Abstract
In this chapter we examine what is meant by online distance learning. We consider briefly the history and refinement of the early correspondence course model and outline the modern principles of learning design that ensure an enjoyable deep learning experience for students. We also consider the breadth of the distance learning audience and look at some of the barriers to learning that they may experience. The well-intentioned aspirations of truly open education, accessible to all, currently remain unfulfilled, but a good deal of progress has been made in that area. A range of learning offerings exists, from long courses (up to 1/2 of a year of full-time study) through to short learning assets that can be studied in a few hours. We note the situations in which MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), SPOCs (Small Private Online Courses), BOCs (Badged Open Courses), and practical assets can supplement or replace traditional face-to-face teaching methods. We use a case study to illustrate the mechanics of producing a successful MOOC. We also describe the issues around teaching practical science online and offer some examples of how this approach can not only be pedagogically successful but can also deliver a learning experience that students enjoy. In particular we point out the need for attention to detail during production, good quality assurance processes to ensure maximum accessibility, and the value of ongoing engagement with, and support of, learners. These features enable the production and delivery of effective, deep, and enjoyable learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
CATS (Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme) is a UK-based measurement for awarding credit for higher education study that functions analogously to the credit hours/unit system in the USA. In the UK each CATS point represents 10 h of combined study (in class contact plus self-study), so a traditional full-time university study program lasting one semester would entail 60 CATS points, which would be equivalent to 30 points in the European ECTS system and 15 credit hours/units in the US system (all resulting in 600–750 h of total study in and out of class during a 15 week semester). In a typical UK Bachelor’s degree that lasts 3 years full time, a student would graduate with 360 CATS points.
References
Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review., 84(4), 98–107.
Alston, P. (2017). Influential factors in the design and implementation of electronic assessment at a research-led university. PhD thesis, Lancaster University. https://doi.org/10.17635/lancaster/thesis/157.
Argles, T. (2017). Teaching practical science online using GIS: A cautionary tale of coping strategies. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 41(3), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2017.1315531
Badgechain. (2017). Available at Innovations in Open Badges & Blockchain | BadgeChain|Innovations in Open Badges & Blockchain | BadgeChain. Accessed 11 March 2021.
Banas, E., & Emory, W. (1998). History and issues of distance learning. Public Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 365–383.
Bates, T. (2013). Harvard’s current thinking on MOOCs. Available from http://tinyurl.com/a2uh86z. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Bell, D., Daniels, M., & Lawless, J. (2011). Expeditionary learning: Authentic education in the 21St century. Ohio Social Studies Review, 47(1), 11–20.
Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: Implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 16(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.568690
Brooman, S., Darwent, S., & Pimor, A. (2015). The student voice in higher education curriculum design: is there value in listening? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(6), 663–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.910128
Carey, P. (2013). Student as co-producer in a marketized higher education system: A case study of students’ experience of participation in curriculum design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.796714
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovators dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Press.
Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovators solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Harvard Business Press.
Cook-Sather, A. (2016). Undergraduate students as partners in new faculty orientation and academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 21, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2016.1156543
Cormier, D., & Siemens, G. (2010). Through the open door: Open courses as research, learning, and engagement. EDUCAUSE Review, 45(4) 30–39. Available from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/8/through-the-open-door-open-courses-as-research-learning-and-engagement. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Coursera. (2021). Courses | Coursera. Available from http://www.coursera.org/courses. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Cross, J., Siemens, G., Downes, S., De Coutere, B., Griffith, T., Finnern, M. et al. (2013) Business and MOOCs. Google Hangout. Available from http://youtu.be/DGaUfWkJdi4. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Daniel, J. (2012) Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2012. Available from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/article/2012-18/. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Daniel, S., Cano, E., & Cervera, M. (2015). The future of MOOCs: Adaptive learning or business model? Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 12(2015), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i1.2475
DataReportal. https://datareportal.com/global-digital-overview. Accessed 21 Jan 2021.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008. Accessed 10 March 2021.
Dietrich, N., Kentheswaran, K., Ahmadi, A., Teychené, J., Bessière, Y., Alfenore, S., Laborie, S., Bastoul, D., Loubière, K., Guigui, C., Sperandio, M., Barna, L., Paul, E., Cabassud, C., Liné, A., & Hébrard, G. (2020). Attempts, successes, and failures of distance learning in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2448–2457.
