Impact of Massive Open Online Courses

(MOOCs) on Capacity Building

D Thammi Raju
G R K Murthy
S Senthil Vinayagam
M Krishnan
Ch Srinivasa Rao

भाकृ अनुप-राष्ट्रीय कृ षि अनुसंधान प्रबं ध अकादमी

(भारतीय कृ षि अनुसंधान परिषद, कृ षि सहयोग एवं किसान कल्याण िवभाग, भारत सरकार)
राजेन्द्रनगर, हैदराबाद-500 030, तेलंगाणा, भारत

ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural Research Management

(Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India)
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030, Telangana, India
https://naarm.org.in
Correct Citation
D Thammi Raju, GRK Murthy, S Senthil Vinayagam, M Krishnan and Ch Srinivasa
Rao (2020) Impact of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) on Capacity Building.
ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural Research Management, Hyderabad. Pp. 1-56.

ISBN : 978-81-943090-4-8 Paperback

Published by
ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural Research Management, Hyderabad-500 030

Printed at:
Balaji Scan Pvt. Limited,
11-2-1145, Beside Matas Temple, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001,
Telangana . Tel: 23303424/25
 Preface
ICAR-NAARM is the pioneering institution in competency building for the
National Agricultural Research and Education System (NARES) of India. Agricultural
education is a sunrise sector where technologies like MOOCs have a greater role to play.
Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) are a new model for online courses that have
quickly gained interest and support among universities in recent years. MOOCs are built
on efficiency of scale, giving access to the teaching of a world class professor to thousands of
students at once. The lectures, assessments and activities for a course especially an online
course and the expertise of the professor behind the content isn’t cheap and, in many cases,
is unique to a particular university. A MOOC throws open the door of the professor’s
classroom, allowing him to teach more than just a few dozen students at a time. MOOC
courses aren’t fixed into traditional term and semester models of the university, so they can
start any time and can be of any length. That makes the MOOCs compelling for short-term
courses that are highly focused on a topic or a series of courses that might build towards a
deeper understanding in a knowledge area.
Considering large scale application of MOOCs in higher education, now the
challenge is how to harness the concepts of MOOC in capacity building. The intent is
to prove that MOOCs as online strategy for capacity building; quiet apt for Agriculture
and allied sciences due to its inherent problems such as shortage of faculty. We still find
ourselves at the experimental stage, but it’s not too early to think about what kind of long-
term impact MOOCs might have in capacity building.
In this endeavour, the continuous encouragement, guidance and support of ICAR
and NAARM has been instrumental in course design, development and implementation
which has motivated us to achieve the envisaged objectives. We sincerely thank all our
MOOC learners for their response and responsiveness which enabled us to bring out this
book. We hope this book will provide insights to researchers, policy makers in developing
short term and long term strategies to unleash the potentials of MOOC in the capacity
building.

D Thammi Raju
G R K Murthy
S Senthil Vinayagam
M Krishnan
Ch Srinivasa Rao
 Table of Contents

S.No Content Page No

1 Chapter – 1 MOOCs – The disruptive technology 1
Status of MOOCs across the Globe 1
Scope of MOOCs 1
MOOCs Providers 4
Learners’ Background 5
Potentials of MOOCs 9
Challenges in MOOCs 9
Research Studies 10
2 Chapter – 2 Piloting of MOOC @ NAARM 13
Digital Learning Initiatives 14
MOOCs process 16
Feedback of participants 17
3 Chapter – 3 MOOC as strategy for Capacity Building 19
Methodology of Impact Study 19
Data Collection 20
Statistical Tools 20
Results and Discussion 20
Inputs 20
Processes 24
Outputs 29
Outcomes 34
Impact of Massive Open Online Courses 36
4 Conclusion 44
5 References 44
6 About the Authors 47

