Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Learning Designers in the ‘Third Space’:  The Socio-Technical Construction of MOOCs and  Their Relationship to Educator and Learning Designer Roles in HE Cover

Learning Designers in the ‘Third Space’: The Socio-Technical Construction of MOOCs and  Their Relationship to Educator and Learning Designer Roles in HE

By: Steven White and  Su White  
Open Access
|Nov 2016

Figures & Tables

jime-2016-1-429-g1.png
Figure 1

Representation of Whitchurch’s concept of ‘third space’ activity in HE (Whitchurch & Law, 2010).

jime-2016-1-429-g2.png
Figure 2

Simplified STIN diagram of MOOC development activity at University A.

jime-2016-1-429-g3.png
Figure 3

MOOCs development as third space activity at University A.

Table 1

Third space processes of contestation, reconciliation and reconstruction in MOOC development.

ContestationReconciliationReconstruction
MOOC designReactions against ‘content’ push approach
Reactions against limitations of platform
Limitations / absence of institutional procedures
Emerging complexity of learning designer role
Conflict over content, approach, control
Need for cooperation across departments emerges
Negotiation of activities, resources, procedures within the institution and with FL
Reflection on / response to MOOC participant behaviour and feedback
LDs redefine own roles and those of others
LDs constrain creativity, content and activity types in relation to pressures on resources, time and reputational risk
MOOC developmentUncertainty and tension regarding development roles, processes and allocation of resources
Diverse approaches to MOOC projects (among different MOOC teams)
Conflict over power relations between Educators, LDs, legal and marketing teams
Negotiation of roles and decision-making in development processes
Need for a problem solving approach is realized
Recognition/understanding of perceptions of reputational and legal risks
LDs and management establish new organizational and decision making processes for MOOCs (limited educator input)
Consolidation of a problem solving approach – LDs as relationship builders and brokers
Limitations on educator access to content and resources
Quality assurance procedures reformulated and standardized
Funding/resourcesTop down funding announced
Need for substantial ‘goodwill’ of contributors emerges
Ambiguity, tensions and conflict over funding allocation (for mentoring, support, media production)
Less funding available for course re-runs / course development
Negotiation of cost burden between Learning Support Unit and departments
Exploration of different business models (recruitment, partnerships, third party funding)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.429 | Journal eISSN: 1365-893X
Language: English
Submitted on: Jul 31, 2016
Accepted on: Oct 26, 2016
Published on: Nov 29, 2016
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2016 Steven White, Su White, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.