Content and instructional design of MOOCs on information literacy. A comprehensive analysis of 11 xMOOCs
| Published date | 11 March 2019 |
| Pages | 173-189 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-08-2018-0079 |
| Date | 11 March 2019 |
| Author | Stefan Dreisiebner |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Librarianship/library management,Library & information services |
Content and instructional design
of MOOCs on information literacy
A comprehensive analysis of 11 xMOOCs
Stefan Dreisiebner
Department of Information Science and Information Systems,
University of Graz, Graz, Austria
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to uncover the current status of informationliteracy (IL) instruction through
massive open online courses(MOOCs), comparing the content and instructionaldesign of existing offers and
showingavenues for future MOOCs.
Design/methodology/approach –An extensive search for existing MOOCs on IL revealed 11 offers
that are available for analysis. A content analysis is conducted to compare their content and instructional
design. The category system is based on the IL standards and performance indicators of the Association of
College and Research Libraries (2000), which has been supplemented with additional categories and an
evaluationgrid for MOOCs.
Findings –The results suggest first,that the topics covered by IL MOOCs differ widely. While some of the
MOOCs mainly reflect the performanceindicators suggested by the ACRL standards on IL from 2000, some
other MOOCs focus on completelydifferent topics such as fake news or internet security. Second, they show
that MOOCs on IL tend not to emphasize subject-specific and country-or culture-specific contexts. Third, it
shows that input-based teachingapproaches dominate, while collaborative and interactiveactivities are only
rarely used. Fourth,they allow drawing a possible connectionbetween student engagement and design ofthe
learningcontents.
Research limitations/implications –This work reflects the current status of IL facilitation through
MOOCs. Furtherresearch is needed.
Practical implications –The results confirm that MOOCs are a promising approach for developingIL
skills and provideavenues for future MOOC projects, especially on IL.
Originality/value –This paper isone of few works to discuss IL facilitation through MOOCs.
Keywords Distance learning, MOOCs, Content analysis, Information literacy, Instructional design,
ACRL standards
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The training of information literacy(IL) skills emerged out of the user training conducted by
libraries (Tiefel,1995). Due to technological revolutions –especially through digitalizationin
the past years –the concept has seen constant developments. Today, there are several
definitions of the term IL. IL overlapswith the concepts of media literacy, computer literacy,
internet literacy and digital literacy (Ala-Mutka, 2011). A common definition of IL was put
This work has been supported by the Erasmus1Program of the European Commission (Grant
Agreement No. 2016-1-AT01-KA203-016762). The European Commission support for the production
of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflects the views only
of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein.
Information
literacy
173
Received10 August 2018
Revised15 September 2018
Accepted5 November 2018
Informationand Learning
Sciences
Vol.120 No. 3/4, 2019
pp. 173-189
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2398-5348
DOI 10.1108/ILS-08-2018-0079
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2398-5348.htm
forward by the American Associationof College and Research Libraries (ACRL), which was
last updated in 2016. Accordingly:
Information literacy is the set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of
information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of
information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning
(ACRL, 2016b, p. 3).
To support the assessment of IL, the ACRL published competencystandards in 2000 which
have been widely adopted (ACRL, 2000). However, in 2016, these standards have been
replaced by a new framework that follows a skills-based approach (ACRL,2016a, 2016b).
Today, IL can be considered as a necessary skill of white-collar workforce (Bruce, 1999;
Edmunds and Morris, 2000;Klusekand Bornstein, 2006).
Although the fact that today’s studentgeneration has grown up with digital technologies
would allow assuming exceptional skills in using them, several studies proved a lack in IL
for this group (Maurer et al., 2016;Rubini
cet al.,2013). New digital channels, especially
massive open online courses (MOOCs), seem to be a promising approach for developing IL
skills of students (Creed-Dikeogu and Clark, 2013;Georgy, 2015;Gore, 2014). The first
MOOCs were developed in 2008 within the framework of the Open Educational Recourses
movement (Gabel, 2013). They have a course-like structureand no formal requirements for
enrollment; they have no limit regarding the number of participants and all materials are
available online (Wulfet al., 2014).
Today we can see a rising number of MOOCs on IL. While earlyliterature agreed on the
possible benefits of MOOCs on IL, concernswere also expressed about how to design them
and the question if libraries would have thecapacities for such projects (Creed-Dikeogu and
Clark, 2013;Gore, 2014). Thereis still a lack of peer-reviewed literature analyzing the actual
implementation of IL MOOCs. Existing literature deals with single experience reportsof IL
MOOC projects, with a focus on projects in China (Huang et al.,2016;Kultawanich et al.,
2015). While previous experience reports provide some avenues for future MOOCs, at the
moment there is no clearagreement on the most appropriate instructionaldesign for MOOCs
(Meyer et al.,2015;Verstegen et al.,2016). A possible approach to investigate the current
status on IL education through MOOCs is to conduct a content analysis of the available
MOOCs. Such an approach was previously used for MOOCs on sustainability education
(Zhan et al., 2015). Acknowledging that MOOCs differ concerning their content and
instructional design,this study aims to answer the following researchquestions:
RQ1. What is the content of MOOCson IL?
RQ2. How do MOOCs on IL differ regarding theirinstructional design?
By conducting a content analysis of 11 MOOCs on IL this article contributes to current
literature on IL training and instructional design of MOOCs. First, it shows that the topics
covered by IL MOOCs differ widely. While some of the MOOCs mainly reflect the
performance indicators suggested by the ACRL standards on IL from 2000, some other
MOOCs focus on completely different topics such as fake news or internetsecurity. Second,
it shows that MOOCs on IL tend not to emphasize subject-specific and country- or culture-
specific contexts. Third, it shows that input-based teaching approaches dominate, while
collaborative and interactive activities are only rarely used. Fourth, it draws a possible
connection between student engagement and presentation and design of the learning
contents. While the MOOC with the most forum postsregularly encouraged the participants
to use the forum, the MOOC with no postings never asked the participants to use the
ILS
120,3/4
174
To continue reading
Request your trial