DiSalvio, P. (2012) Pardon the disruption… innovation changes how we think about higher education. The New England Journal of Higher Education. Available from https://nebhe.org/journal/disruptive-innovation-changing-how-we-think-about-higher-education/. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Downes, S. (2012). The rise of MOOCs [blog post]. Stephen’s Web. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/post/57911. Accessed 12 Jan 2021.
Ejsing-Duun, S., & Karoff, H. (2014). Gamification of a higher education course: What’s the fun in that? Proceedings of the European Conference on Games-based Learning, 1, 92–98.
Estriegana, R., Medina-Merodio, J., & Barchino, R. (2019). Student acceptance of virtual laboratory and practical work: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers & Education, 135, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.014
Etch-a-cell. (2021). Etch a Cell — Zooniverse. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Faulconer, E., & Gruss, A. (2018). A review to weigh the pros and cons of online, remote, and distance science laboratory experiences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i2.3386
Filius, R., de Kleijn, R., Uijl, S., Prins, F., van Rijen, H., & Grobbee, D. (2018). Challenges concerning deep learning in SPOCs. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 10(1–2), 111–127.
Fox, A. (2013). From MOOCs to SPOCs. Communications of the ACM, 56(12), 38–40.
FutureLearn. (2021). FutureLearn explained. Available from https://www.futurelearn.com/using-futurelearn. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Gamage, D., Perera, I., & Fernando, S. (2018) Increasing interactivity and collaborative ness in MOOCs using facilitated groups: A pedagogical solution to meet 21st century goals. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). 17–20 April, 2018. Available at IEEE Xplore. Accessed 11 March 2021.
Gameel, B. (2017). Learner satisfaction with massive open online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(2), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1300462
Gautier, T. (2020). The value of micro-credentials: The employer’s perspective. The journal of competency-based. Education, 5(2), e01209. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbe2.1209
Goopio, J., & Cheung, C. (2020). The MOOC dropout phenomenon and retention strategies. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2020.1809050
Gulati, A. (2013). An overview of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Some reflections. International Journal of Digital Library Services, 3(4), 37–46.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Schulz, R. (2019). Engaging students in science: The potential role of “narrative thinking” and “romantic understanding”. Frontiers in Education, 4, 38. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/feduc.2019.00038
Hannula, L. (2020, April 22). Weak internet cripples productivity for 1/3 of work-from-home employees. Whistle Out. Available from https://www.whistleout.com/Internet/Guides/weak-internet-a-problem. Accessed 11 March 2021.
Herodotou, C., Muirhead, D., Aristeidou, M., Hole, M., Kelley, S., Scanlon, E., & Duffy, M. (2018). Blended and online learning: A comparative study of virtual microscopy in higher education. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1552874
Herodotou, C., Sharples, M., Gaved, M., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Rienties, B., Scanlon, E., & Whitelock, D. (2019). Innovative pedagogies of the future: An evidence-based selection. Frontiers in Education, 4, 113. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00113
Hirst, M., & MacQueen, H. (2016). Practical biology at a distance: How far can we go with online distance learning? In D. Kennepohl (Ed.), Teaching science online: Practical guidance for effective instruction and lab work. Online learning and distance education. Stylus Publishing.
Hounsell, D., Falchikov, N., Hounsell, J., Klampfleitner, M., Huxham, M., Thomson, K., & Blair, S. (2007, November). Innovative assessment across the disciplines: An analytical review of the literature. HEA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00128
Howarth, J., D’Alessandro, S., Johnson, L., & White, L. (2016). Learner motivation for MOOC registration and the role of MOOCs as a university ‘taster’. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 35(1), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2015.1122667
Hyman, P. (2012). In the year of disruptive education. Communications of the ACM, 55, 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/2380656.2380664
Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. Harper & Row.
Jarrett, J. (2012). What are MOOCs and why are education leaders interested in them? Available from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/impatient-optimists/what-are-moocs-and-why-ar_b_2123399.html. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Kazmer, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2001). Juggling multiple social worlds: Distance students online and offline. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 510–529.
Kirschner, A. (2012). A Pioneer in online education tries a MOOC. The chronicle of higher education. Available from http://chronicle.com/article/A-Pioneer-in-Online-Education/134662/. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Labster. (2021). Virtual Lab Simulation Catalog | Labster|Virtual Lab Simulation Catalog | Labster. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Langen, F., & Bosch, H. (2014). Massive open online courses: Disruptive innovations or disturbing inventions? Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28(3), 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2013.870882
Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567–605. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076004567
Macleod, H., Haywood, J., Woodgate, A., & Alkhatnai, M. (2015). Emerging patterns in MOOCs: Learners, course designs and directions. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 59, 56–63.
