Presented by Sheila Webber, Information School, University of Sheffield at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, on 12 January 2014

1. MOOCs, Information Literacy and
the role of the librarian
Sheila Webber
Information School,
University of Sheffield
University of Edinburgh, Scotland, January 2015

2. Outline
• Introduction
• MOOCs and pedagogy
• Types of MOOC
• Information behaviour in a MOOC
• Library and information professional roles

3. MOOC
• Massive i.e many learners (often, thousands)
• Open i.e. (freely) available to anyone (although
many MOOCs only accessible to those who
register): also open-access issue
• Online
• Course i.e. some aim and structure to the learning
Sheila Webber, 2015

4. Me & MOOCs
• An Educator on the Futurelearn Play MOOC
• Dipped into other MOOCs as learner
• I am in the Futurelearn Academic Network (focused on
MOOC research)
• Some contact with the Futurelearn librarians group
• Two of my students interviewed the MOOC coordinator
& the educator for the Dentistry MOOC about
information literacy in the MOOC (2014)
• One of my Masters students has done (2014) a study
of a Futurelearn MOOC (learning analytics and
interviews with the educator & designer)
Sheila Webber, 2015
Futurelearn is a MOOC
platform/consortium,
started in the UK

5. Naomi Colhoun’s research
• Case study of Univ of Birmingham’s “Good Brain Bad
brain: drug origins” MOOC
• Aim to identify use of learning analytics to inform course
design & give feedback to educator on learning aims
• Interview with academic & technical developer
• Observation of MOOC and documents
• Learning analytics: Quantitative (word frequency; Topic
modelling; N-grams; Social Network analysis; using R,
Gephi, Rweka, Slam, Mallet, SPSS, Excel) & Qualitative
(learner comments)
• I will refer to this research at a few points in this
presentation
Sheila Webber, 2015

6. Some MOOC characteristics
• Strong marketing/ showcase element
• Profile of early adopting educators different from
some other types of e-learning early adopters?
(e.g. higher profile)
• (Potentially) more diverse learners
• Learners external to the institution
• Not always integrated as normal part of learning
& teaching but possibly becoming “tamed*”
• Different platform from institutional VLE
• High attrition rate
• Learners not necessarily aiming to complete but still
want to enjoy experience they have
“We want people
to think about
Web Science and
think about doing
a degree in Web
Science” Professor
Dame Wendy Hall,
trailer for
University of
Southampton’s
Futurelearn Web
Science MOOC
Sheila Webber, 2015
*Tamed = not disruptive, but rather appropriated by mainstream institutions

7. The “R’s” of MOOC success (Wright, 2015)
• Revenue
• Recruitment (of students) including “try before you
buy”
• Retention (of students)
• Research
• Reputation
• Reuse
• + Philanthropy and Social Policy

8. MOOCs, pedagogy & types of MOOC

9. Continuing factors
• Teachers’ varied approaches to teaching
• Learners’ varied approaches to learning
• Variation between disciplines in teaching, learning, use of
information & technology
• Issues specific to non f2f learning
• Variation between university culture, norms and practice
a good deal already known
about these issues!
“one item that really hits me [in a research report]
is that however different the scaling model is for
MOOCs, they are still online courses and have
similar success factors” Hill, P. (2013, September 12).
SJSU research report confirms MOOCs are online courses.
e-literate. http://mfeldstein.com/sjsu-research-report-
confirms-moocs-online-courses/
Sheila Webber, 2015

10. The Teaching-
Learning
Environment
Entwistle et al.
(2004: 3)
These elements
still apply with
MOOCs, with
potentially great
diversity in
student
characteristics
and expectations
Sheila Webber, 2015

11. The Teaching-
Learning
Environment
Entwistle et al.
(2004: 3)
However, a
further key
influence may be
the MOOC
platform provider
in specifying
design & quality
e.g. Futurelearn
Sheila Webber, 2015

12. All these elements combine to influence to
nature of information literacy & what
information literacy is required/ enabled by
the course, as well as whether the
educator(s) are likely to see the value of
information literacy

13. Types of MOOC
• cMOOC (connectivist/constructivist) vs. xMOOC
(transmissive) – too simplistic?
• Beaven et al. (2014) prefer Lane’s typology
– Network-based: “goal is socially constructed knowledge
developed through conversation” & exploration
– Task-based: “emphasize skill development through the
completion of tasks”
– Content-based: focus on transmitting content, usually
automated assessment, don’t have to be participatory
Sheila Webber, 2015
I would say some of this is determined by the MOOC platform, as
also noted by Colhoun (2014)

