Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

#1: overall, the paper appears to make a meaningful contribution and I would recommend it for publication, with minor revisions related to the core concept of the relationship between MOOCs and OERs/openness more generally   #2: the point the authors are making about the enclosure of MOOCs in practice is important, and the intentional OER creation they detail is valuable. However, I would suggest a framing of "re-opening MOOCs" rather than "unMOOCing," partly because as they themselves note, the original meaning and intent of MOOCs was entirely in line with OERs, though at a pedagogical and not simply resource level. What the authors describe in their course is not a process of un-MOOCing as it is not counter to the MOOC concept, but re-MOOCing in that it resists the recent shift toward enclosure of open resources and pedagogical practices for purposes of institutional capital.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

Comment 1: overall, the paper appears to make a meaningful contribution and I would recommend it for publication, with minor revisions related to the core concept of the relationship between MOOCs and OERs/openness more generally 

 

Response 1: We thank you for this positive feedback regarding our contribution. We have tried to improve the relationship between MOOCs and OER a bit more by reviewing the related work and adding two additional paragraphs. Changes are tracked in blue.

 

Comment 2: the point the authors are making about the enclosure of MOOCs in practice is important, and the intentional OER creation they detail is valuable. However, I would suggest a framing of "re-opening MOOCs" rather than "unMOOCing," partly because as they themselves note, the original meaning and intent of MOOCs was entirely in line with OERs, though at a pedagogical and not simply resource level. What the authors describe in their course is not a process of un-MOOCing as it is not counter to the MOOC concept, but re-MOOCing in that it resists the recent shift toward enclosure of open resources and pedagogical practices for purposes of institutional capital.

 

Response 2: We appreciate this comment that deals with the final claim that we have in our research, which is “re-opening MOOCs”. The name that we have assigned to the process described in the paper as “The unMOOCing process” is not counter to the MOOC concept, as you indicate. We have assigned this name because the concept is similar to “unpacking” the contents of a MOOC. In this case, we unpack the contents of a MOOC in a number of open educational resources (OERs), and we informally call these resources as unMOOCed materials, since now they are not part of a MOOC but isolated OERs instead. We hope this clarifies the rationale that we have to call this “The unMOOCing process”. We have additionally added the following text in Section 3 to clarify the name of the process:

 

“We have denominated this process as unMOOCing since the concept is similar to “unpacking” the contents of a MOOC. In this case, we unpack the contents of a MOOC in a number of OERs, and we informally call these resources as unMOOCed materials, since now they are not part of a MOOC but OERs instead.”

Reviewer 2 Report

The idea of "unMOOCing" OER by separating them from their original presentation is an interesting one!  Here it is associated with a kind of return to the original concept of openness.

In the introduction I think you should consider adding some acknowledgement of the vexed attempts to define openness. It's kind of a contested term, right?  Does it mean freedom of access? A commitment to social justice? Is it a technical standard? Does it mean different things to different people (and is that OK)?  I feel like it's fine for you to have the view that you're interested in a particular or "original" account of openness but you might need to devote a bit more argument to this (though you do describe some of this on p.3).  Similarly, I think you treat the definitions of OER and MOOCs as a bit uncontroversial but this is also a debate.  This paper might be helpful: https://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/view/1010.

I am persuaded that unMOOCing content from courses can make them more useful and accessible. I also understand that this can be a bulwark against corporate capture of online learning.  But I have less of a sense of how much work is involved in the "unMOOCing" process and I think this is an important part of the puzzle.  After all, for many people creating OER themselves is done in their own time and can be quite demanding. Asking them to "unbake the cake" of a MOOC they have created might be unrealistic in some cases.

Evaluation of the disparate components of a MOOC is an interesting idea but I wonder here again about the cognitive and time load required for such an evaluation. If the people taking the course are postgrads they might be disproportionately likely to invest this kind of time.  They may also be more likely to be interested in OER that they can reuse.  It would be interesting to know what the impact of downloading the resources was, and whether/how they were reused.

Overall, I am not sure that the data presented in the paper really justifies the larger claims about the direction of open education that come in the conclusion (as the authors acknowledge with respect to generalisation).  Perhaps this book (by a colleague of mine) would be helpful in framing - https://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/books/m/10.5334/bam/.  I think it would be good to devote more discussion to linked open data (and metadata more generally) and perhaps think about whether what is proposed is really a workflow for MOOCs or something more like a commitment to a set of values.

Overall I consider this paper to be a useful and thought-provoking contribution.  I think it would be improved with a tighter argument in places (as I have indicated).

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment 1: The idea of "unMOOCing" OER by separating them from their original presentation is an interesting one!  Here it is associated with a kind of return to the original concept of openness.

Response 1: We thank you for this positive feedback.