i
 List of Tables
S.No Name of the Table Page No
1 Courses offered through MOOCs 2
2 MOOCs Platforms 4
3 Formal Education status of MOOC learners 6
4 Age wise categorization of MOOC participants 6
5 Subject Preferences by Gender 7
6 Motivational factors for undergoing MOOCs 8
7 Geographical distribution of MOOCs participants 8
8 Sources of Information for MOOCs 25
9 Participants trained through MOOCs 30
10 Diversity among MOOCs learners 31
11 Participating Institutions in MOOCs 32
12 Content Generated 33
13 Uptake of MOOCs as per age groups 34
14 Online Engagement of Learners through MOOCs 35
15 Means of Learner – Learner Interaction 35
16 Enhancement in Professional Efficiency 36
17 Impact of MOOCs on Social Networking 37
18 Changes in Learners’ Perceptions 38
19 MOOCs Completion Rates 39
20 Factors for High Success Rate 40
21 Revenue Generation from MOOCs at NAARM 41
22 Handholding support to other institutes in MOOCs 42
development
23 Future Prospects of MOOCs 44

ii
 List of Figures

S.No Name of the Figure Page No

1 TELAgE activities for promotion of MOOCs 16
2 MOOC process flowchart adopted at the Academy 17
3 Preferred formats of content delivery 21
4 Preferred of IT tools for MOOCs 22
5 Real time use of IT tools 22
6 Change in expectations from MOOCs 23
7 Sources of Information about MOOCs 25
8 e-Learning platform 26
9 1st MOOC team at NAARM with Dr. S Ayyappan, Former, 28
DG, ICAR
10 A model certificate 29
11 Content viewing pattern in MOOCs 33
12 MOOC Learners with Programme Director at a Conference 37
13 NAARM as a central support for promoting MOOCs 41
14 Reaching unreached through MOOCs in India 42

iii
 Chapter-1
MOOCs - The disruptive technology
Distance and digital learning have revolutionized Universities and the corporate
education landscape due to transformation in educational approaches (reaching the
unreached), influence of information and communication technologies, orientation
to knowledge based economies, emphasis on access and equity in education
etc. These factors are compelling the shift from traditional education to modern
teaching/ training methodologies for enhanced efficiency of the system.
MOOCs is the latest cutting edge technology in education having immense
potential to spread online learning. MOOCs are best described as “free to browse
and pay to use” as users can access the content free of cost while they may have to
pay if they need any certified recognition.
1. Status of MOOCs across the Globe
Though the origin of the Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) can be
traced back to early 2000s when open source, open access and open courseware
movements appeared (Zawacki et al (2016), the year 2008 was a cornerstone for
networked learning and MOOCs. The Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)
are playing a very important role in bringing changes in the higher education. The
design of these courses considers huge numbers of participants, content access from
anywhere by users who have an internet connection, openness and offer a complete
course module and experience without any cost (Open up Ed 2015). Currently,
millions of learners around the globe are enrolling in these courses, offered by many
organisations/platforms. The diversity in terms of courses, platforms, learning
management systems are continuing to attract many people from all walks of life.
Consideration of online education as a means of scholarly development,
improvement of self-esteem, increasing competition among institutions, models
that cope up declining public funding , development of digital market place for
global higher education etc. are some of the critical factors attributed to promotion
of MOOCs (Brown et al., 2015).
2. Scope of MOOCs
MOOCs have scope and applicability irrespective of the subject domain. The
scale of MOOCs can vary from nano MOOCs to regular MOOCs. The fact that would

1
Universities like Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Stanford University,
Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University etc., are offering MOOCs, stands
a testimony that MOOCs is an accepted educational practice, which can promise
means of eduction to millions of students. In India also, MOOCs is gaining
momentum through initiatives like SWAYAM (Study Webs of Active-Learning for
Young Aspiring Minds).
A snapshot of top MOOCs is given in Table 1.
Table 1: Courses offered through MOOCs
S. No of
Organization Country Course Areas / Course names
No Courses
1 Massachusetts Institute 203 USA Linear Algebra, Computer
of Technology Science, Artificial Intelligence
etc.
2 Indian Institute of 198 India Computer Science, Engineering,
Technology, Kharagpur Business, Science
3 Stanford University 185 USA Bioscience, Economics,
Medicine and Health, Law etc.
4 University of Michigan 174 USA Personal Development, Data
Science, Humanities
5 University of 163 USA Data Science, Business,
Pennsylvania Programming
6 Indian Institute of 158 India Modern Construction Materials,
Technology, Madras Information Security, Chemistry
etc.
7 Harvard University 157 USA Education and Teaching,
Computer Science, Art and
Design etc.
8 University of Naples 154 Italy Personal Development,
Federico II Engineering etc.
9 University of Illinois at 145 USA Digital Marketing, Financial
Urbana-Champaign Management, Stratagetic
Leadership and Management
Specialization etc.
10 Indian Institute of 141 India History, Sports, Food &
Technology, Kanpur Nutrition, Veterinary, Medicine
& Pharmacology

