Teaching and Learning in a Net-Centric World

MOOC pedagogy and accreditation

Most of the cacophony of comments and posts about MOOCs and their disruptive potential has focused on their free cost to students, high enrolments, superstar teachers and high prestige Universities.

Relatively little has been published, much less researched, about MOOC pedagogy. A thoughtful article by C. Osvaldo Rodriguez in EURODL mapped the evolution of the so called cMOOCs to connectivist generation of pedagogy that Jon Dron and I wrote about in IRRODL.  Conversely, given the focus on measurable outcomes and dissemination of content, it isn’t too much a leap to suggest (as Rodriguez’s does) that most of the big name xMOOCs are following the mass education model pioneered by open and distance education institution which we referred to as first generation, cognitive behaviourist pedagogy.

But putting labels on delivery models, doesn’t really lead us forward, unless we are also brave enough to venture into issues of effectiveness. However ontological differences between the models make comparisons based on effectiveness challenging. It is easy for traditional and constructivist pedagogues to jump to arguments about educational effectiveness that have at their root, notions of intense interaction with teachers or at least with peers. Of course with 100,000 students one has to change normal definitions of “intense interaction” to even begin to argue about effectiveness from a social-constructivist perspective.  Thus, most social constructivists focus on the opportunities for peer interaction and point to the emergence of meet-ups and online study groups as spontaneous evidence of MOOC effectiveness. I see these as a capacity, but in my experience of adding or even encouraging optional opportunities for peer-to-peer interaction, it doesn’t lead to much take-up  (beyond those exchanging telephone numbers with potential romantic partners).  However, with 100,000 students even a take up of a few percent is not insignificant and may be life-changing for some learners.

From a cognitive-behaviourist  perspective, educators usually want to argue effectiveness in terms of costs and outcomes. How much does it costs to induce and measure a behavioural change in students that evidences achievement of learning outcomes?  Unfortunately assessing learners with care given to reliability and validity – including reducing potential for cheating and identity fraud – costs money. And MOOCs students, normally are adverse to fee based system – unless of the course the fee is associated with something concrete of value- like transferrable credit towards a sufficiently valued reward- such as a university diploma or degree.

Thus, we have been urging our university, Athabasca to get into the business of credentialing learning associated with MOOCs. At Athabasca, and some other institutions, we have a long tradition of allowing students to challenge courses by writing an extensive examination that attests to their attainment of the learning outcomes from the course. This explicitly recognizes that learning can and does happen, even without following the path prescribed and using the learning resources provided in our courses and without the guidance and feedback of our tutors. This policy is not supported by all faculty who fear that it provides a path that displaces or discounts their own contributions. However, I strongly support the idea that learning happens in many ways and curriculum delivered from some of the most prestigious universities in the world, can not all be that bad!  Resistance to this challenge exam policy resulted in a vote by our Academic Council and Board to raise tuition for challenges exams to $350 for Canadians or $598 for students outside of Canada. This dramatic increase in price cut the number of students by 75% in recent years, as we effectively priced ourselves out of this market.

The opportunity provided by MOOCs creates a great opportunity to regain and build a whole new market and to provide a service to potentially large numbers of students. As a fully accredited Canadian public university and the only Canadian university that is regionally accredited in the US, credit for our courses is readily transferable or can be applied towards a regular Athabasca degree. However, we have not as yet been able to exploit this market and have seen the University of Colorado allow crediting for at least one Udacity course, (for a course challenge fee of $95) while Excelsior College is developing a similar challenge policy for an as yet undecided fee that will depend on the cost of developing and adminstering the examination

This type of challenge exam accrediting presents a classic disruptive technology challenge to our university. Our current leaders are terrified that students will eschew the regular courses and just challenge the exams for credit. They seem more interested in maintaining the current delivery and staff model than in meeting the mission of the University “the removal of barriers that restrict access to and success in university-level study and to increasing equality of educational opportunity for adult learners worldwide” Note that nowhere in the mission statement is there are mention of protecting the existing model or staff from changes, development in new models or even to competition.

