Confessions of a Social Media Wallflower
I confess I do not seek publicity of any kind. I was the kid in the school photos who hid at the back or looked the wrong way (often unintentionally). As an adult I fiercely guard my privacy and have no digital footprint whatsoever — no Facebook account, Pinterests and absolutely no tweeting, so I guess the fact that I signed up to the Open Knowledge module that required me to produce blog posts must appear to be an odd choice to make.
Recently I was involved in the filming of a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course). Given my confession it’s suffice to say I didn’t exactly jump around in excitement at the prospect. However the rise (and fall) in the popularity of MOOCs seemed interesting and I wondered if MOOCs really were unique or whether they repackaged existing products.
A MOOC is “a course of study made available over the Internet without charge to a very large number of people; anyone who decides to take a MOOC simply logs on to the website and signs up” (Oxford Online Dictionary)
MOOCs are costly to produce and quality can vary depending on the type of MOOC created (QAA MOOCs Network). The Times Higher Education reported that some institutions spend thousands of pounds producing one MOOC. In this case, they will expect a return on this investment.
The MOOC I took part in was intended to “be used as a way of showcasing … educational provision. [in the] hope that students who are motivated to register and subsequently achieve satisfaction in their experience of the MOOC will subsequently enrol on to a .. course. In addition, the content and multi-media developed as part of this project may also be utilised in existing courses, providing additional value for money.” (Quote from Lecturer)
The MOOC’s success could be measured by the numbers of views it attracts. Initially I was told the school’s objective was to introduce researching techniques to people who may not have access to university and yet the above quote suggests this MOOC was just as much about promotion, as it purported to be about openness. Research has shown people sign up for MOOCs in subjects they are interested in (Baturay,2015) so to use MOOCs as a promotional tool does seem to make logical and financial sense.
Certainly this is the implication given by one academic in the THE who believed MOOCs to be an effective method of promoting her university and enticing viewers to enrol on fee-paying courses.
For me the MOOC scenario was a nightmare. I am a self-acknowledged unsophisticated geek that does not always speak fluently. The MOOC featured interviews and presentations from university staff and external contributors. Each person had a specific remit of information to impart. Verbal content was discussed prior to filming. However the filmed dialogue was spontaneous and not read from notes or an auto-cue.
Filming took place in an open public area. It took two hours to film my dialogue. There were repeated takes due to background noise, stuttering, stammering, squirming and me looking in the wrong direction! The more times we stopped, the longer it took me to film the next bit.
What was going on in the background seemed to be as important as the verbal content and a separate visual shots session took place in a different location. This involved two of us walking and talking but the sound was not recorded. This filming was completed in one take. It was interesting to watch my colleague being filmed. Unlike myself, my colleague had volunteered to take part, was very confident and chilled about being filmed, and crucially, was absolutely not a geek! In short, my colleague was the cameraman’s dream, a total pro in front of the camera.
Having reflected on my two “performances” I wondered what value I personally added to the final MOOC production — which, at the time of writing this — I have not seen. The dialogue I uttered was not specific to my role — anyone could have delivered it. This is an important point for me; if a slick polished performance was desired, I was not the ideal candidate to take on that role.
My regular role involves speaking in classrooms and lecture theatres. Some of these sessions are recorded by Lecture Capture and posted on Blackboard in its raw format. This includes stutters, stammers, ums and errs etc. I focus on conveying the information, with the expectation that the audience will understand what I am saying — stammers and all.
The university website contains videos promoting the university to draw interest and crucially — custom. “Effective university websites can increase conversions, strengthen institutional credibility and brand, improve user satisfaction, and save time and money.” (Sherwin 2016).
Jon Bilsberry asked if MOOCS are Fads or Revolution? He perceives they could be viewed as another version of the “university’s shop window”. Bilsberry talks about the marketing power of MOOCS, fronted by eminent professors, which give the opportunity for viewers to “try–before–you-buy.”
MOOCs do not appear to have established a niche for themselves or threatened other outlets such as YouTube and other flexible learning organisations such as the Open University, as was feared by The Guardian in 2015. Some university communities had divided opinions on how MOOCs could enhance or even damage their schools’ reputations (Niederman 2016)
The brevity of MOOCS was outlined in Robert Zensky’s article With a MOOC MOOC Here and a MOOC MOOC There…. According to Zemsky MOOCs peaked in 2012 and declined in 2013. He concluded MOOCs “were neither pedagogically nor technologically interesting…they came, they conquered very little; and now they face substantially diminished prospects” — so, fair to say he wasn’t a fan then.
Universities need to attract funding to support research etc. At the time of writing this blog, Manchester’s webpage opens with the headline; “Donations Change Lives” and invites the viewer to choose a cause to support. Thus are MOOCs merely a trendy, Massive Open Online Campaign?