14. Different types require/assume different
skills
• Beaven et al. (2014) refer to Participatory Literacy
Skills – could break this down into
– Information literate with Web 2.0 and social media tools (my
interpretation)
– Understand how to use them to interact with peers to
exchange and co-create knowledge
• Different types of MOOC require different levels of
participatory literacy skills, motivation and self-
determinism
• Similarly Gore (2014: 7) identifies that skills needed for
a cMOOC “far outweigh” those needed for an xMOOC
Sheila Webber, 2015

15. “The results reported in this paper illustrate that MOOCs such
as OT12, which are primarily task-based (Lane, 2012),
assume more self-determination and a higher degree of
participatory literacy than those with a content-based focus.
They also indicate that participants who are not sufficiently
motivated and do not know how to collaborate online as
reflected, for example, in knowing how to trigger feedback and
support from peers might feel let down by the learning
experience” (Beaven at al., 2014: 41)
Sheila Webber, 2015

16. Conole’s (2014) MOOC dimensions
(to be rated as low, medium and high)
• (How) Open
• (How) Massive
• Diversity (of participants)
• Use of (varied) multimedia
• Degree of (forms of) communication
• Degree of collaboration
• Amount of reflection
• (Nature of) Learning pathway
• (Form of) Quality assurance
• Certification
• (Link to) Formal Learning
• (Degree of learner) Autonomy
Sheila Webber, 2015

17. Inside or outside the MOOC?
• Draper and Honeychurch noted last week at the
FLAN meeting – peer interaction may take place
almost entirely outside MOOC platform
http://information-literacy.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/mooc-research-about-peer-interaction.htm
• Colhoun noted “Remember that all that is visible is
not all that there is”: learning analytics do not reveal
everything and also need interpretation in light of
educator’s goals
• Lurking (e.g. in Futurelearn, scanning comments)
may be satisfying the learner’s own goals, but is not
tracked

18. Play MOOC, Sep-Nov 14
• 17,000 learners registered
• In week 1 “Your play history” had over 5700
comments
• Cross departmental team: I led week 6 of 7
Learners asked to
remember, reflect, carry
out observations and
activities
Use of a few tools
outside the platform, but
mostly interactions inside

19. Play MOOC dimensions (first thoughts)
• Open - medium (free to join, open access material, but can’t view
unless registered)
• Massive - high (17,000 registered etc.)
• Diversity of participants - ? Medium (many early years professionals)
• Use of (varied) multimedia – medium/ high (few extra tools, but varied)
• Degree of (forms of) communication - medium
• Degree of collaboration – low (at least, inside MOOC)
• Amount of reflection - medium (reflective exercises)
• (Nature of) Learning pathway – low (one route, some optional items)
• (Form of) Quality assurance - medium (assurance by central team +
Futurelearn)
• Certification - medium (could get completion certificate)
• (Link to) Formal Learning - low (no link with formal course)
• (Degree of learner) Autonomy – high (little tutor support, although
some support/scaffolding designed in) Sheila Webber, 2015

20. Exercise on information behaviour
• Exercise during my week of the Play MOOC
• Asked how acquired information & whether
searched, browsed or encountered (bumped into) it
• Asked them to think about people as well as other
information sources
• 668 comments at this point
• Following ideas from just an initial scan through
some of the comments, intend to analyse them in
coming months
Sheila Webber, 2015

21. Reported Information behaviour
• Information in course: videos; core articles, links;
comments from learners; additional reading & links
• Information outside the course:
– Non-human: Internet (Google, websites, Youtube) mentioned
most; also learner’s own books, TV, radio, educational
magazines, museum
– Human: family, friends, work colleagues, gamers; including
some examples of friends taking MOOC at same time; some
mention getting contrasting perspectives
• Information from self: Memories (prompted by discussion
or MOOC); Observation; Experience; Info/understanding
from current or previous courses/education /training
Sheila Webber, 2015

22. Not just acquiring & combining information!
• Saving and managing information for later use
• A lot of sharing information – mostly face to face but
also digitally e.g. via Facebook as well as in the
MOOC
• Creating information, inside and outside MOOC
• Applying information and understanding in work, at
home; to educate others, in own practice, as self-
development
Sheila Webber, 2015

