Presentation given by Sheila Webber at the Open University on 23 July 2015.

1. Open University, July 2015
Reflections on
teaching &
information
behaviour in a
Futurelearn MOOC
Sheila Webber
Information School,
University of Sheffield

2. • Using three frameworks to reflect on my experience
as an educator on the MOOC "Exploring Play: The
Importance of Play in Everyday Life“
• Implications of the Play MOOC characteristics for
the information behaviour and information literacy of
the learners
Sheila Webber, 2015

3. Using 3 frameworks to reflect on the
MOOC vs non-MOOC experience
• Teaching-Learning Environment (Entwistle et al,
2004)
• Conole’s (2014) 12 MOOC dimensions
• Sharpe et al.’s (2006) 8 dimensions of blended
learning
Sheila Webber, 2015

4. 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

5. Exploring Play MOOC, Sep-Nov 14
• Cross faculty team: I led week 6 of 7 on “virtual play”
• Each week has steps; with videos, articles, comment-
based discussion and a quiz
• Each step has a comment thread
• Use of a few tools outside the platform, but mostly
interactions inside
• Learners asked to remember, reflect, carry out
observations and playful activities
Sheila Webber, 2015

6. 17,000 learners registered, 8,954 did at
least one step, 1,391 completed;
70,000 comments
Sheila Webber, 2015

7. Demographics
• No demographics for total populations: profile is
short and no obligation to give age, gender, location
Sheila Webber, 2015
My
profile
and my
avatar
tweets a
toy selfie

8. • Primarily on campus teaching
• iSchool Director of L&T, Programme
coordinator
• Early adopter of technology in
learning, would say I take a
blended approach
• Espouse an inquiry based &
conceptual change approach
to teaching
My own background
Sheila Webber, 2015

9. MOOC demographics
• 5,515 respondents to pre-course questionnaire
• 93% female; 61% aged 26-45; 54% from UK
• 75% working either full or part time
• 78% first degree or above
• 60% wished to add a fresh perspective to current
work
Sheila Webber, 2015

10. Contrasting example of non-MOOC
module
• 15 credit core module in MA Librarianship
• “Information Literacy” (IL): 18 students 2014/5
• 3 hour f2f weeks 1-11
• Assignments: (1) Bibliography + reflection on IL;
(2) Reflection on intervention teaching IL
Sheila Webber, 2015

11. 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

12. The Teaching-Learning Environment Entwistle et al. (2004: 3)
A further
key
influence in
specifying
design &
quality is
the MOOC
platform
provider
and the
MOOC
platform
itself
Sheila Webber, 2015
These
elements
more
influential
in f2f
setting

13. “The most surprising insight that emerged from the
interview accounts was just how significant a role the
FutureLearn platform played in the course
development process. Firstly, the platformʼs available
activity formats largely dictated design..... Secondly,
FutureLearn exercised tight control over course
content and communications ... A rigorous ʻquality
assuranceʼ process described by the technical
developer involved editing of course content and
emails to learners.”
Colhoun (2014: 54, 56)
Sheila Webber, 2015

14. 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

15. Sharpe et al’s (2006) Dimensions of
blended learning
• Delivery: different modes (face-to-face and distance
education)
• Technology: mixtures of (web based) technologies
• Chronology: synchronous and a-synchronous interventions
• Locus: practice-based vs. class-room based learning
• Roles: multi-disciplinary or professional groupings
• Pedagogy: different pedagogical approaches
• Focus: acknowledging different aims
• Direction: instructor-directed vs. autonomous or learner-
directed learning.
Sheila Webber, 2015

16. Differences MOOC/non-MOOC?
• Delivery: MOOC - could be just online; non-MOOC required blended
approach; both involved interactions outside “class” time
• Technology: Both mixed technologies; different emphases
• Chronology: MOOC a-synchronous, non-M strong emphasis (value?)
on synchronous
• Locus: for both, class-room based learning but with strong link to
life/practice (both non-M assignments involved practice)
• Roles: Wider range of people involved in MOOC design (learning
technologists, film production, central MOOC team)
• Pedagogy: Perhaps more difficult for those in non-M to “avoid” the
teacher’s pedagogic approach (e.g. class activities, assessment
requirements)
• Focus: MOOC acknowledging wider range of aims?
• Direction: more autonomy required of MOOC learner
Sheila Webber, 2015

17. Teaching via my Second Life avatar
• Reactions to SL
– detached from reality ... escapism ... struggle to see the appeal
... lost ... don’t get it ... don’t see the relevance ... a sad depraved
place ...
– challenging ... out of my comfort zone ...
– though also ... interested ... intrigued ... fascinating ... beautiful ...
• Some people talked about my avatar as being cold, having
odd lip movements, commented
on my appearance etc. (in next iteration
will discuss some of this upfront)
• Draws attention to the identity
and position of the educator
Sheila Webber, 2015

18. Reflections on my pedagogic
development
• MOOC teaching had notable differences
in terms of my role and responsibilities: both constraining
(feared) & liberating (unexpected)
• In a mainly on-campus-course environment, still challenging to
integrate MOOC course design and delivery into mainstream
(e.g. Work Allocation Framework)
• Contrast of MOOC-work with introduction of new distance
learning Masters programme
• Finding it useful to interrogate module design with the Sharpe
et al and Conole frameworks: differences MOOC/non-MOOC
stimulating reflection
• Interesting to bring some MOOC-discourse back to on-campus
courses (e.g. impact (in REF sense), learner motivation)
Sheila Webber, 2015