2
 S. No of
Organization Country Course Areas / Course names
No Courses
11 University of California, 128 USA Academic English, writing
Irvine specialization, Esports
Specialization, Carrier
Specialization etc.
12 Georgia Institute of 115 USA Material Processing, Supply
Technology Chain Processing, Innovation
Leadership etc.
13 Johns Hopkins 111 USA Biostatistics in Public Health
University Data Science, Genomic Data
Science etc.

14 Ecole Polytechnique, 110 Switzerland Digital Signal Processing,

Federale de Lausanne Parallel Programming, Electro
Technique etc.
15 University of California, 106 USA Big Data Specialization,
San Diego Bioinformatics, Internet of
Things etc.

16 Indian Institute of 106 India Architecture, Biotechnology,

Technology Roorkee Alternate Hydro Energy Centre,
Chemical Engineering etc.

17 Peking university 106 China Foundation of Education,

Advanced Econometrics,
Advanced Microeconomics etc.
18 Delft University of 101 Netherlands Aeronautical Engineering,
Technology Sustainable Energy: Design A
Renewable Future, Fatigue of
Structures & Materials
19 Higher School of 97 Russia Advanced Machine Learning,
Economics (National Data Structures and Algorithms,
Research University) Algorithm Toolbox etc.

20 National Autonomous 93 USA Database systems, Negotiation

University of Mexico Strategies, Management Skills
etc.

Source: https://www.classcentral.com/universities

3
3. MOOCs Providers
The MOOCs have picked up in the recent past and several agencies/ platforms
are offering MOOCs across the globe exclusively (Table 2). The type of organization,
objective/purpose, learning management system, targeted audience are varied.
The following are some of the organizations providing MOOCs on various subjects,
mostly on education and engineering.
Table 2: MOOCs Platforms
S. No MOOC Platform Website
1 Coursera https://www.coursera.org/

2 EdX https://www.edx.org/

3 NovoEd https://www.novoed.com/

4 Canvas https://www.canvas.net/

5 Openlearning https://www.openlearning.com/courses/

6 Udemy https://www.udemy.com/collection/
the-faculty-project/all-courses/

7 Khan Academy https://www.khanacademy.org/

8 Fort Hays State University https://www.fhsu.edu/virtualcollege/index

9 Futurelearn, INC. http://www.futurelearn.com

10 Open Learning Initiative http://oli.cmu.edu/

(Carnegie Melon University )

