Here are my notes from the final wrap-up session. Thanks to all of the participants who shared their thoughts and engaged in a productive and interesting dialogue (note: added notes from Larissa Ennis, Janet Cormack and Skip McFarlane):

Question 1: How does the type, branding and purpose of MOOC affect quality?

• Institutions can leverage the brand demand for professional development courses for particular subjects.
• Successful leverage of branding requires institutional support and allocation of resources.
• MOOCs for credit must offer a justification for why they satisfy a clearly defined standard of quality.
• Schools must provide criteria for MOOCs as quality educational experiences.
• Schools must set quality expectations and live up to them (i.e. consumers believe in the quality of the brand).
• Science-based MOOCs can help market STEM professions.
• In effect learners are responsible for determining for themselves the quality of a MOOC (while schools attempt to market MOOCs as everything to everyone, a notion that “dates” the relevance of a university).
• A rubric for quality assurance needs to be “looped into accreditation” (i.e. credentialing bodies need to agree on standards and definitions of what a MOOC is).

Question 2: How do the personal objectives of learners affect quality?

• Personal objectives key to determining the success and quality of a MOOC
• The various purposes for why one takes a MOOC directly affect its quality
• Self-paced MOOCs should not count as real courses (i.e. some type of student interaction and activity is necessary).
• One size does not fit all (i.e. quality can’t be measured by one standard definition of what characterizes a MOOC).
• Learner outcomes and expectations are more important than the educational journey.
• An institution’s decision to offer a MOOC should depend primarily on compelling and justifiable reasons to offer it.

Question 3: How does assessment strengthen or constrain the quality of a MOOC?

• Consider the reputation of the institution as quality indicator, especially if the MOOC is designed to market the school’s brand.
• Successful branding is dependent on high quality content and assessments (to include design and the absence of typos or poor quality components).
• Traditional assessments are not applicable to most MOOCs; rather, they should highlight situated, authentic assessments.
• Assessment can be offloaded to national-level tests, such as CLEP or GRE Advanced tests (especially for programs that offer credit for prior learning or highlight competency-based, experiential learning).
• Lack of standards can be an issue for admissions officials (i.e. how do they assess eligibility).
• The need for assessment is situational: yes for currently approved curriculum but no for programs that are new to the institution.
• Peer assessment can be quite valuable to a MOOC, especially for very large classes that prevent instructors from personally offering feedback; however, successful peer assessment requires training (or a very prescriptive rubric).

Question 4: What is the role of instructional design in the quality of a MOOC?

• Design considerations, such as level of engagement, depend on the audience.
• Active groups can be designed to highlight particular interests or regional location.
• Design clear entry and exit points into course activities, especially if there are multiple resources and activities (learners need to know what to do and where to go no matter where they enter the course).
• Communicate course expectations and design up front.
• Production value must be high.
• MOOCs can be designed for multiple audiences, acknowledging that not all students will complete the course.
• Important design considerations revolve round engagement and learning style.
• Different types of MOOCs need different standards, all based on best practice.
• Managing groups in a MOOC is critical to its success.
• Acceptance of MOOCs depends on a program or school’s approach to pedagogy. Programs that emphasize active, constructivist approaches with strong instructor scaffolding and coaching will be resistant to xMOOCs but more accommodating of connectivist cMOOCs.

The Objectives table had an interesting discussion on the relationship of learner outcomes and expectations on the quality of a MOOC. Here are my bulleted notes:

• The standard definitions of MOOCs doesn’t always match institutional expectations of what defines a “course” (i.e. high retention).
• If the goal of a MOOC is enrichment, professional development or simply an overview of a topic (perhaps by students shopping for a major), a MOOC could easily satisfy learner outcomes and expectations in spite of the retention/persistence rate.
• Many MOOC participants would like some sort of credential or recognition for their participation (e.g. certificate or badge).
• To qualify as a course MOOCs must contain activity and interaction (i.e. self-paced content should not count as a course, that is, information is not instruction).
• Is assessment a necessary requirement for a “real” course, and if so, must MOOCs (as courses) require assessment? Great question, but no answer yet .
• Before schools validate the quality of a MOOC they must first define what they mean by a Massive Open Online Course.
• Takeaway: Learner outcomes are more important than the educational journey (with some disagreement)