskills.com/studyingamooc
  21. Morville, P. (2005). Ambient findability: What we find changes who we become. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  22. Nikoi, S., & Armellini, A. (2012). The OER mix in higher education: Purpose, process, product, and policy. Distance Education, 332, 165–184. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2012.697439
  23. Olcott, D. (2012). OER perspectives: Emerging issues for universities. Distance Education, 33(2), 283–290. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2012.700561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Opencontent.org. (2014, March 25). Re: The access compromise and the 5th T. Retrieved from http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3221
  25. Ossiannilsson, E. (2016). Challenges and opportunities for active and hybrid learning related to UNESCO Post 2015. In S. Keengwe (Ed.), The handbook of research on active learning and the flipped classroom model in the digital age (pp. 333–351). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ossiannilsson, E., Williams, K., Camilleri, A., & Brown, M. (2015). Quality models in online and open education around the globe. Oslo: The International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE).Google Scholar
  27. Reich, J., & Ho, A. (2014). The tricky task of figuring out what makes a MOOC successful: Why traditional metrics like completion rates aren’t a good way to evaluate online courses. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/the-tricky-task-of-figuring-out-what-makes-a-mooc-successful/283274/
  28. Richter, T., & McPherson, M. (2012). Open educational resources: Education for the world? Distance Education, 33(2), 201–219. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2012.692068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosewell, J., & Janson, D. (2014). The OpenupEd quality label: Benchmarks for MOOCs. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 88–98.Google Scholar
  30. Sangra, A. (2015). Expanding learning opportunities for the last 25 years…and beyond. Keynote speech presented at the EDEN Annual Conference 2015. Expanding Learning Scenarios. Barcelona, Spain, 9–12 June 2015.Google Scholar
  31. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/index.htm
  32. Simunich, B., Robins, D. B., & Kelly, V. (2015). The impact of findability on student motivation, self-efficacy, and perceptions of online course quality. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(3), 174–185. doi: 10.1080/08923647.2015.1058604. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08923647.2015.1058604
  33. Toetenel, L. (2014). Social networking: A collaborative open educational resource: Position paper on education post-2015. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(2), 149–162. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2013.818561
  34. Uvalic-Trumbic, S., & Sir Daniel, J. (2014). A guide to quality in post-traditional online higher education. Mountain View: Academic Partnerships TM.Google Scholar
  35. Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  36. Weller, M. (2014). The battle for open: How openness won and why it doesn’t feel like victory. London: Ubiquity Press. doi:http://dx.doi.org//10.5334/bam
  37. Willems, J., & Bossu, C. (2012). Equity considerations for open educational resources in the glocalization of education. Distance Education, 33(2), 185–199. Retrieved from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/content/equity-considerations-open-educational-resources-glocalization-education

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ebba Ossiannilsson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zehra Altınay
    • 2
  • Fahriye Altınay
    • 2
  1. 1.Ossiannilsson QOOL ConsultancyLundSweden
  2. 2.Center of Excellence Societal Research and Development Center, Faculty of EducationNear East UniversityNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations