You are here:

A Journey to Select the Most Suitable MOOCs Platform: The Case of a Swiss University
PROCEEDINGS

, , , , , Faculty of Communication Sciences, USI – Università della Svizzera italiana, Switzerland

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada ISBN 978-1-939797-16-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

In this paper the process from the strategic decision to become MOOC provider to the selection of the suitable platform is demonstrated and discussed. The case presents a boutique and international Swiss university, which has decided to enter the MOOC world both for altruistic reasons, especially to support people in developing/emerging countries, and for gaining more visibility internationally. In order to reach intended strategic goals, without omitting actual constraints, the selection of a suitable MOOC platform plays a major role, not only from a pedagogical perspective – which platforms might support a rich learning experience – but also from a managerial viewpoint: encompassing costs, visibility, opportunity to be accepted on a major platform. Both the process leading to a managerial informed decision, and the methodology developed to support such decision are introduced.

Citation

Lin, J., Kalbaska, N., Tardini, S., Decarli Frick, E. & Cantoni, L. (2015). A Journey to Select the Most Suitable MOOCs Platform: The Case of a Swiss University. In S. Carliner, C. Fulford & N. Ostashewski (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2015--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 273-283). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 13, 2024 from .

© 2015 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Botturi, L., Cantoni, L., Lepori, B., & Tardini, S. (2006). Fast Prototyping as a Communication Catalyst for ELearning Design. Making the Transition to E-Learning: Strategies and Issues, Idea Group, Hershey, (Pa). 266-283.
  2. Creelman, A., Ehlers, U., & Ossiannilsson, E. (2014). Perspectives on MOOC quality-An account of the EFQUEL MOOC quality project. INNOQUAL-The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2 (3), 78-87.
  3. Daniel, J. (2012). Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2012 (3), Art-18. DOI: .
  4. Epelboin, Y. (2013). MOOC in Europe. Retrieved on April 28, 2015 from http://goo.gl/zVglJ6.
  5. Iiyoshi, T., & Kumar, M.V. (2008). Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  6. Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C., & Teixeira, A. (2014). Accessibility analysis in MOOC platforms. A case study: UNED COMA and UAb iMOOC. Proceedings of V International Conference on Quality and Accessibility in eLearning 2014 (pp. 545-550). Antigua Guatemala, Guatemala. Retrieved on April 28, 2015 from
  7. Johansson, S., & Frolov, I. (2014). An Adaptable Usability Checklist for MOOCs: A usability evaluation instrument for Massive Open Online Courses (master's thesis). Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. Retrieved on April 28, 2015 from http://goo.gl/sgx4I7.
  8. Kolowich, S. (2013). How EdX plans to earn, and share, revenue from its free online courses. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 21.
  9. Leontyev, A., & Baranov, D. (2013). Massive open online courses in chemistry: A comparative overview of platforms and features. Journal of Chemical Education, 90 (11), 1533-1539.
  10. Liyanagunawardena, T.R., & Williams, S.A. (2014). Massive open online courses on health and medicine: review. Journal of medical Internet research, 16 (8).
  11. MOOCs Directory (2015). About MOOCs. Retrieved on April 28, 2015 from http://www.moocs.co.
  12. Morris, N.P., Livesey, S., & Elston, C. (2014). First time MOOC provider: reflections from a research-intensive university in the UK. In U. Cress, & C. Delgado Kloos, (Eds.) Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2014 (pp. 259–263). Lausanne, Switzerland: European MOOC Summit. ISBN 978-848294-689-4.
  13. Peterson, R. (2013). What do MOOCS cost. Retrieved on March 23, 2015 from http://goo.gl/FEqNNC.
  14. Rapanta, C., & Cantoni, L. (2013). Being in the Users’ Shoes: Anticipating Experience While Designing Online Courses. BJET: British Journal of Educational Technology, 45 (5), 765-777.
  15. Spyropoulou, N., Pierrakeas, C., & Kameas, A. (2014). Creating MOOC guidelines based on best practices. EDULEARN14 Proceedings (pp. 6981–6990). Barcelona, Spain. Retrieved on April 28, 2015 from
  16. Zary, L., & Hernwall, P. (2014). Design considerations when adopting the OpenEdx MOOC platform in campusbased courses: A comparative case study. PeerJ PrePrints, 2:e459v1. Retrieved on April 28, 2015 from http://goo.gl/SjEsrE.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Slides

Also Read

Related Collections