2018-07-13 Presentation at European MOOQ Conference in Athens on MOOQ and the Quality of MOOCs - Findings and Tools by Christian M. Stracke and Esther Tan from OUNL

1. MOOQ and the
Quality of MOOCs:
Findings & Tools
Christian M. Stracke & Esther Tan

2. Open University of the Netherlands
Global cooperation: ECNU & KNOU
Global initiative ICORE for OR & OE
International WLS / LINQ Conference
eLC European Institute
ICDE Chair in OER
Dr. Christian M. Stracke:
Open Learning & Education, Innovations,
Policies, Quality & Competences, Impact

3. Open University of the Netherlands
The Quality of MOOCs
Let’s Learn to Learn
Seamless Learning
Dr. Esther Tan
Technology-Enhanced Learning,
Innovations in & out Classroom

4. Presentation Outline
1. The Quality of MOOCs: What is the problem?
2. A Conceptual Framework towards MOOC QRF:
Theoretical & Methodological Approach
3. Findings from MOOC surveys:
Learners, Designers & Facilitators
4. Findings from MOOC OEQ:
Learners, Designers & Facilitators
5. Findings from MOOC semi-structured interviews:
Providers

5. Any discussion on the quality of MOOCs should consider the goals
of both, the MOOC learner and the provider. (Hayes, 2015)
Critical questions to be addressed:
 Who are the MOOC users, and why?
 What makes a good MOOC from the learners’ experiences
with MOOCs?
 What are the best design principles and best practices
as indicators of quality?
 Are these quality indicators also MOOC domain specific and/or
MOOC type specific?
Problem Statement

6. A Research Framework for MOOQ
“When one designs any course, one has to have some learner
cohort in mind.” (Macleod et al., 2015, p. 9)
Main research goals:
1. Establish a research framework for the subsequent analysis of
MOOC design patterns and best practices
2. Develop a Quality Reference Framework (QRF) for MOOCs
Theoretical Framework

7. Global MOOC
Quality Survey

8. Quality Reference Framework with
criteria & checklist for MOOC design
Our main goal is the collaboration with all
to improve Open Education & MOOCs
www.MOOC-quality.eu

9.  Subjects of Investigation:
Learners, Designers, Facilitators & Providers
 Mixed Methods Approach:
Quantitative & qualitative data
1. Global MOOC Quality Survey,
2. Open-Ended questions (OEQ) &
3. Semi-structured interviews
Methodological Framework

10. Instruments of Measure
MOOC
Learners
MOOC
Designers
MOOC
Facilitators
MOOC
Providers
TOTAL
Global
MOOC
Quality
Survey
166
(69 qns.)
68
(89 qns.)
33
(58 qns.)
- 267
Open-
ended
Questions
118
(4 qns.)
42
(4 qns.)
27
(4 qns.)
- 185
Semi-
structured
interviews
-
12
(15 qns.)
12
(10 qns.)
12
(13 qns.)
36

11. MOOC Survey Constructs
Constructs Learners Designers Facilitators
Experience with MOOC X X X
Learning Objectives X X X
Duration and Structure X X
Learning Resources X X X
Accessibility and Inclusion X X
Learning Progress X
Learning Environment X X
Learning Assessment X X X
Learning Certification X X
Design Process X
Pedagogical Decisions X
Learning Support
 Feedback & Facilitation
 Interaction & Collaboration
X X X

12. Global MOOC
Quality Survey
(GMQS)

13. Global MOOC Quality Survey

14. Demographic Profile
Age range of all survey participants (learners, designers & facilitators) by gender

15. Demographic Profile
Educational level of all survey participants (learners, designers & facilitators) by gender

16. n VB B N G VG
Learning
experience
166 4 4 13 75 70
Learning Experience (Learners)

17. n VB B N G VG
Design
experience
68 1 2 13 33 19
Design Experience (Designers)

18. Interaction from Learners‘ Perspective
n N/A SD D N A SA
LF 146 20 5 13 48 37 23
LL 146 15 3 17 34 51 26
LR 146 9 2 8 25 61 41
GG 146 37 4 15 50 24 16
Note:
LF: Interaction between learners and facilitators
LL: Interaction among learners
LR: Interaction between learners and learning resources
GG: Interaction among teams and groups

19. n R2 M2 p
LF by
learners
125 .094 9.382 .000***
LL by
learners
130 .101 10.818 .000***
LR by
learners
136 .112 12.286 .000***
GG by
learners
108 .045 4.131 .026*
Bivariate Correlations between LLR4 and LLE4

20. Interaction from Designers‘ Perspective
n N/A SD D N A SA
LF 52 2 1 5 11 24 9
LL 52 1 1 3 11 19 17
LR 52 3 1 0 4 22 22
GG 52 8 2 10 14 13 5
Note:
LF: Interaction between learners and facilitators
LL: Interaction among learners
LR: Interaction between learners and learning resources
GG: Interaction among teams and groups

21. n R2 M2 p
LF by
designers
49 .003 0.109 .703
LL by
designers
50 .043 1.595 .143
LR by
designers
48 .046 1.537 .138
GG by
designers
43 .001 0.038 .821
Bivariate Correlations between DLR4 and DDE4

22. Interaction from Facilitators‘ Perspective
n N/A SD D N A SA
LF 32 0 1 3 3 15 10
LL 32 1 0 3 2 11 15
LR 32 0 0 0 5 12 15
GG 32 5 4 3 3 9 8
Note:
LF: Interaction between learners and facilitators
LL: Interaction among learners
LR: Interaction between learners and learning resources
GG: Interaction among teams and groups

23. n R2 M2 p
LF by fa-
cilitators
30 .181 0.242 .015*
LL by fa-
cilitators
29 .021 0.296 .435
LR by fa-
cilitators
30 .030 0.287 .342
GG by fa-
cilitators
25 .000 0.305 .971
Bivariate Correlations between FLR4 and FDE4

24. Open-ended
Questions
(Learners)

25. No of respondents across the six domains
Domain Learners Designers Facilitators
Social Sciences, Humanities &
Law
24 9 2
Education & Lifelong Learning 19 12 18
Computing & Informatics 18 5 2
Science, Math & Engineering 16 5 1
Nature, Environment & Health 21 6 1
Business, Management &
Economics
20 5 3
Total 118 42 27

26. MOOC Open-ended Questions (OEQ)
MOOC Learners
Q1. What were the three main strengths of the MOOC?
Q2. What were the three main weaknesses of the MOOC?
Q3. What was missing in the MOOC?
Q4. Looking ahead into the development of this type of
learning experiences, what could be improved in
future MOOCs?

27. Age Range of MOOC Learners
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 >75 Total
Business,
Management &
Economics
0 3 6 9 1 1 0 20
Nature, Environment
& Health 1 5 4 1 6 4 0 21
Science, Math &
Engineering 0 3 4 6 0 3 0 16
Computing &
Informatics 1 4 5 4 4 0 0 18
Education & Lifelong
Learning 1 1 7 3 5 2 0 19
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law 1 4 6 6 4 2 1 24
Total 4 20 32 29 20 12 1 118
Demographics of MOOC Learners

28. Educational Level of Learners
No
School-
ing
High
school
Bachelor’s
degree
Masters
degree
Doctorate
degree Total
Business,
Management &
Economics
0 1 4 10 5 20
Nature, Environment
& Health 0 2 6 12 1 21
Science, Math &
Engineering 0 1 4 7 4 16
Computing &
Informatics 0 0 3 9 6 18
Education & Lifelong
Learning 1 0 4 5 9 19
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law 0 0 4 12 8 24
Total 1 4 25 55 33 118
Demographics of MOOC Learners

29. Gender of MOOC Learners
Male Female Other Total
Business,
Management &
Economics
12 8 0 20
Nature,
Environment &
Health
14 7 0 21
Science, Math &
Engineering
7 9 0 16
Computing &
Informatics
8 10 0 18
Education &
Lifelong Learning
11 8 0 19
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law
10 13 1 24
Total 62 55 1 118
Demographics of MOOC Learners

30. Learning Experience
Very
Bad Bad Neutral Good Very
Good Total
Business,
Management &
Economics
1 0 2 9 8 20
Nature,
Environment &
Health
0 0 0 9 12 21
Science, Math &
Engineering
0 0 1 2 13 16
Computing &
Informatics
1 1 1 8 7 18
Education &
Lifelong Learning
1 1 0 9 8 19
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law
0 0 1 15 8 24
Total 3 2 5 52 56 118
Open-ended Questions (MOOC Learners)

31. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Learners)
% of Activities Completed
None <25% =50% >75% >100% Total
Business, Management &
Economics
1 2 2 3 12 20
Nature, Environment &
Health
0 5 2 4 10 21
Science, Math &
Engineering
0 1 3 3 9 16
Computing & Informatics 2 3 1 4 8 18
Education & Lifelong
Learning
1 3 2 5 8 19
Social Sciences, Humanities
&Law
1 2 3 9 9 24
Total 5 16 13 28 56 118

32. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Learners)
Q1. What were the three main strengths of the MOOC?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Curriculum
Design &
Delivery
Instructional
Design &
Technology
Assessment &
Evaluation
Facilitation &
Feedback
Interaction &
Collaboration
NumberofComments
Social Sciences, Humanities
and Law
Education and Lifelong
Learning
Computing and Informatics
Science, Maths and
Engineering
Nature, Environment and
Health
Business, Management and
Economics

33. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Learners)
Q2. What were the three main weaknesses of the MOOC?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Curriculum Design Instructional
Design &
Technology
Assessment &
Evaluation
Faciliation &
Feedback
Interaction &
Collaboration
NumberofComments
Social Sciences, Humanities and Law
Education and Lifelong Learning
Computing and Informatics
Science, Maths and Engineering
Nature, Environment and Health
Business, Management and Economics

34. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Learners)
Three main strengths and weaknesses of the MOOC
Strengths Weaknesses
Curriculum Design & Delivery
• Good choice & quality of content
• Good teachers, presenters & tutors
• LO aligns with content
• Weak choice & quality of content
• Short duration
Instructional Design & Technology
• Good integration of IT & media
• Support self-regulation & individual
learning paths
• Poor use of IT technological tools
• Resources lack variety & quality
Interaction & Collaboration
• Encourage local group discussion &
activities
• Foster interaction with field experts
• Lack interaction: learner-tutor
• No support for community building

35. Open-ended
Questions
(Designers)

36. MOOC Open-ended Questions (OEQ)
MOOC Designers
Q1. Which were the main design decisions that you made
during the development of the MOOC that later proved to
be successful?
Q2. Which were the three biggest difficulties that you faced
when designing the MOOC?
Q3. Which design decisions did not pay off as you expected?
Q4. Looking ahead into the development of this type of learning
design experiences, what methods and tools could be
helpful to improve the design of future MOOCs?

37. Age Range of MOOC Designers
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 >75 Total
Business, Management
& Economics
1 1 3 0 0 0 5
Nature, Environment &
Health
1 3 0 1 0 1 6
Science, Math &
Engineering
1 1 1 1 1 0 5
Computing &
Informatics
0 1 4 0 0 0 5
Education & Lifelong
Learning
1 2 5 3 1 0 12
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law
1 1 1 4 1 1 9
Total 5 9 14 9 3 2 42
Demographics of MOOC Designers

38. Educational Level of Designers
High
school
Bachelor’s
degree
Masters
degree
Doctorate
degree Total
Business, Management
& Economics
0 0 4 1 5
Nature, Environment &
Health
0 0 3 3 6
Science, Math &
Engineering
0 0 1 4 5
Computing &
Informatics
1 0 1 3 5
Education & Lifelong
Learning
0 0 3 9 12
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law
0 2 3 4 9
Total 1 2 15 24 42
Demographics of MOOC Designers

39. Gender of MOOC Designers
Male Female Total
Business, Management
& Economics
3 2 5
Nature, Environment &
Health
2 4 6
Science, Math &
Engineering
2 3 5
Computing &
Informatics
2 3 5
Education & Lifelong
Learning
5 7 12
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law
6 3 9
Total 20 22 42
Demographics of MOOC Designers

40. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Designers)
No. of MOOCs Designed
1 2 - 4 5 - 9 >10 Total
Business, Management &
Economics
3 2 0 0 5
Nature, Environment &
Health
2 1 2 1 6
Science, Math &
Engineering
1 2 2 0 5
Computing & Informatics 3 2 0 0 5
Education & Lifelong
Learning
4 5 1 2 12
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law
3 4 2 0 9
Total 16 16 7 3 42

41. Design Experience
Very
Bad Bad Neutral Good Very
Good Total
Business,
Management &
Economics
0 0 0 5 0 5
Nature,
Environment &
Health
1 0 1 3 1 6
Science, Math &
Engineering
0 0 1 2 2 5
Computing &
Informatics
0 0 1 3 1 5
Education &
Lifelong Learning
0 0 4 5 3 12
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law
0 1 0 3 5 9
Total 1 1 7 21 12 42
Open-ended Questions (MOOC Designers)

42. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Designers)
Q1. Which were the main design decisions that you made during the
development of the MOOC that later proved to be successful?
1
3
3
42
1
1
3
3
6
5
4
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
Assessibility&
Inclusion
Assessment &
Evaluation
Interaction &
Collaboration
Certification&
Accreditation
Curriculum
Design& Delivery
Expertise &
Manpower
Feedback &
Facilitation
Instructional
Design&
Technology
No.ofComments
Social Sciences, Humanities and Law
Education and Lifelong Learning
Computer and Informatics
Science, Maths and Engineering
Nature, Environment and Health
Business, Management and Economics

43. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Designers)
Q2. Which were the three biggest difficulties that you faced when designing the
MOOC?
3 3
1
3
3
2
8
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
5
4
4
2
5
3
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
Assessment &
Evaluation
Curriculum
Design&
Delivery
Expertise &
Manpower
Feedback &
Facilitation
Institutional
Support &
Funding
Instructional
Design&
Technology
Interaction &
Collaboration
Open Access,
Copyrights &
Licensing
No.ofComments
Social Sciences, Humanities and Law
Education and Lifelong Learning
Computer and Informatics
Science, Maths and Engineering
Nature, Environment and Health
Business, Management and
Economics

44. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Designers)
Successful Decisions Biggest Challenges
Curriculum Design & Delivery
• Content delivery format
• Content structure & LOs
• Weak choice & quality of content
• Short duration
Instructional Design & Technology
• Choice of learning activities
• Integration of IT & media
• Platform, software & production
decisions
Interaction & Collaboration Expertise & Manpower
• Creating community of learners
• Foster interaction between learner
& tutor/ facilitator
• Gap in content & instructional
design knowledge
• Coordination & collaboration, e.g.,
different experts & teaching staff
Three main successful decisions and three biggest challenges

45. Open-ended
Questions
(Facilitators)

46. MOOC Open-ended Questions (OEQ)
MOOC Facilitators
Q1. Which were the main decisions that you made during the
facilitation of the MOOC that later proved to be successful?
Q2.Which were the three biggest difficulties that you faced
when facilitating the MOOC?
Q3 Which facilitation decisions did not pay off as you expected?
Q4 Looking ahead into the development of this type of learning
experiences, what methods and tools could be helpful to
improve the facilitation of future MOOCs?

47. Age Range of MOOC Facilitators
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 >75 Total
Business, Management
& Economics
0 1 0 0 0 2 3
Nature, Environment &
Health
0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Science, Math &
Engineering
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Computing &
Informatics
1 0 0 1 0 0 2
Education & Lifelong
Learning
0 6 6 3 3 0 18
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law
0 0 1 1 0 0 2
Total 1 8 7 6 3 2 27
Demographics of MOOC Facilitators

48. Educational Level of MOOC Facilitators
High
school
Bachelor’s
degree
Masters
degree
Doctorate
degree Total
Business, Management
& Economics
0 0 1 2 3
Nature, Environment &
Health
0 0 0 1 1
Science, Math &
Engineering
0 0 0 1 1
Computing &
Informatics
1 0 1 0 2
Education & Lifelong
Learning
0 4 8 6 18
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law
0 0 2 0 2
Total 1 4 12 10 27
Demographics of MOOC Facilitators

49. Gender of MOOC Facilitators
Male Female Total
Business, Management
& Economics
0 3 3
Nature, Environment &
Health
1 0 1
Science, Math &
Engineering
1 0 1
Computing &
Informatics
0 2 2
Education & Lifelong
Learning
10 8 18
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law
0 2 2
Total 12 15 27
Demographics of MOOC Facilitators

50. Open-ended Questions (MOOC Facilitators)
No. of MOOCs Facilitated (OEQ)
1 2 - 4 5 - 9 >10 Total
Business, Management &
Economics
2 0 0 1 3
Nature, Environment &
Health
0 0 0 1 1
Science, Math &
Engineering
1 0 0 0 1
Computing & Informatics 1 1 0 0 2
Education & Lifelong
Learning
6 7 2 3 18
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law
0 2 0 0 2
Total 10 10 2 5 27

51. Facilitation Experience
Good Very Good Total
Business, Management
& Economics
3 0 3
Nature, Environment &
Health
0 1 1
Science, Math &
Engineering
1 0 1
Computing &
Informatics
1 1 2
Education & Lifelong
Learning
12 6 18
Social Sciences,
Humanities &Law
1 1 2
Total 18 9 27
Open-ended Questions (MOOC Facilitators)

52. 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Provide
guidelines on
attendance, quiz
& test
Monitor peer
review process
& forum
discussion
Show presence
& provide
feedback
Leverage
technological
tools to support
e-learning
Promote
interaction &
group dynamic
Provide quality
content &
appropriate
pedagogical
approach
No.ofComments
Successful Facilitation Decisions
Social Sciences, Humanities &
Law
Education & Lifelong
Learning
Computing & Informatics
Science, Math & Engineering
Nature, Environment & Health
Business, Management &
Economics

53. 0
1
2
3
4
5
Difficult to
engage &
retain learners
Integrate IT
& Media to
support
learning
Lack IT
competencies
(learners)
Mismatch of
content and
target learners
Overload
learners with
quizzes &
assignments
Provide free
certfication
and course
Unable to
foster
interaction &
collaboration
No.ofComments
Unsucessful Facilitation Decisions
Social Sciences,
Humanities & Law
Education & Lifelong
Learning
Computing & Informatics
Science, Math &
Engineering
Nature, Environment &
Health
Business, Management &
Economics

54. Semi-Structured
Interviews Questions
(Providers)

55. Categories Descriptor Indicators
Role of MOOCs in HE Providers perspective
on the role of MOOCs
in the current HE
national and
international scenario
 Pedagogical innovation
 Institutional culture: Toward
hybrid & blended courses;
teaching internally & reaching
out externally
Reasons to provide
MOOCs
Identification of causes
for offering MOOCs
• Institutional mission: to “place
people” as the largest course
provider in FutureLearn; foster
openlearn in the eco system;
educational research on
MOOCs; public engagement to
showcase Uni; capacity
development within the Uni
• Institutional goal: Foster
innovation in digital learning;
stay relevant in the changing
educational ecosystems
Summative Report of Coded Interviews

56. Categories Descriptor Indicators
Partnerships Establishment, organization
and management of
partnerships
 Partnership structure: Shared
network with a core group of
universities to share research
project
 Great collaboration between
researchers from various
disciplines (excellent model);
good to have external driver to
promote internal change; helped
in best practices.
Institutional
Implementation
Policies
Theoretical design of the
MOOC business model to
implement
 More strategic approach
developed: lifelong learning,
apprenticeship; MOOCs as
experimentation spaces -
separate from other learning &
teaching platforms
 Business model for delivering
MOOCs: undergraduate and
masters degrees) & chargeable
certification (for some types)
Summative Report of Coded Interviews

57. Categories Descriptor Indicators
Institutional
organizational
strategies
Description of the MOOC
organization and
development process in
the institution
 Support structures: 1. Set up a
content team – work with partners
to design well-designed courses
with quality; 2. Uni put in place a
number pedagogical coordinators
to help teaching staff to prepare
the course and provide ideas and
experiences, technical staff for
recording and post production,
staff for subtitles. 3. Central unit
works with individual academics
to find the best plan/ fit
 Re-train/ Assimilate teachers into
the MOOC culture: provide
teachers a checklist on dos &
donts for content in an online
learning environment.
Summative Report of Coded Interviews

58. Categories Descriptor Indicators
Sustainability Characterization of the
return on investment
 Funding source(s):
1. Business model: a number of bis
model. Some funded by external org.
most funded internally thru OU open
learning budget (by media budget fr
media unit)
2. Budget from uni for central unit
plus some money from Edx (but not
sufficient) received from Edx every 3
months some money; the objective is
to improve education; not profit-
making.
3. Four mio raised funding externally
for the fully online masters study
Summative Report of Coded Interviews

59. Categories Descriptor Indicators
Evaluation Design of the evaluation
process for the MOOC
policy established
 Level of success for the
institution:
1. Grant awareness: revenue gains,
paid courses
2. Prestige & research gains.
3. Educational success: moving from
standard to hybrid & blended
learning in accredited courses
4. Community of learners: with other
likeminded people/ other Uni
5. Met objectives, research, Uni
promotion & capacity building
 Specialist evaluation apart from
usual questionnaire on
institutional e-learning and
pedagogical innovation
pedagogical model
Summative Report of Coded Interviews

60.  Every institution should always have a roadmap to
improve and extend the use of current courses, such
as MOOCs:
1. facilitates implicit social learning, and may also help
to attract new students to programmes.
2, the sociocultural nature of students is changing in
Europe and beyond so it is important for to undertake
multicultural adaptation of courses for the different
student types
3. ECTS for MOOCs
 Globalization strategies of the training spaces:
MOOCs raise new research questions/problems that
deserve further study (e.g., what are the
consequences of these new models to knowledge
sharing/building on a global level).
Summative Report of Coded Interviews
Final words from MOOC Provider

61. christian.stracke@ou.nl
esther.tan@ou.nl
@ChrMStracke
@Taneste
www.opening-up.education
Let’s collaborate!

62. Thank you!
Your questions?
To be continued…

63. Open CC License for
sharing & re-using slides
This work is free to share under the creative commons licence:
"Attribution – Noncommercial – Share Alike 3.0"
You can copy, distribute and transmit the work under the following conditions:
1. Attribution –
2. Noncommercial –
3. Share Alike
Licence: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike
Some rights reserved, see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

64. First References for GMQS
Stracke, C. M., et al. (2018). Gap between MOOC designers' and MOOC
learners' perspectives on interaction and experiences in MOOCs: Findings
from the Global MOOC Quality Survey. In M. Chang, N.-S. Chen, R. Huang,
Kinshuk, K. Moudgalya, S. Murthy, & D. G. Sampson (Eds.), Proceedings
18th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies
(ICALT) (pp. 1-5). IEEE: Computer Society. DOI 10.1109/ICALT.2018.0000
Stracke, C. M., & Tan, E. (2018). The Quality of Open Online Learning and
Education: Towards a Quality Reference Framework for MOOCs. In J. Kay, &
R. Luckin (Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age. Making the Learning
Sciences Count: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences
(ICLS) 2018 (pp. 1029-1032). London: ISLS.
Stracke, C. M. et al. (2017). The Quality of Open Online Education: Towards
a Reference Framework for MOOCs. In Proceedings of 2017 IEEE Global
Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1712-1715).
IEEE Xplore. DOI: 10.1109/EDUCON.2017.7943080
To be continued …

65. The Quality Reference Framework
Dimension 1: Phases Analysis, Design, Implementation, Realization, Evaluation
Dimension 2: Perspectives Pedagogical, Technological, and Strategic
Dimension 3: Roles Designer, Facilitator, and Provider

66. MOOQ project:
www.MOOC-quality.eu
Online community for the
Quality Reference Framework:
www.MOOC-quality.net

67. Session Title:
Minds-on session
on Design
Processes for
MOOCs
Facilitators:
Christian M. Stracke
Cleo Sgouropoulou
Nikos Palavitsinis
Session Title:
Dealing with
practical quality
problems when
running a MOOC
Facilitators:
Bill Vassiliadis
Antonia Stefani
Esther Tan
Achilles Kameas
Parallel Sessions

68. Session 1:
Minds-on session on Design
Processes for MOOCs
Insights on:
• The Quality Reference
Framework in practice,
• Design decisions,
• Roles of designers,
facilitators and providers
Room: 3rd floor
Session 2:
Dealing with practical
quality problems when
running a MOOC
Insights on:
• Drop-out rates,
• Failure to collaborate,
• Fairness in automatic
assessment
Room: here (1st floor)
Parallel Sessions