23. Conole (2014) says that
“there is a need to shift from knowledge recall to
development of skills to find and use information
effectively. In this respect, there is a need to enable
learners to develop 21st Century digital literacy skills
(Jenkins 2009) to equip them for an increasingly
complex and changing societal context.”
However, digital literacy is certainly not the only skillset
needed or exercised by learners in working with
information and developing understanding
Sheila Webber, 2015

24. Library and Information Professionals and
MOOCs
Sheila Webber, 2015

25. “the first step towards that end is making the student aware
of their available resources. The next step should be to
provide the faculty member with links to the "tutorials" and
"research guides" sections of their affiliated library's
website. .”
Wright (2013)
Hygiene approach to MOOCs
Sheila Webber, 2015

26. “Denlinger* and his team decided to offer a course for
the alumni and parents of Wake Forest University
[ZSRx was a 4 week MOOC ] so they could interact
with library staff and fellow patrons while learning
more about the web. ‘Think of this less as a traditional
class with deadlines and boundaries and more as a
starting point for learning and connecting to a larger
community of learners’ ”
Scardillli (2013)
*e-Learning Librarian, Wake Forest University, USA
See also http://www.slideshare.net/denlinkd07/zs-rx-copy
Opportunity spotting approach to MOOCs?
Sheila Webber, 2015

27. “they [Office of Parent programs] now see the library as a place
where these kinds of courses can take shape .. we have the
expertise to make these courses happen, we know how to find
resources, we know how to pull people together from across
campus and the library has become a kind of platform for online
learning”
“no-one had expected the library to develop a course like this
and I think it helped the people we were trying to reach to
reimagine what the library is used for and what we can provide”
Interview with Kyle Denlinger
Bayne, G. (2013, September 16)
Sheila Webber, 201

28. “Academic librarians can help instructors with MOOC
materials, offer embedded services, and serve as a resource
when students have research questions; public librarians may
help patrons ‘research a topic using resources the library
already provides, or trying to find items via interlibrary loan for
the customer,’ according to Rayl. Public libraries can also be a
place where MOOC participants meet as a group informally or
as part of the course.”
Scardillli (2013)
Sheila Webber, 2015

29. Other examples
• Contributing to a MOOC “Discover the island of
research” by introducing the “Bay of literature”: also
proposing roles in archiving, cataloguing and
hosting retrieval of the educational materials
(Eisengraber-Pabst, Vogt and Deimann, 2014)
• Embedded librarian in the “Dentistry” MOOC at
Sheffield University (Andrews and Witham, 2014)
Sheila Webber, 2015

30. Selective, deeper engagement
• Demonstrating that you
can run a MOOC builds
confidence that you are
worth collaborating with
• Opportunity spotting
educators who have a
more collaborative, and
constructivist or
connectivist approach to
teaching
• Using and evaluating a
range of channels and
tools to communicate with
learners, educators and
librarians
• Could argue also supports
“showcase” element:
demonstrating quality of
the student experience
with some development of information literacy, within and outside the MOOC,
designed into the course
Sheila Webber, 2015

31. Issues identfied in the literature include
• Managing expectations of MOOC learners (who
may expect access to academic library services)
• Extent to which and how you support and develop
information literacy
• Accessibility issues (different first languages,
educational/literacy levels, different timezones,
disabilities etc.)
• A support role, consultancy role, or a teaching role?
Sheila Webber, 2015

32. Types of literacy/support?
• Information literacy in finding and engaging with in information within the
MOOC (course information, embedded information resources etc.)
• Information literacy with resources outside the MOOC; would suggest
importance of:
– IL using social media;
– good Google skills;
– good browsing skills;
– ways of selecting, sharing and managing information ethically and
effectively
• Information & digital literacies in using applications that enable aspects of
the course (e.g. Google hangouts; discussion fora)
• Information literacy in using applications and people to
create/share/apply/present information/media associated with tasks and
activities
• Information literacy in managing, storing, sharing, creating, applying
information (for use outside the course)
A MOOC lens on the
SCONUL 7 Pillars of
Information Literacy?
Sheila Webber, 2015

33. Library & Infgormation Professional roles identified by
Masters students in KISK, Masaryk University, Brno,
Czech Republic, November 2014
Sheila Webber, 2015

34. • Active student creating local community of learners
• Authoring MOOC materials
• Creating new MOOCs
• Developer of MOOC systems
• Supporting MOOC use
– supporting learners (in use of MOOC)
– supporting educators
– supporting designers (in creation and location of materials)
– reference librarian support (for everyone)
• Teacher or teaching assistant on a MOOC
• Information architect (for structure, organisation etc. of MOOC)
• Promotional role (propagator and mediator of MOOCs) e.g. to new
students
• Evaluator of MOOCs (content, goals, design etc.)
• Quality management, control or assurance of MOOCs
Roles
Sheila Webber, 2015