MacQueen, H., & Aiken, F. (2019). Supporting distance-taught students in the workplace. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 10(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-04-2019-0048
MacQueen, H., & Thomas, J. (2009). Teaching biology at a distance: Pleasures, pitfalls and possibilities. American Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640903080505
Masters, K. (2011). A brief guide to understanding MOOCs. The Internet Journal of Medical Education, 1(2). Available from http://ispub.com/IJME/1/2/10995. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Available from http://davecormier.com/edblog/wp-content/uploads/MOOC_Final.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
McIntyre, C. (2016). UK MOOC report. Retrieved from https://www.mooclab.club/Reports/UK%20MOOC%20Report%202016.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2020.
Means, B. (2014). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 285–307.
Michael, J. (2007). What makes physiology hard for students to learn? Results of a faculty survey. Advances in Physiology Education, 31, 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00057.2006
Naftalin, R. (2011) Opinion: The decline of physiology. The scientist. Available from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/29658/title/Opin-ion-The-decline-of-physiology/ 26 Feb. 2017. Accessed 11 March 2021.
National Research Council, USA. (2003). BIO2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. National Academies Press.
Nguyen, Q., Rienties, B., & Richardson, J. (2020). Learning analytics to uncover inequality in behavioural engagement and academic attainment in a distance learning setting. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 594–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1679088
Norton, P., & Wiburg, K. (2003). Teaching with technology: Designing opportunities to learn. Harcourt Brace.
OECD. (2013). PISA 2015 draft science framework. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Science%20Framework%20.pdf. Accessed 11 March 2021.
Olney, T., Rienties, B., & Toetenel, L. (2018). Gathering, visualizing and interpreting learning design analytics to inform classroom practice and curriculum design: A student-centred approach from the Open University. In J. M. Lodge, J. C. Horvath, & L. Corrin (Eds.), Learning analytics in the classroom: Translating learning analytics research for teachers (pp. 71–92). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351113038/chapters/10.4324/9781351113038-6
OpenLearn. (2021). Badged courses. Retrieved from: https://www.open.edu/openlearn/get-started/badges-come-openlearn. Accessed 10 Jan 2021.
OpenSTEM Labs. The OpenSTEM Labs | Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics
Osvaldo, R. (2012) MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ982976. Accessed 11 March 2021.
Pearson, V., Lister, K., McPherson, E., Gallen, A.-M., Davies, G., Colwell, C., Bradshaw, K., Braithwaite, N., & Collins, T. (2019). Embedding and sustaining inclusive practice to support disabled students in online and blended learning. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1, 4. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.500
Pennaforte, A. P. (2016). Organizational supports and individuals’ commitments through work-integrated learning. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 6(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-07-2015-0038
Pike, A. (2009). Developing online communities to support distance learning in secure environments. In:7th International Conference on Education and Information Systems, Technologies and Applications: EISTA 2009,10–13 Jul 2009, Orlando, Florida, USA. Available from A-Pike-Developing_online_communities_to_support_DL_in_secure_environments.pdf (open.ac.uk). Accessed 11 March 2021.
Pinter, G., & Pinter, V. (1993). Is physiology a dying discipline? Physiology (Bethesda), 8, 94–95. https://doi.org/10.1152/physiologyonline.1993.8.2.94
Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V. M., & Jovanović, K. (2016). Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers & Education, 95, 309–327.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2018). UK quality code for higher education. www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code. Accessed 18 Feb 2021.
Ralston, S. J. (2020). Higher Education’s microcredentialing craze: A postdigital-Deweyan critique. Postdigital Science and Education, 1, 19.
Reich, J., & Ruipérez-Valiente, J. (2019). The MOOC pivot. Science, 363, 130–131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7958
Rienties, B., Køhler, S., & Herodotou, C. (2020). Defining the boundaries between artificial intelligence in education, computer-supported collaborative learning, educational data mining, and learning analytics: A need for coherence. Frontiers in Education (Early access), 5, 128.
Rizvi, S., Rienties, B., Rogaten, J., & Kizilcec, R. (2019). Investigating variation in learning processes in a FutureLearn MOOC. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32, 162–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09231-0
Saad, L., Busteed, B., & Ogisi, M. (2013). In US, online education rated best for value and options. Available at: In U.S., Online Education Rated Best for Value and Options (gallup.com) Accessed 11 March 2021.