11 Stanford University Open Online https://online.stanford.edu/courses

Courses

12 iMooX - Austrian MOOC Plat- http://imoox.at/wbtmaster/startseite/

form

13 SWAYAM https://swayam.gov.in/

14 Institute des Mines-Telecom http://www.mines-telecom.fr/en/

15 Iversity https://iversity.org/

16 LUXVERA http://luxvera.regent.edu/

4
S. No MOOC Platform Website
17 MIRIADAx – Spanish, Portugese https://miriadax.net/home

18 MOOC FACTORY http://moocs.epfl.ch/mooc-factory

19 MOOEC - English https://mooec.com/about

20 Najah National University http://elc.najah.edu/node/304

21 Open Course World https://www.opencourseworld.de/pages/

landingpage.jsf

22 Open HPI https://open.hpi.de/

23 Open Learn – UK Open Univer- https://www.open.edu/openlearn/

sity

24 OpenUpEd - EU http://www.openuped.eu/

25 Rwaq - Arabic Saudi http://rwaq.org/

26 Tsinghua University https://www.xuetangx.com

27 UDACITY https://www.udacity.com/

28 UniMOOC http://unimooc.com/landing/index.htm

29 Universidade Aberta - iMOOC http://imooc.uab.pt/

30 Universidad Politecnica de Ma- http://www.upvx.es/

drid

31 University of Amsterdam http://mooc.uva.nl/portal

32 University of California - Irvine: http://ocw.uci.edu/info/

OpenCourseware

33 Veduca – Brazil http://www.veduca.com.br/

34 Yale Open Courses http://oyc.yale.edu/

35 +Acumen https://www.plusacumen.org/courses

4. Learners’ Background
Learners form the core of success of any MOOCs. Some parameters have
significant bearing on the design and conduct of MOOCs.

5
Formal Education:
The MOOCs are attracting different students with varied educational
backgrounds, as presented in the following Table 3. The review indicated that most
of MOOC learners are either Bachelor or Post Graduate students, followed by high
school and college level.
Table 3: Formal Educational status of MOOC learners
Students of Students Bachelor Master Doctoral
Authors High school of College Students Students Students
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Gillani and Eynon (2014) 6.0 12.0 42.0 36.0 4.0
Schulze (2014) 18.0 11.0 34.0 30.0 7.0
Campbell et al. (2015) - - - 88.0 -
Cisel, Mano, Bachelet, 23.0 - 48.0 24.0 3.0
and Silberzahn (2015)
Liyanagunawardena et 29.0 - 48.0 16.0 4.0
al. (2015
Robinson et al. (2015) 4.0 7.0 34.0 42.0 8.0
Salmon et al. (2015 8.0 14.0 78.0

Age:
Potential age of MOOC learners is up to 44 years as reported by many
researchers. However, the age groups of over and above 44 years is also reported
by a few studies.
Table 4: Age-wise categorization of MOOC participants
Age (years)
Author <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Gillani and Eynon (2014) 28 40 19 9 3 1
Schulze (2014) 6 24 23 21 19 7
Campbell et al. (2015 - 86 - - - -
Liyanagunawarden a et al. (2015) 28 26 18 15 9 4
Salmon et al. (2015) - 11 27 37 25
Thirouard et al. (2015) 49 - - 51 - -
Tseng et al. (2016) 63 18 12 - 7 -

6
Gender Perspectives:
The composition of MOOC learners indicated that male students are preferring
MOOCs over females; however, it is varying on the type of course offered. The
courses such as Project Management, Programming, Geography, Artificial
Intelligence, Computer Science, Chemistry, Statistics for Public Health attracted
more males (50 to 86%) than females. While courses such as Data Visualisation,
Irish History, Clinical Supervision, Physical Actor Training, Anatomy, Fairness and
Nature, Starting a Business etc., attracted more female participants (53 to 72%).
Table 5: Subject Preferences by Gender
Author Subject Male (%) Female (%)
Cisel (2014) Project management 68 32
Liu et al. (2014 Data visualisation 42 58
Schulze (2014) Disaster preparedness 47 53
Gallagher and Savage (2015) Irish history 44 56
Liyanagunawardena et al. (2015) Programming 74 26
Robinson et al. (2015) Geography 70 30
Salmon et al. (2015) Learning design 33 67
Rodrigues and Leinster (2016) Clinical supervision 47 59
Artificial Intelligence 86 14
Computer Science 83 17
Guo and Reinecke (2014) Chemistry 70 30
Statistics for Public Health 56 44
Physical Actor Training 28 72
Anatomy 28 72
Cisel et al. (2015) Fairness and Nature 37 63
Business Innovation 50 50
Starting a Business 41 59

Motivational Factors:
Online learning demands high levels of motivation for effective learning, which
depends on several factors/ activities. Motivational factors are divided into three
categories – intrinsic, extrinsic and social factors. Among intrinsic motivational
factors, ‘Personal interest and curiosity’ was predominant. The extrinsic motivational
factors viz. ‘Learn more about the topic for the current job or future career; Learn
more about the topic for the current or future field of study; Find resources to use or
share with others; Receive a certificate of completion’ etc. were reported. ‘Socializing