35. Concluding thoughts
Sheila Webber, 2015

36. The “R’s” of MOOC success (Wright, 2015)
• Revenue
• Recruitment (of students) including “try before you
buy”
• Retention (of students)
• Research
• Reputation
• Reuse
• + Philanthropy and Social Policy
Librarian
contribution to
each?
Demonstrable
contributions
here could
justify resources
Sheila Webber, 2015

37. Types of MOOC
• Useful to analyse to identify what type of MOOC
you are engaging with
• Then can identify which role or intervention will be
most valuable / valued
Sheila Webber, 2015

38. Conclusions
• Many roles available!
• Also recognise challenges
– Time
– Getting recognised as having contribution to make
• Whether tame or wild, MOOCs are fascinating to
engage with and provide opportunities
Sheila Webber, 2015

39. Sheila Webber
s.webber@sheffield.ac.uk
http://information-literacy.blogspot.com/
http://www.slideshare.net/sheilawebber
Twitter: @sheilayoshikawa
Title picture by Sheila Webber, taken in Second Life

40. References
• Andrews, P. and Witham, B. (2014). Attitudes and practice of educators
and developers of MOOCs (Massively Open Online Courses) to
information literacy of MOOC learners. Unpublished essay, University of
Sheffield Information School.
• Bayne, G. (2013, September 16). CNI 2013 Podcast: Information
Literacy MOOCs at Wake Forest University. Coalition for Networked
Information. http://www.educause.edu/blogs/gbayne/cni-2013-podcast-
information-literacy-moocs-wake-forest-university
• Beaven, T. et al. (2014). MOOCs: striking the right balance between
facilitation and self-determination. MERLOTJournal of online learning
and teaching, 10 (1), 31-43.
• Conole, G. (2014). A 12-Dimensional classification schema for MOOCs.
http://e4innovation.com/?p=799
• Eisengraber-Pabst, D., Vogt, S. and Deimann, M. (2014). The academic
library: a hidden stakeholder: in the age of MOOCs. Paper presented at
World Library and Information Conference (IFLA) 2014 Lyon.
http://library.ifla.org/
Sheila Webber, 2015

41. References
• Entwistle, N., Nisbet, J. and Bromage, A. (2004). Teaching-learning
environments and student learning in electronic engineering: paper
presented at Third Workshop of the European Network on Powerful
Learning Environments, in Brugge, September 30 – October 2, 2004.
http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl/docs/Brugge2004.pdf
• Gore, H. (2014). Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and their
impact on academic library services: exploring the issues and
challenges. New review of academic librarianship, 20 (1), 4-28.
• Scardillli, (2013) MOOCs: Classes for the masses. Information today,
30 (8). http://www.infotoday.com/IT/sep13/Scardilli--MOOCs--Classes-
for-the-Masses.shtml
• Wright, A. (2015) Good MOOC, bad MOOC 2: return of the MOOC
Turtle. http://www.mecourse.com/ecourse/pages/page.asp?pid=4918
• Wright, F. (2013) What do librarians need to know about MOOCs? D-Lib
magazine, 19 (3/4) http://dlib.org/dlib/march13/wright/03wright.html
Sheila Webber, 2015

42. Further reading
• Conole, G. (2013) MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the
learner experience and quality of MOOCs. http://eprints.rclis.org/19388/
• Hay. L. and Damron, N. (2014) . Information literacy in open courses. Practical
academic librarianship, 4 (1).
https://journals.tdl.org/pal/index.php/pal/article/view/6982
• Krause, S. and Lowe, C. (Eds) (2014). Invasion of the MOOCs: the promises and
perils of massive open online courses. Parlor Press.
http://www.parlorpress.com/invasion_of_the_moocs
• MERLOT Journal of online learning and teaching, 2014, 10 (1) - special issue on
MOOC learning. http://jolt.merlot.org/Vol10_No1.htm
• Stephens, M. and Jones, K. (2014) Emerging roles: key insights from librarians in a
Massive Open Online Course. preprint (to appear in Journal of Library and
Information Services in Distance Learning in 2015)
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2541901
• Wu, K. (2013). Academic libraries in the age of MOOCs. Reference services
review, 41 (3), 576-587.
Sheila Webber, 2015