The document summarizes the first tourism and hospitality MOOC offered by USI called "eTourism: Communication Perspectives". It provides details on the history and growth of MOOCs, an analysis of existing tourism and hospitality MOOCs, and the process undertaken by USI to develop their pilot MOOC. This included selecting a partner platform, creating content, promoting the course, delivering the course, and evaluating its performance using the Kirkpatrick model. Details are given on the course curriculum, participation rates, and plans for a second round of the MOOC.

1. THE MOOCTHAT MOOs
First MOOC provided by USI
eTourism: Communication Perspectives

2. Jingjing Lin
PhD student researching in MOOCs in tourism and hospitality
jingjing.lin@usi.ch

3. eTourism
MOOC
Trailer 1.0

4. ICTs
+
Tourism
Online
communication
model
User generated
contents
Hotel online
reputation
Online content
quality
Web 2.0
Intercultural
communication and
localization
eLearning and
tourism training
World Heritage
Sites

5. Curriculum vitae of
MOOC

6. Story before
MOOC
1982
www
Learning
object
1994
Blackboard
1997
Open
content
1998
2001
Creative
Commons
MIT OCW
2002
2002
UNESCO
forum: OER
MOOC
2008

7. Core value
OPENNESS
TECHNICAL, LEGAL, PRICE, ETC.
Open content
OER
OCW
Content designed
specifically for/as a course
Any content shared
under open license

8. How to
position
MOOC
Open content
OER
OCW
Accreditation
Facilitation and feedback
Interaction
MOOC
Creative Commons license
CC
Copyright licenses

9. OCW

10. OER 

11. MOOC

12. [1]
Massive: the big number of learners and
the scalability of the course to host many.
Open: anyone, anytime, anywhere.
Online: enhanced by internet and happens
in an online environment.
Course: organized resources and activities,
with learning objectives and expected
outcomes. Include feedback from the
instructors, peer communication,
sometimes group collaboration, and
different types of assessment.
What is
MOOC

13. MOOC
History
[1]

14. [1]
MOOC
Fast fact
By 2015, the total number of
MOOCs in the world reached over
4200, which involved more than
550 universities and attracted 35
millions of learners.

15. Swiss
MOOCs

16. Did you take
tourism and hospitality
MOOC
so far?

18. [1]

19. Slide:19
18 MOOCs in
tourism and
hospitality
[1]

20. Slide:20 [1]

21. Surprise!More about hospitality
The topics were more about
hospitality (79%) with half of them
were about cuisine and beverage,
and one fifth about hotels.Tourism
topics only appeared in three
MOOCs.
Communications are limited
The communication is mainly one-way
from the instructor to learner.
Forum discussion tool was the most
popular tool to serve as a communication
media.
Social media tools were not used much.
The most active MOOC in social media
channels is eTourism:Communication
Perspectives
Some findings
Contiuity is not positive
11 out 18 finished first round.
Among 11, only 3 chose to
run a second round.
[1]

22. Rich video presentation
styles
13 video presentation styles
were identified:
talking head style, text-
overlay, conversation, on
location, animation,
picture-in-picture,
presentation slides with
voice-over, demonstration,
Udacity style tablet capture,
interview, recorded
seminar, webcam capture
and green screen.
Slide:22 [1]

23. Two style of syllabus
Coursera style syllabus
Compass style syllabus
[1]

24. Need
improvement
Lonely learning objectives
Very few course designs
considered the match
between learning
objectives and the other
components such as
lecturing contents,
assessment, activities of
communication, etc.
Low adaptability to various
needs
The multi-lingual support was
weak in these MOOCs.
Very limited number of
downloadable documents
were available as learning
contents for learners to study
offline.
External online resources
could not find a proper
position as learning contents
in these MOOCs.
In demand of diverse cultural
backgrounds in providers
Overall, the USA-based
universities produced
comparatively more MOOCs in
this field and USA-based
MOOC platforms took a
leading role in hosting them.
Slide:24 [1]

25. USI Pilot MOOC
eTourism:Communication
Perspectives
How to Moo?

26. •Corporate
social
responsibility
Public
relations
Marketing
Research
Slide:26
4 Drivers for
USI to provide
MOOC

27. MOOCs work
flow
(Year 2015)
Adapted from [2]

28. Team forming
(Year 2015)
[2]

29. Partner platform selection
(Year 2015)
[2]

30. Partner
platform
selection
(Year 2015)
[2]

34. Functionalitycomparisonof18MOOCplatforms
x: represents the presence of the functionality
[2]

35. Partner
platform
selection
(Year 2015)
Shortlisted platforms: FutureLearn,
iversity, NovoED, and Canvas Network
User experience survey: FutureLearn,
iversity
University Board decision: iversity
[2]

36. Instructional
design
(Year 2015)
Instructional designers: iversity + USI
Resources (materials and media):
copyright, self-development
Time and pace
Activities design

