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

Concerning the instructional design models to be employed with MOOCs, MOOCs have been classified by Stephen Downes (Siemens, 2012) into two distinct types: xMOOCs (Extended MOOCs) and cMOOCs (Connectivist MOOCs). xMOOCs are designed to be run like a classical university lecture or seminar, with a “top-down” model with one (or more) experts designing the learning journey and providing their knowledge to a group of learners. From the other side, the key concept behind cMOOCs is the networking, i.e. the learners may go anywhere to locate sources of information. cMOOCs provide variety of approaches in a dynamic constantly changing learning environment requiring learners to take full control of their own activities and by this reason these courses are characterised as learnercentred (Lackner & Kopp, 2014). Recently, mixed approaches are applied, combining for example social learning activities through online collaborative tools, connectivism (Siemens, 2005), and constructivist approaches for implementation of learning-by-doing and discovery learning activities for knowledge construction. Next, a variety of gamification techniques are integrated into the course in order for the learners to be motivated and stimulated to strive for better achievements and progress in the course.

In describing possible models for MOOCs and other open, online courses, one might refer to the use of technology in where learning takes place (class-room / online) and the role of technology by what means learning is ‘delivered’ (mobile, PC, books, etc.). Moreover, in discussing the pedagogical models of MOOCs one refers to about how participants learn. All approaches in literature emphasise the importance of learner activity, constructive alignment of activities with desired outcomes, the importance of feedback opportunities for consolidation (practice) and integration. However, they differ in the role and importance of other people, the authenticity of the learning activity, the formality of activity structures and sequences, the emphasis on retention/reproduction or reflection/internalisation and the locus of control.

However, these approaches very much focus on the micro level. In the SCORE2020 project it is emphasised to design and deliver MOOCs in connection to the meso and macro levels. The relation to the macro level is already evident as learning is in general recognised as an engine for individual, social and economic development. As such, it is highly advantageous for both individuals and society to invest in education. This is especially the case for MOOCs where institutional objectives are involved as well (e.g., using MOOCs for cost reduction, marketing, reaching new students, etc.). It is therefore of importance to incorporate these institutional objectives in designing MOOCs. On the other hand, one needs to be aware have meso-macro level developments influence the pedagogy used. For example, the dominance of commercial MOOC providers such as Coursera, EdX and Udacity in North America, has shaped the pedagogy they have adopted. The cMOOC and xMOOC distinction in MOOCs is the main categorisation used in considering their pedagogy. This grew out of the manner in which MOOCs were developed, and reflects how MOOCs are viewed by their developers. This platform dominance is not as prevalent in Europe, with many universities developing their own platforms. Moreover, European institutions have different reasons to be involved in MOOCs (for example Jansen & Goes, 2016). How MOOCs are used differ strongly between several target groups and stakeholders. Depending on which of these motivations is most prevalent will influence the type of pedagogy adopted.
MOOCs vary considerably the one from the other depending on the aim and on the subject (e.g. theoretical subjects vs training/project-oriented subjects). Because of that, it is important to define modular guidelines that highlight the relevant elements in a flexible way, in order to support the MOOC design process from time to time. In essence MOOCs share with other forms of online and distance education that they need to be designed carefully beforehand.

Keywords

cMOOCs · government policy · higher education · MOOC continuous evaluation · MOOC instructional design · MOOC research · MOOC uptake · open education · producing MOOCs · SCORE2020 · xMOOCs