Sandrone, S., & Schneider, L. (2020). Active and distance learning in neuroscience education. Neuron, 106(6), 895–898.
Shah, D. (2020). The second year of the MOOC: a review of MOOC stats and trends in 2020. Available from: https://www.classcentral.com/report/the-second-year-of-the-mooc/. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Siemens, G. (2013). Massive open online courses: Innovation in education? In McGreal, R., Kinuthia, W., & Marshall, S. (eds) Open educational resources: Innovation, research and practice. Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University. Available from https://www.oerknowledgecloud.org/archive/pub_PS_OER-IRP_CH1.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Slominsk, T., Grindberg, S., & Momsen, J. (2019). Physiology is hard: a replication study of students’ perceived learning difficulties. Advances in Physiology Education, 43(2), 121–127.
Špernjak, A., & Šorgo, A. (2018). Differences in acquired knowledge and attitudes achieved with traditional, computer-supported and virtual laboratory biology laboratory exercises. Journal of Biological Education, 52(2), 206–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1298532
Sturges, D., & Maurer, T. (2013). Allied health students’ perceptions of class difficulty: The case of undergraduate human anatomy and physiology. Internet J Allied Health Sci Pract, 11, 1–10.
Sullivan, D., Winsnes, C., Akesson, L., Hjelmare, M., Wiking, M., Schutten, R., Campbell, L., Leifsson, H., Rhodes, S., Nordgren, A., Smith, K., Revaz, B., Finnbogason, B., Szantner, A., & Lundberg, E. (2018). Deep learning is combined with massive-scale citizen science to improve large-scale image classification. Nature Biotechnology, 36, 820–828. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4225
Tait, A. (2013). Distance and e-learning, social justice and development: The relevance of capability approaches to the mission of open universities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(4), 1–18. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1017505.pdf
Talbot, D. (2021). Available at Five reasons why online and blended learning could be a game-changer for education and training (fenews.co.uk). Accessed 11 March 2021.
TheUniGuide. (2021). Study Human Physiology at University of Liverpool. The University of Liverpool. Available from: https://www.theuniguide.co.uk/university-of-liverpool-l41/courses/human-physiology-bsc-hons-2021-fc932a65bc06. Accessed 02 March 2021.
Udacity. (2021). Program catalog. Available from http://www.udacity.com/courses/all. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Uijl, S., Filius, R., & Ten Cate, O. (2017). Student interaction in small private online courses. Medical Science Educator, 27(2), 237–242.
UNESCO Recommendations on Open Educational Resources. (2019). http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=49556&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
University of Liverpool. (2021). About us. The University of Liverpool. Available from: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/about/. Accessed 2 March 2021.
Uslu, S., & Körükcü, M. (2020). The outcomes of constructivist learning environments from the perspectives of secondary school students. International Education Studies., 13(8), 16–28. Accessed 8 March 2021.
Watkinson, J. (1996). Education for success: The international correspondence schools of Scranton, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 120(4), 362–363.
WCAG2.1 Principles. (2018). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 (w3.org) Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
WeiWei G., Ayub, E., Wong, S., & Lim, C. (2017). The importance of teacher’s presence and engagement in MOOC learning environment: A case study. In IEEE Conference Nov, 2017; IEEE Language: English, Database: IEEE Xplore Digital Library.
Whitelock, D., & Cross, S. (2012). Authentic assessment: What does it mean and how is it instantiated by a group of distance learning academics? International Journal of e-Assessment, 2(1), Article 9. http://journals.sfu.ca/ijea/index.php/journal/article/view/31
Whitman, D. (2018). The cautionary tale of correspondence schools. newamerica.org. Available at www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/cautionary-tale-correspondence-schools/. Accessed 11 March 2021
Wright, G. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 92–97.
Yuan, L. & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. JISC CETIS. Available from https://publications.cetis.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MOOCs-and-Open-Education.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2021.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Alston, P., Gleave, T., Hirst, M., MacQueen, H. (2022). Online Science Education at Scale: Open and Distance Learning, MOOCS, and Other Learning Assets for Theory and Practice. In: Witchel, H.J., Lee, M.W. (eds) Technologies in Biomedical and Life Sciences Education. Methods in Physiology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95633-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95633-2_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-95632-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-95633-2
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)