The SCORE2020 project focused on (regional) support structures in the development and delivery of Open Education and especially of MOOCs. In total, thirteen intellectual outputs are available.

http://score2020.eadtu.eu/results

Introduction

The hype surrounding MOOCs has been tempered by scepticism about the quality of MOOCs. The possible flaws of MOOCs include the quality of the pedagogies employed, low completion rates, and a failure to deliver on the promise of inclusive and equitable quality education for all. On the other hand, MOOCs have given a boost to open and online education, have become a symbol of a larger modernisation agenda for universities, and are perceived as tools for universities to improve the quality of blended and online education, both in degree education and Continuous Professional Development. MOOC provision is also much more open to external scrutiny as part of a stronger globalising higher education market. This has important consequences for quality frameworks and quality processes that go beyond the individual MOOC.

Goal number four of the UNESCO Sustainable Development Goals states: “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (UNESCO, 2015a). In addition the Education 2030 Declaration (UNESCO 2015b, point 43, page 16) states "The provision of tertiary education should be made progressively free, in line with existing international agreements." MOOCs are generally seen as contributing to these goals as they provide complete learning experiences without any costs for the participants. However, this does not necessarily mean that MOOCs ensure quality education for all.

In exploring this issue, we start with the question: what is a MOOC? Bates (2015) considers MOOCs to share a combination of the four key characteristics related to the acronym Massive Open Online Course. A collaboration of EU-funded MOOC projects extended this to the following definition1 : "an online course designed for a large number of participants that can be accessed by anyone anywhere, as long as they have an internet connection, is open to everyone without entry qualifications and offers a full/complete course experience online for free". This definition was recently validated amongst European institutions (Jansen, Schuwer, Teixeira & Aydin, 2015).

This definition positions MOOCs as part of both online and open education. But what openness means has been the subject of some debate (Open Education Handbook, 2014); openness must not be associated only with “free”. In general, open education has the primary goal of removing barriers to education (Bates, 2015). Mulder & Jansen (2015) examine whether MOOCs can be instrumental in opening up education. Their main conclusion is that MOOCs cannot remove all barriers to learning, and hence can only contribute, to a certain extent, to ensuring quality education for all. The main flaw is that quality assurance and accreditation schemes are not yet equipped for MOOCs.
This raises the question of the relation between MOOCs and formal education. Ehlers, Ossiannilsson & Creelman (2013) posed a question at the start of the EFQUEL MOOC project (http://mooc.efquel.org): ‘Can the quality of MOOCs be assessed in the same way as any defined university course with traditional degree awarding processes?’. Are MOOCs essentially forms of non-formal education, with related flexible provision? Or are MOOCs a pathway to higher education, helping to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all? The latter option implies the need for similar quality assurance processes as in formal education.

This output reviews current and emerging practice for the quality assurance and quality enhancement of MOOCs and other open, online courses. This output will discuss different views on quality process and provide different quality frameworks and practices used. Central question is How to stimulate quality perspective by developers for different target groups. In this context it is important to show practices how to stimulate and ensure high quality and offering public insight into the quality provided. Aspects related to quality culture (stimulus by visibility, peer sharing, learner feedback, learning analytics), QA including accreditation (main challenge, part of it could be by connection to certificate services), quality checklists used,, etc. It has strong relation to output 5 of SCORE2020 project ensuring the use of best practices in the instructional design models.

This output stresses the importance of the use of international quality frameworks for MOOCs, embedded in institutional quality processes. In addressing the issue of how best to assure quality in MOOCs, the question of why quality matters for MOOCs is first tackled. Quality frameworks and processes are then discussed, and illustrated with two case studies. In this context the OpenupEd Quality Label for MOOCs is considered. As such quality approaches are discussed, including possible measures at different levels and the tension between product and process models. Two case studies are described, one at the institutional level (The Open University) and one at a MOOC platform level (FutureLearn), and how they intertwine is discussed. The importance of a national or international quality framework which carries with it a certification or label is illustrated with the OpenupEd Quality label. Both the label itself and its practical use are described in detail. The examples will illustrate that MOOCs require quality assurance processes tailored to e-learning and open education, embedded in institutional frameworks. The increasing unbundling of educational services may require additional quality processes.

Note that part of this SCORE2020 work is published as a separate article
Jansen, D. , Rosewell, J. & Kear, K. (2016). Quality Frameworks for MOOCs. In Open Education: from OERs to MOOCs. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer.
Checklists developed in the SCORE2020 project are now operational as part of the OpenupEd initiative. Some elements of the checklists were developed in collaboration with the ECO project, others are in operation by SCORE2020 partners and reviewed as part of SCORE2020.

Keywords

France · government policy · higher education · MOOC accreditation · MOOC dropout rates · MOOC lifelong learning · MOOC professional development · MOOC quality · MOOC research · MOOC uptake · Norway · OER · SCORE2020