Comment 2: In the introduction I think you should consider adding some acknowledgement of the vexed attempts to define openness. It's kind of a contested term, right?  Does it mean freedom of access? A commitment to social justice? Is it a technical standard? Does it mean different things to different people (and is that OK)?  I feel like it's fine for you to have the view that you're interested in a particular or "original" account of openness but you might need to devote a bit more argument to this (though you do describe some of this on p.3).  Similarly, I think you treat the definitions of OER and MOOCs as a bit uncontroversial but this is also a debate.  This paper might be helpful: https://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/view/1010.

Response 2: We have read the paper recommended and it presents a wonderful discussion. We have succinctly clarified what we mean by “Open” within the context of this research, in order to not deviate the narrative from the main contribution:

“The  term  Open  has  been  a controversial  one  and  there  have  been  multiple  views  [14],  in  this  work  we  understand  Open  as no fees or requirements to sign up to a course.”

Comment 3: I am persuaded that unMOOCing content from courses can make them more useful and accessible. I also understand that this can be a bulwark against corporate capture of online learning.  But I have less of a sense of how much work is involved in the "unMOOCing" process and I think this is an important part of the puzzle.  After all, for many people creating OER themselves is done in their own time and can be quite demanding. Asking them to "unbake the cake" of a MOOC they have created might be unrealistic in some cases.

Response 3: We agree with this statement. Within our current case study, unMOOCing the contents added an additional burden to us as course practitioners, the ideal situation is that this process would be seamless for course practitioners. Additionally, we also agree that corporate MOOC platforms might not receive this idea well, as it would be perceived as bad for business. We have added these ideas in the following new paragraph within the Conclusions. 

“In this case study, we made the materials available at the end of the course, but another possibility would be to make them available at the beginning of the course. This can help learners to decide if they should stick to the course schedule or download the materials for later. Eventually, the objective of the unMOOCing process would be to systematically have MOOC materials easily available to the learners and other unregistered people. Since we do not want to increase the workload of the course staff with an additional burden, this process should be transparent and seamless for the course staff. Therefore, new features and infrastructure would be required to guarantee an easy workflow, with the final objective of making the unMOOCing process systematically available at an institution or MOOC platform level. This thinking might be against some corporate MOOC companies since it could mean to ‘lose clients', therefore it seems like support from the institutions (universities or others) might be a more promising direction.”

Comment 4: Evaluation of the disparate components of a MOOC is an interesting idea but I wonder here again about the cognitive and time load required for such an evaluation. If the people taking the course are postgrads they might be disproportionately likely to invest this kind of time.  They may also be more likely to be interested in OER that they can reuse.  It would be interesting to know what the impact of downloading the resources was, and whether/how they were reused.

Response 4: This is a great comment. We consider it is beyond the scope of this paper, but we have added the following future work that we consider could be very interesting to perform:

“Additionally, future studies should plan to conduct a follow-up study in a second phase, for example, half a year later, where they can ask learners that downloaded the unMOOCed resources how were those materials eventually used”

Comment 5: Overall, I am not sure that the data presented in the paper really justifies the larger claims about the direction of open education that come in the conclusion (as the authors acknowledge with respect to generalisation).  

Response 5: We made changes in the last paragraph of the discussion and first paragraph of the conclusions, which were the most assertive ones, to lighten up the tone. You can review the text in the manuscript as the changes are tracked.

Comment 6: I think it would be good to devote more discussion to linked open data (and metadata more generally) and perhaps think about whether what is proposed is really a workflow for MOOCs or something more like a commitment to a set of values.

Response 6: Regarding the first comment on Linked Open Data, we have expanded a bit the discussion about it with the following paragraph:

“More work would be needed to guarantee a seamless integration between these courses, and the use of Linked Open Data (LOD) shows high promise [15]. We are not the first ones to indicate that LOD could play an important role in MOOCs. Previous authors presented the vision of LOOCs (Linked Open Online Courses) to avoid the monolithic and closed creations [35], other colleagues proposed MOOCLink that seeks to integrate data from different MOOC providers [36] and previous work also used LOD to automatically matching MOOC learning outcomes with learners’ needs [37]. Thinking about potential platforms that could host the unMOOCed resources, the use of LOD could play an important role, for example by greatly facilitating the findability, reusability and interoperability of these materials.”

Regarding the second comment, we believe that the best case scenario would be to have an additional infrastructure at a MOOC platform level, or at an institution level, that could facilitate the unMOOCing process automatically. These ideas are expressed in the Conclusions as:

“Therefore, new features and infrastructure would be required to guarantee an easy workflow, with the final objective of making the unMOOCing process systematically available at an institution or MOOC platform level.”

Comment 7: Overall I consider this paper to be a useful and thought-provoking contribution.  I think it would be improved with a tighter argument in places (as I have indicated).

Response 7: We are glad to hear that you feel like this is a thought-provoking contribution as this was our original goal. We hope that the community can pick up from these ideas and perform additional case studies implementing the unMOOCing process.

Reviewer 3 Report

While the authors argue that their unMOOCing process resonates with the original concept of MOOCs they fail to recognise that the original MOOCs were not about content delivery at all - they were about connecting people and sharing participant ideas - this defined as a cMOOC, with later content-focused MOOCs being labeled xMOOCs. A Wider engagement with the literature around MOOCs is needed in the article to make it more rigorous in its definitions and assumptions. The history presented ignores the age of the development of reusable Learning Objects - that morphed into the OER movement.

The unMOOCing process presented appears to be not as generous as the authors claim - as the students only get access to download the materials at the end of the MOOC and thus it is effectively a way of encouraging MOOC completion rather than OER practice. Instead of unMOOC perhaps a better approach to facilitate OER practice would be to make the MOOC and materials truely Open right from the start?

 

Bates, T. (2014, October 13). Comparing xMOOCs and cMOOCs: philosophy and practice. http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/13/comparing-xmoocs-and-cmoocs-philosophy-and-practice/

 

Cormier, D. (2014). The MOOC that community built. International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3 Special Issue on Quality in Massive Open Online Courses), 108 - 110. http://www.papers.efquel.org/index.php/innoqual/article/view/162 

 

Conole, G. (2014). A new classification schema for MOOCs. International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3 Special Issue on Quality in Massive Open Online Courses), 66-77. http://www.papers.efquel.org/index.php/innoqual/article/view/162 

 

Mackness, J., & Bell, F. (2015, January-March). Rhizo14: A Rhizomatic Learning cMOOC in Sunlight and in Shade [Massive open online course (MOOC), rhizomatic learning, ethics, learner experience, teaching, Rhizo14]. Open Praxis, 7(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.1.173 

 

Polsani, P. R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital information, 3(4), 164. 

 

Boyle, T. (2003). Design principles for authoring dynamic, reusable learning objects. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1). 

 

Wiley, D. A. (2002). The instructional use of learning objects (Vol. 1). Agency for instructional technology Bloomington, IN. 

 

Downes, S. (2001). Learning objects: Resources for distance education worldwide. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2(1). 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment 1: While the authors argue that their unMOOCing process resonates with the original concept of MOOCs they fail to recognise that the original MOOCs were not about content delivery at all - they were about connecting people and sharing participant ideas - this defined as a cMOOC, with later content-focused MOOCs being labeled xMOOCs. A Wider engagement with the literature around MOOCs is needed in the article to make it more rigorous in its definitions and assumptions. The history presented ignores the age of the development of reusable Learning Objects - that morphed into the OER movement.

Response 1: Thank you for these suggestions. We have re-written part of the Related Work Section taking into account your comments and your suggested references. The changes are tracked in the manuscript.

Comment 2: The unMOOCing process presented appears to be not as generous as the authors claim - as the students only get access to download the materials at the end of the MOOC and thus it is effectively a way of encouraging MOOC completion rather than OER practice. Instead of unMOOC perhaps a better approach to facilitate OER practice would be to make the MOOC and materials truely Open right from the start?

Response 2: We agree that another possibility would have been to make materials available openly from the start, perhaps as part of the first unit. We have added this idea and other additional ones as part of the Conclusions with the following text:

“In this case study, we made the materials available at the end of the course, but another possibility would be to make them available at the beginning of the course. This can help learners to decide if they should stick to the course schedule or download the materials for later. Eventually, the objective of the unMOOCing process would be to systematically have MOOC materials easily available to the learners and other un-registered people. Since we do not want to increase the workload of the course staff with an additional burden, this process should be transparent and seamless for the course staff. Therefore, new features and infrastructure would be required to guarantee an easy workflow, with the final objective of making the unMOOCing process systematically available at a institution or MOOC platform level.”

Comment 3: Bates, T. (2014, October 13). Comparing xMOOCs and cMOOCs: philosophy and practice. http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/13/comparing-xmoocs-and-cmoocs-philosophy-and-practice/

Cormier, D. (2014). The MOOC that community built. International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3 Special Issue on Quality in Massive Open Online Courses), 108 - 110. http://www.papers.efquel.org/index.php/innoqual/article/view/162 

Conole, G. (2014). A new classification schema for MOOCs. International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3 Special Issue on Quality in Massive Open Online Courses), 66-77. http://www.papers.efquel.org/index.php/innoqual/article/view/162 

Mackness, J., & Bell, F. (2015, January-March). Rhizo14: A Rhizomatic Learning cMOOC in Sunlight and in Shade [Massive open online course (MOOC), rhizomatic learning, ethics, learner experience, teaching, Rhizo14]. Open Praxis, 7(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.1.173 

 Polsani, P. R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital information, 3(4), 164. 

 Boyle, T. (2003). Design principles for authoring dynamic, reusable learning objects. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1). 

Wiley, D. A. (2002). The instructional use of learning objects (Vol. 1). Agency for instructional technology Bloomington, IN. 

Downes, S. (2001). Learning objects: Resources for distance education worldwide. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2(1). 

Response 3: We have used and cited in the manuscript the references here mentioned to address previous Comment 1.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have responded to the review comments and improved the paper significantly. The research would have more impact if the results were collated over several iterations of the cMOOC and the impact on participants practice explored, however the paper makes an interesting overview of the MOOC design and initial evaluation stages.