19. Still find this model useful, to step back and reflect
learners - diverse in
what ways?
what does
“quality” mean in
MOOC learning?
what do I (as an
educator) have
control over?
what do we look at
when we revise a
MOOC? who decides?
Profiling and targetting: from “designing for the unknown learner”
to “increasingly designing MOOCs for outreach, rather than just
making MOOCs that individual faculty might like to provide”
(Macleod et al., 2015)
Does “motivation”
become an increasing
responsibility for
educators – and is this
necessary?
“our findings suggest that the range of pedagogic practices currently used in
MOOCs tends toward an objectivist-individualist approach” (Toven-Lindsey et
al., 2015) – faculty pedgagogy & market orientation of universities mentioned
“these findings indicate that the instructional design quality of MOOCs is
low” (Margaryan et al ., 2015) using Merrill’s principles of instruction
Sheila Webber, 2015

20. A quick glance at information behaviour
Sheila Webber, 2015

21. “Information Behavior is the totality of
human behavior in relation to sources
and channels of information, including
both active and passive information
seeking, and information use.”
Wilson (2000) 49.
Sources may be – people, their bodies, the environment, the media, books, photos,
web page etc etc. You may actively seek, bump into or browse information.
Sheila Webber, 2015

22. MOOC demographics
• 5,515 respondents to pre-course questionnaire
• 93% female; 61% aged 26-45; 54% from UK
• 75% working either full or part time
• 78% first degree or above
• 60% wished to add a fresh perspective to current
work
Sheila Webber, 2015

23. So could say that
• Majority in work; from comments evident many
working professionally with children
• Age profile (and comments) indicate many have
families
• Thus likely to have developed work and family
networks
• In contrast platform does not enable forming of
groups, and is an enormous cohort, so links less
likely to develop
Sheila Webber, 2015

24. Veletsianos et al, 2015
• Interviews with 13 MOOC learners (from several
countries), analysed using constant comparative method
• Asked to describe day to day MOOC activities: 3 key
themes:
– Interactions in social networks outside the MOOC platform
(friends, family, fellow learners)
– Notetaking (from videos)
– Content consumption
• Honeychurch and Draper (2015) describe patterns of
electronic interaction outside the MOOC (Twitter, Google
docs etc.) in the #rhizo14 MOOC
Sheila Webber, 2015

25. Exercise on information behaviour
• Exercise during my week of the Play MOOC, on
virtual play
• A short video, presented by my Second Life avatar,
described information behaviour, and gave examples
of acquiring information inside and outside SL
• 673 comments
• Following are impressions from an initial scan
through comments, not a formal analysis
• MOOC running again in November, will do more
formal analysis
Sheila Webber, 2015

26. • Now, think about how you discovered any information you
needed for this course and post a comment below.
• Did you stay inside the course? For example scanning the
videos to find what you wanted, reading the educators’
articles, asking questions in discussion threads.
• Did you search for material outside the course? If so, what did
you do - for example did you search Google, ask friends and
family, use books, journals or magazines?
• Did you tend to go searching for information, browse round for
it (e.g. reading through a lot of discussion posts) or bump into
information by chance?
• Do you think you’ve learnt things through play that you’ve
used in other parts of your life? Sheila mentioned things such
as learning leadership or teamwork skills, through using
games like World of Warcraft, but you needn’t restrict the
discussion to computer games
My introductory questions for the discussion in comments

27. 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
“I used the course material and my own experiences”
Sheila Webber, 2015

28. • 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

29. Implications for information literacy support
• Literature has focus on academic information literacy
(searching for information, evaluating sources) e.g.
Wright (2013), Gore (2014)
• Also focus on web sources or formal print sources
• Supporting sharing, managing and using information
might be as, or more, valuable (depending on the
MOOC)
– Inside and outside MOOC
– acknowledging interaction of self/inside-MOOC/Outside-
MOOC information
Sheila Webber, 2015

30. Sheila Webber
s.webber@sheffield.ac.uk
http://information-literacy.blogspot.com/
http://www.slideshare.net/sheilawebber
Twitter: @sheilayoshikawa
SL: Sheila Yoshikawa
Orcid ID 0000-0002-2280-9519
Pictures by Sheila Webber, taken in Second Life

31. References
• Colhoun, N. (2014). Learning from learning analytics: can data analysis of a
futurelearn mooc usefully inform design for learning? MSc Dissertation. Sheffield:
University of Sheffield.
• Conole, G. (2014). A 12-Dimensional classification schema for MOOCs.
http://e4innovation.com/?p=799
• 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.
• Honeychurch, S. and Draper, S. (2015). MOOC research about peer interaction.
(ppt)
https://www.academia.edu/10089074/MOOC_research_about_peer_interaction
• Macleod, H., Haywood, J. and Woodgate, A. (2015) Emerging patterns in
MOOCs: learners, course design and directions. TechTrends, 59 (1), 56-63.
Sheila Webber, 2015

32. References
• Margaryan, A., Bianco, M. and Littlejohn, A. (2015) Instructional quality of
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Computers & education, 80, 77-
83.
• Sharpe, R. et al. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended e-
learning: a review of UK literature and practice. York: HEA.
• Toven-Lindsey, B. , Rhoads, R. and Lozano, J. (2015) Virtually unlimited
classrooms: pedagogical practices in massive open online courses.
Internet and higher education, 24, 1-12.
• Veletsianos, G., Collier, A. and Schneider, E. (2015) Digging deeper into
learners’ experiences of MOOCs: participation in social networks outside
of MOOCs, notetaking and contexts surrounding context consumption.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 570-587.
• Webber, S. (2013) "Blended information behaviour in Second Life."
Journal of information science, 39(1), 85–100
• 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