37. Content
creation
(Year 2015)
 Video development: shooting, filtering, editing
 Video subtitles
 Video transcripts
 Syllabus, FAQ documents
 Embed map in the course
 Create engagement survey
 Draft announcements
 List further readings
 Training materials for instructors
 Other contents

39. Content creation
(Year 2015)
[3]

40. Promotion
(2015)
 Facebook campaign
 Youtube campaign
 Twitter
 LinkedIn
 Email lists
 USI press
 University collaborations
 DMOs contacts
 Magazine, newspaper, radio,TV
 Other communication channels

41. Course
delivery
(2015)
Weekly MOOC meetings
Arrange facilitation activities in advance
 administrative support
 technical support
 content-based feedback
Promotion, promotion, promotion
Maintain social media channels

42. Internal
project
assessment
(2015)
Collect and analyse the performance data
from MOOC
Organize the MOOC internal evaluation
meeting
Present the performance data
Staff self-evaluation talks
Plan the next step

43. Kirkpatrick model
(1976）
Reaction Learning Behavior Results
How to evaluate
the performance
of our
eTourism MOOC
Do they like it? Did they learn? Did they apply? Did the organization
benefit?
[3, 4]

44. Kirkpatrick
Model
Number of
performance indicators
Performance indicators
Reaction 3 • Motivation
• Satisfaction
• Usefulness
Learning 5 • In-course performance
• Collaborative learning
• Higher-order level learning
• Reflective and integrated learning
• Skill development
Behavior 1 • Post-course application (related to job and
study)
Results 4 • CSR
• Public relations
• Marketing
• Research
[3, 4]
How to evaluate
the performance
of our
eTourism MOOC

45. 4 groups of
performance data

46. DEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES
51 DEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES
(35.9%)
1’817 LEARNERS (32.9%)
339 ACTIVE LEARNERS (6.1%)
OVERALL
142 COUNTRIES
5’519 LEARNERS
1’659ACTIVE LEARNERS (30.1%)
Slide:46
MEDIA CONSUMPTION
988 members in Facebook group
#eTourismMOOC hashtag
received 2.4 tweets/day
Trailer videos received 7953 views
INTERACTION
2190 posts generated in the
course
PARTIAL DEMOGRAPHICS
216 replies in engagement survey
57.4% female
75.0% age between 26 and 55
87.4% of higher education level
50.0% full-time workers
13.4% part-time workers

47.  Enroll now：www.etourismMOOC.ch
 Open online on：October 3, 2016
 Will last for：One year
 Operation mode: Self-paced
 Instruction language：English
 Subtitles and video transcripts in English, Simplified Chinese,
Italian, and Spanish
 Updated further reading lists
 Monthly hangouts with instructors/assistants
 Provide four exam sessions of the same CoA exam
eTourism MOOC
Second Round

48.  Two videos per week (8 weeks in total), including
one theoretical video and one case video
 One quiz per video with 5 multiple choice questions
 One assignment per week to submit assignment as
a post in forum and to discuss with other learners
 Further reading materials
 Finish over 80% of video and quizzes to get
statement of participation
 Pay 49 Euro and pass a final exam (CoA exam) with
30 multiple choice questions to obtain Certificate of
Accomplishment
What are
expected from
MOOC learners

49. eTourism
MOOC
Trailer 2.0

50. 1. Lin J., Kalbaska N., Cantoni L., Murphy J. (2016).A New
Framework to Describe and Analyse MOOC Design: Multiple
Case Study of Hospitality andTourism MOOCs. Revised and
resubmitted for second review.
2. Lin J., Kalbaska N.,Tardini S., Decarli Frick E., Cantoni L. (2015)
A Journey to Select the Most Suitable MOOCs Platform:The
Case of a Swiss University.Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE), Norfolk. Ed-MEDIA 2015.
Montreal (Canada). June 22-26, 2015. ISBN 9781939797162
3. Lin, J., Cantoni, L., Kalbaska, N. (2016). How to Develop and
Evaluate an eTourism MOOC:An Experience in Progress, e-
Review ofTourism Research (eRTR), 7:1-5
4. Lin, J., & Cantoni, L. (2016). Evaluating the Performance of a
Tourism MOOC using the Kirkpatrick Model: A supplier
perspective.
References

51.  Join Facebook group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/472859206207898/
 Use hashtag inTwitter: #eTourismMOOC
 Follow us on Weibo: http://www.weibo.com/etourismmooc
eTourism:
Communication
Perspectives
MOOC
Q&A
Contact
Jingjing Lin,
jingjing.lin@usi.ch
www.etourismMOOC.ch
Return online on October 3, 2016
Curriculum vitae of MOOC, slide 5 - 15
Tourism and hospitality MOOC, slide 16 - 24
How to Moo? slide 25 - 46
Partner platform selection, slide 29 - 35
Internal evaluation, slide 42 - 46
Second round, slide 47 - 49