We have trying to determine the exact cost of administering challenge exams – which of course depends on real costs of invigilators, exam development and maintenance, marking (by machine and by humans) and credit registration. But the costing effort becomes extremely challenging when we try to estimate overhead costs. Should students who challenge Athabasca exams have to pay a fair share of maintenance costs on buildings, faculty salaries, student union fees etc.? Clayton Christensen in his classic books on disruptive technologies suggests that innovations should  be incubated in “skunk works” to avoid predation from established units and unfair cost burdens required to maintain an older production model, while they develop new models.

To date we have not been successful in creating such alternative accreditation models – but we haven’t given up yet!

Similar posts
  • New Book from AUPress – An Onli... I was pleased to receive in the post a hard copy of a new book in the Issues in Distance Education book series, for which I continue to serve as the series editor. Now of course you can read all of the books in this series as they are available for download  under Creative Commons [...]
  • Qualitative Research Rebooted 2018 For the past two months, I’ve been occupied with a qualitative study of teachers’ use of digital technology in Alberta Schools. The study is sponsored by the Alberta Teachers’ Association.  It has been very useful for me to get down to actually doing a full scale qualitative study after years of teaching grad students research [...]
  • More on Distance Education Journal Ra... Both academics and administrators love to argue about the value (impact) of their academic work.  The old adage of “Publish or Perish” still has currency. Despite the many distribution opportunities besides and beyond publishing in scholarly journals, the bean counters (myself included) love citation indexes. The basic idea is that the more your work is [...]
  • Teaching at Jiangnan University, Wuxi... My 4 week trip to China is a week done, and I thought I would document the trip to date (you know us old guys have trouble remembering the details!). Four years I received a request to host and sponsor a PhD student from Bejing Normal School. Zhijun Wang soon worked her way into our [...]
  • What the FOLC is new in this article? Sorry, but I couldn’t resist spoofing, in the post title,  the unfortunate sound of the acronym for the “new” model proposed in this article. Now,  I’ve got it out of the way and can only suggest that if this “divergent fork of the Community of Inquiry model” is to survive, it needs a new English [...]

1 Comment

  1. Douglas Hainline Douglas Hainline
    November 24, 2012    

    Academics should consider this idea: the creation, for each subject area, of a world — or perhaps, at first, national, to be realistic — accreditation body. This would be similar to the way your proficiency with a musical instrument is accredited, at least in Britain. You can learn to play however you like, but eventually, you sit for your Grade I in, say, piano. Then Grade II, and so on. There should be the same sort of system for at least the core topics of other subjects.

    This would easier for the “hard” sciences than for, say, English Literature, and not easy in an absolute sense even for them. But, objectively, it would be a good idea.

No Pings Yet

  1. MOOC pedagogy and accreditation | Terry Anderson | Networked Learning - Learning Networks | Scoop.it on November 15, 2012 at 4:04 am
  2. MOOC pedagogy and accreditation | Terry Anderson | Innovation, Education, Technology | Scoop.it on November 15, 2012 at 11:53 am
  3. MOOC pedagogy and accreditation | Terry Anderson | MOOCs - who benefits? | Scoop.it on November 15, 2012 at 4:58 pm
  4. Virtual Canuck » Blog Archive » MOOC pedagogy and accreditation | Tech-Savvy Education | Scoop.it on November 20, 2012 at 2:20 pm
  5. Virtual Canuck » Blog Archive » MOOC pedagogy and accreditation « Things I grab, motley collection on November 21, 2012 at 1:36 am
  6. Virtual Canuck » Blog Archive » MOOC pedagogy and accreditation | Things I Grab (Here and There): THgsIGrbHT | Scoop.it on November 21, 2012 at 1:36 am
  7. Virtual Canuck » MOOC pedagogy and accreditation | Corridor of learning | Scoop.it on November 27, 2012 at 4:20 am
  8. Virtual Canuck » Blog Archive » MOOC pedagogy and accreditation | Blended Learning Advanced Teacher Training | Scoop.it on November 27, 2012 at 7:21 am
  9. Virtual Canuck » Blog Archive » MOOC pedagogy and accreditation | MOOC zeitgeist | Scoop.it on November 28, 2012 at 10:09 am
  10. Virtual Canuck » Blog Archive » MOOC pedagogy and accreditation | Aprendizaje y redes abiertas. | Scoop.it on December 19, 2012 at 3:04 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Virtual Canuck via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 332 other subscribers

My posts by Category

My Blog Archives


  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • SlideShare
  • RSS Feed for Posts
  • Email

Follow me on Twitter