In this position paper we argue that there exists an unrealized opportunity to integrate MOOC learners as lifelong collaborators in the institutional mission of teaching and research. It is well observed that while many learners sign up for a MOOC course, completion rates are much smaller, owing in part to the variety of the intrinsic motivations of learners. However, some learners not only complete, but re-engage in the course in subsequent offerings. The experience of this type of MOOC learner poses an interesting model for MOOC learner engagement, one that represents a shift from MOOC participant as mentee and learner, to MOOC participant as mentor and educator.
Introduction
We highlight two existing ways that learners can participate as collaborators in MOOC courses: mentors and liaisons. On the Coursera platform learners can become recognized as mentors by being selected by either Coursera or the course instructor and team. These learners have performed well in a previous session of the course and have been active and helpful participants in the course forums. This role comes with no financial remuneration1 and requires that the learners both successfully pass the course and complete the mentor training provided by Coursera. On top of this, institutions, such as the University of Michigan, regularly hire expert learners from previous iterations of a course as Course Operations Liaisons—individuals who are responsible for managing mentors and/or providing front line support in discussion forums. Figure 1 shows a conceptual perspective of how learners can be (directly) engaged in a course. 1 Coursera in fact stresses that only non-monetary rewards should be provided, as monetary rewards might change the relationship with the institution into a transactional one, revealing employment liability. Coursera does provide some limited micro-credentials (badges) for mentors. Our experiences suggest that mentors sometimes engage because of an identity they have formed with the course, along with a mixture of self-promotion and altruism.
While most of the MOOC research has been focused on enabling learners to
transition between the bottom two levels of the triangle, we believe there is much opportunity
to be realized in having some learners transition into the top two levels as well. In
particular, we are pursuing three different ways that we can engage learners as course
mentors and liaisons (i.e., collaborators) in our MOOC courses:
• Collaborators in Content Creation: In this case, mentors and liaisons will be engaged
as co-creators of content. We are exploring this through an introductory data science
course2, where mentors will be invited to help build next-iteration assignments and
problem banks. This is one way in which we can leverage the diverse background of
mentors, leading to a more diverse set of perspectives on how underlying skills can
be taught. Mentors will also help shepherd student submissions of content, as this
course allows students to upload datasets and identify new problems as part of a final
project. In doing so, mentors act as a content quality filter, and can value-add student
submissions with more details based upon their knowledge of the domain.
• Collaborators as Teachers: Mentors and liaisons will share knowledge and model
skills that are associated with moderate to deep knowledge of course content. We
have begun to provide our collaborators (largely those of the liaison type) with
opportunities to be presenters of content by asking them to script and film
supplementary materials, such as a demonstration of how to solve a programming problem. We
believe that providing collaborators with opportunities to teach will give them a rich
learning experience. This view aligns with pedagogical approaches that leverage the
distributed expertise within the community of learners. Brown and Campione (1994)
advanced a program called Fostering a Community of Learners, where they used
pedagogical techniques like reciprocal teaching
This is not the only way in which MOOC learners are being engaged as collaborators at the University of Michigan. For instance, some MOOC learners have enrolled in institutional MOOC offerings, then come to the institution to complete a more traditional residential education. Some of these learners have re-engaged with the MOOC functionality at the university, either through faculty-led research projects or through media production (e.g. providing live office hours). We have also begun to leverage residential learners as co-creators of content, both through direct employment (e.g. hiring liaisons) and/or through research (e.g. a class project to create MOOC content).
Finally, we want to distinguish this approach from that suggested by Rosé and Ferschke (2016), who describe an equally interesting “dual layer MOOC”, where the MOOC activity leads learners to communities of practice, connecting the novice learner through community with work practice. We liken the dual layer MOOC approach as being similar to the connectivist MOOC (cMOOC) experiences, where learners are loosely coupled and decentralized. The vision we have proposed here is more akin to that of xMOOCs, or a traditional mentorship model, where MOOC learners gain more experiences under the tutelage of an expert. Further, we note that Rosé and Ferschke’s vision for the dual layer MOOC was motivated in part by legitimate peripheral participation, where there is more of an onus on the learner to observe the activities of members of the community and gradually grow their responsibilities within the community. The approach we have described is more aligned with a guided approach, where postcourse interactions (e.g. the second layer in a dual layer MOOC) are mediated in part by the organization (e.g. the University of Michigan’s) and its structure and goals. Thus, instead of having a community or practice which is independent of the institution and self-directed, the learners who opt to continue to engage in the course via mentorship or liaison positions take on new roles as content creators, teachers, and researchers, and deepen their knowledge in that way. This distinction is not intended to suggest either approach is preferable, as it seems likely that learners might engage in different (or both!) forms of lifelong learning depending upon their interests.