Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 81–97 | Cite as

MOOC—making and open educational practices

  • Laura Czerniewicz
  • Andrew DeaconEmail author
  • Michael GloverEmail author
  • Sukaina Walji
Article

Abstract

MOOCs have been seen as holding promise for advancing Open Education. While the pedagogical design of the first MOOCs grew out of the Open Education Movement, the current trend has MOOCs exhibiting fewer of the original openness goals than anticipated. The aim of this study is to examine the practices and attitudes of MOOC educators at an African university and ask whether and how their practices and attitudes become open after creating and teaching a MOOC. Activity Theory is used to contextually locate the educators’ motivations and to analyse their practices in terms of striving towards an object. With this lens we describe how educators’ openness-related practices and attitudes change over time in two different MOOCs. Two sets of conceptions of open practices are used to detect instances of change, providing four dimensions of changed open educational practices. Semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and artefacts provide data for this rare study, which considers these issues from the perspective of the Global South. Through studying the educators’ practices in relation to openness, it becomes evident how open practices are emergent and responsive.

Keywords

Changing practices Global South MOOCs Open educational resources Open practices 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. African-America Institute. (2015). State of Education in Africa Report 2015: A report card on the progress, opportunities and challenges confronting the African education sector. New York: Africa-America Institute. Retrieved from http://www.aaionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/AAI-SOE-report-2015-final.pdf
  2. Andrade, A., Ehlers, U. D., Caine, A., Carneiro, R., Conole, G., Kairamo, A. K., Koskinen, T., Kretschmer, T., Moe-Pryce, N., Mundin, P., & Nozes, J. (2011). Beyond OER: Shifting focus to open educational practices. OPAL Report 2011. Essen, Germany: Open Education Quality Initiative.Google Scholar
  3. Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beetham, H., Falconer, I., McGill, L., & Littlejohn, A. (2012). JISC open practices: Briefing paper (pp. 1–12). Retrieved from https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/58444186/Open%20Practices%20briefing%20paper.pdf
  5. Bollier, D. (2009). Viral spiral: How the commoners built a digital republic of their own. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  6. Butcher, N. (2011). A basic guide to open educational resources (OER). Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning and UNESCO.Google Scholar
  7. Cheverie, J. (2013). Copyright challenges in a MOOC environment. Educause Brief. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub9014.pdf
  8. Conole, G. (2012). Fostering social inclusion through open educational resources (OER). Distance Education, 33(2), 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cronin, C. (2016). Open culture, open education, open questions. Keynote presentation at Open Educational Resources 16 Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/cicronin/open-culture-open-education-open-questions?from_m_app=ios
  10. Czerniewicz, L., & Naidoo, U. (2013). MOOCless in Africa. Blog posting retrieved from http://openuct.uct.ac.za/blog/mooc-less-africa
  11. Dhanarajan, G., & Abeywardena, I. S. (2013). Higher education and open educational resources in Asia: An overview. In G. Dhanarajan & D. Porter (Eds.), Open education resources: An Asian perspective (pp. 3–18). Vancouver: COL and OER Asia.Google Scholar
  12. dos Santos, A. I., Punie, Y., & Castaño-Muñoz J. C. O. (2016). Opening up education: A support framework for higher education institutions (No. JRC101436). Directorate Growth & Innovation and JRC-Seville, Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
  13. Ehlers, U. D. (2011). Extending the territory: From open educational resources to open educational practices. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 15(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  14. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretic approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  15. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, XXX in press version, 1–24Google Scholar
  16. Evans, S., & Myrick, J. (2015). How MOOC instructors view the pedagogy and purposes of massive open online courses. Distance Education, 36(3), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geser, G. (Ed.) (2007). Open educational practices and resources: The OLCOS roadmap 2012. Austria: Salzburg Research Edumedia Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.olcos.org/cms/upload/docs/olcos_roadmap.pdf
  18. Hardman, J. (2005). An exploratory case study of computer use in a primary school mathematics classroom: New technology, new pedagogy. Perspectives in Education, 23(4), 99–111.Google Scholar
  19. Hegarty, B. (2015). Attributes of open pedagogy: A model for using open educational resources. Educational Technology Magazine, 55(4), 3–13.Google Scholar
  20. Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2014). Degrees of ease: Adoption of OER, open textbooks and MOOCs in the global South. Symposium conducted at 2nd Regional Symposium on Open Educational Resources: Beyond Advocacy, Research and Policy, OER Asia 2014, Penang, Malaysia.Google Scholar
  21. Kirkup, G., & Kirkwood, A. (2005). Information and communications technologies (ICT) in higher education teaching—a tale of gradualism rather than revolution. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2), 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Masterman, E. (2016). Bringing open educational practice to a research-intensive University: Prospects and challenges. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(1), 31–42.Google Scholar
  24. Medical Humanities Lecture Series (2016). Retrieved from http://www.humanities.uct.ac.za/event/medical-humanities-lecture-series
  25. Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. (2008). Contradictions between the virtual and physical high school classroom: A third-generation activity theory perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1061–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. (2014). Activity theory perspectives on technology in higher education. Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nardi, B. (1996a). Activity theory and human-computer interaction. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 7–16). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Nardi, B. (1996b). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 69–102). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Nkuyubwatsi, B. (2013). Evaluation of massive open online courses (MOOCs) from the learner’s perspective. Paper presented at the 12th European Conference on eLearning ECEL 2013, Sophie Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  30. Peruski, L. (2003). Contradictions, disturbances, and transformations: An activity theoretical analysis of three faculty members’ experience with designing and teaching online courses. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  31. Peruski, L., & Mishra, P. (2004). Webs of activity in online course design and teaching. ALT-J. Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Piedra, N., Chicaiza, J., López, J., & Tovar, E. (2014). An architecture based on linked data technologies for the integration and reuse of OER in MOOCs context. Open Praxis, 6(2), 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Russel, D., & Schneiderheinze, A. (2005). Understanding innovation in education using activity theory. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 38–53.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, M. (2016). Feature: Open is as open does. ROER4D Newsletter (February–March 2016). Retrieved from http://roer4d.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ROER4D-Newsletter-February-March-2016.pdf
  35. Solms, M. (2016). What is a mind: An interactive audiovisual introduction to the mind. Retrieved from http://talking-head.org/
  36. Weller, M. (2014). The open virus. Retrieved from http://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk/no_good_reason/2014/05/the-open-virus.html
  37. Wiley, D. (2014). The access compromise and the 5th R. Iterating toward openness. Retrieved from http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3221
  38. Wiley, D. (2016). “Open” educational resources versus “Open” pedagogy: Why meanings matter. Iterating toward openness. Retrieved from http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/4496

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Innovation in Learning and TeachingUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations