A comparison of MOOC development and delivery approaches

Neil Smith, Helen Caldwell, Mike Richards, Mark Childs (Editor), Robby Soetanto (Editor)

Research output: Contribution to Book/Report typesChapterResearchpeer-review

Abstract

We present a comparison of two ways of developing and delivering MOOCs. One was developed by the Open University in collaboration with FutureLearn; the other was developed independently by a small team at Northampton University. The different approaches had very different profiles of pedagogic flexibility, cost, development processes, institutional support, and participant numbers. This comparison shows that, even several years after MOOCs came to prominence, there is a range of viable approaches for MOOCs. MOOCs on existing large platforms can reach many thousands of people, but constrain pedagogical choice. Smaller, self-made MOOCs have smaller audiences but can target them more effectively.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationOnline Learning for Stem Subjects: International Examples of Technologies and Pedagogies in Use
Place of PublicationLondon
PublisherRoutledge
Pages101-112
Number of pages180
ISBN (Print)9781138934443
Publication statusPublished - 16 Jan 2017

Fingerprint

pedagogics
flexibility
costs

Cite this

Smith, N., Caldwell, H., Richards, M., Childs, M. (Ed.), & Soetanto, R. (Ed.) (2017). A comparison of MOOC development and delivery approaches. In Online Learning for Stem Subjects: International Examples of Technologies and Pedagogies in Use (pp. 101-112). London: Routledge.
Smith, Neil ; Caldwell, Helen ; Richards, Mike ; Childs, Mark (Editor) ; Soetanto, Robby (Editor). / A comparison of MOOC development and delivery approaches. Online Learning for Stem Subjects: International Examples of Technologies and Pedagogies in Use. London : Routledge, 2017. pp. 101-112
@inbook{3b4ab781ba884499b753e8091ca4693b,
title = "A comparison of MOOC development and delivery approaches",
abstract = "We present a comparison of two ways of developing and delivering MOOCs. One was developed by the Open University in collaboration with FutureLearn; the other was developed independently by a small team at Northampton University. The different approaches had very different profiles of pedagogic flexibility, cost, development processes, institutional support, and participant numbers. This comparison shows that, even several years after MOOCs came to prominence, there is a range of viable approaches for MOOCs. MOOCs on existing large platforms can reach many thousands of people, but constrain pedagogical choice. Smaller, self-made MOOCs have smaller audiences but can target them more effectively.",
author = "Neil Smith and Helen Caldwell and Mike Richards and Mark Childs and Robby Soetanto",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "16",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781138934443",
pages = "101--112",
booktitle = "Online Learning for Stem Subjects: International Examples of Technologies and Pedagogies in Use",
publisher = "Routledge",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

Smith, N, Caldwell, H, Richards, M, Childs, M (ed.) & Soetanto, R (ed.) 2017, A comparison of MOOC development and delivery approaches. in Online Learning for Stem Subjects: International Examples of Technologies and Pedagogies in Use. Routledge, London, pp. 101-112.

A comparison of MOOC development and delivery approaches. / Smith, Neil; Caldwell, Helen; Richards, Mike; Childs, Mark (Editor); Soetanto, Robby (Editor).

Online Learning for Stem Subjects: International Examples of Technologies and Pedagogies in Use. London : Routledge, 2017. p. 101-112.

Research output: Contribution to Book/Report typesChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - A comparison of MOOC development and delivery approaches

AU - Smith, Neil

AU - Caldwell, Helen

AU - Richards, Mike

A2 - Childs, Mark

A2 - Soetanto, Robby

PY - 2017/1/16

Y1 - 2017/1/16

N2 - We present a comparison of two ways of developing and delivering MOOCs. One was developed by the Open University in collaboration with FutureLearn; the other was developed independently by a small team at Northampton University. The different approaches had very different profiles of pedagogic flexibility, cost, development processes, institutional support, and participant numbers. This comparison shows that, even several years after MOOCs came to prominence, there is a range of viable approaches for MOOCs. MOOCs on existing large platforms can reach many thousands of people, but constrain pedagogical choice. Smaller, self-made MOOCs have smaller audiences but can target them more effectively.

AB - We present a comparison of two ways of developing and delivering MOOCs. One was developed by the Open University in collaboration with FutureLearn; the other was developed independently by a small team at Northampton University. The different approaches had very different profiles of pedagogic flexibility, cost, development processes, institutional support, and participant numbers. This comparison shows that, even several years after MOOCs came to prominence, there is a range of viable approaches for MOOCs. MOOCs on existing large platforms can reach many thousands of people, but constrain pedagogical choice. Smaller, self-made MOOCs have smaller audiences but can target them more effectively.

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781138934443

SP - 101

EP - 112

BT - Online Learning for Stem Subjects: International Examples of Technologies and Pedagogies in Use

PB - Routledge

CY - London

ER -

Smith N, Caldwell H, Richards M, Childs M, (ed.), Soetanto R, (ed.). A comparison of MOOC development and delivery approaches. In Online Learning for Stem Subjects: International Examples of Technologies and Pedagogies in Use. London: Routledge. 2017. p. 101-112