7
and Professional networking’ were cited under Social Factors of motivation.
Table 6: Motivational factors for undergoing MOOCs
Types of
Motivational activities Key source
motivation
Intrinsic Personal interest and curiosity Barak et al (2016), Li (2015
Extrinsic Learn more about the topic for the Hill (2015), Moskal et al (2015)
current job or future career
Learn more about the topic for the Li (2015)
current or future field of study
Find resources to use or share Campbell et al. (2015), Moskal et al
with others (2015)
Receive a certificate of completion Watson et al (2016), Xiong et al. (2015)
Social Socializing Bulger et al (2015), Moskal et al (2015)
Professional networking Bulger et al. (2015), Cross and
Whitelock (2016)

Geographical Representation:
A few studies reported that USA, India, UK, France, Spain, Ireland, Spain,
Australia, New Zealand, Senegal were the countries where MOOC is more popular
and students are interested.
Table 7: Geographical distribution of MOOCs participants
Provider Origin of participants Author
1. American University The United States, India, the Baker, Evans Green-
United kingdom berg, and Dee (2014)
2. Grande Ecole Centrale Lille France (61%), Burkina Faso Cisel (2014)
(6%), Senegal (5%)
3. University of Texas at Austin The United States (44%), Liu et al. (2014)
Spain (6%), the United King-
dom (5%)
4. Trinity College, Dublin Ireland (46%), the United Gallagher and Sav-
States (23%), the United King- age (2015)
dom (18%)
5. Pennsylvania State University The United States (30%), Robinson et al.
India (6%), Spain (5%) (2015)
6. Swinburne University of Australia, the United King- Salmon et al. (2015)
Technology dom, New Zealand

8
5. Potentials of MOOCs
• Open to anybody in the World, without any fee, and no prerequisites and
absolutely no commitment from the student about the completion of the course.
• Completely flexible - student can spend any amount of time, any time that he/
she likes and spread the learning process as long as he/she wants.
• Involvement of the student with the course in the form of short videos,
animations, simulations, simple quizzes, etc. to inculcate curiosity among the
student and let him/her to continue the learning process.
• Better experience than a simple classroom lecture oriented course because of
access to the curated material as well as specifically designed course material.
• More engagement through discussion forum to learn from each other (cross
learning).
• Lifelong association with people whom you may or may not meet in person,
thanks to MOOCs.
• Lifelong learning process for everybody – supports career opportunities by
diligently planning and taking these required MOOCs from a variety of options
available globally at the convenience of learners.

6. Challenges in MOOCs
1. The student should have access to a computer with internet. This may or may
not be available in some poor countries.
2. Though a large number of people register for the courses, there is, a large
dropout rate experienced by most of the courses. The number of people who
actually complete a MOOCs rarely goes beyond 10% of the initial registration.
There are many reasons specified by those dropping out such as lack of time,
only interested to know the course material and not the assessment etc.
3. Though MOOCs are actually offered by well known universities and professors
that have long experience in teaching these courses, the quality of the course is
going to be dictated by their self regulation and standards that they would like
to adhere to. Sometimes the MOOCs platform provider would try to enforce
certain standards of quality.

9
4. Automated grading is possible with multiple choice questions. However, it is
not possible to completely evaluate the proficiency in a particular course with
multiple choice questions alone. Assignments and examinations therefore need
to be evaluated by humans in the form of teaching assistants. In such cases
maintaining uniformity among the graders need to be paid special attention.

5. The actual effort that needs to be put in to develop a completely interactive

course that will be taken by different people with different languages and
learning styles will be very large compared to a conventional lecture course. It
will be challenging for the instructor to develop the material to make sufficiently
interesting to diverse group of students.

6. Some students may like to have individualized instruction with one-on-one

with the instructor. For such students, MOOCs may not be the solution.

7. MOOCs are free to the students but will be an enormous burden for the
universities. Therefore, there need to be some kind of a business model to
recoup the costs involved beyond the experimental stage. Otherwise, they are
likely to fail in the long run.

8. Assuring academic integrity of the MOOCs will be a problem. It is necessary

to develop some standards in this regard and a number of agencies are already
working towards that aspect.

7. Research Studies
The studies conducted during 2008 to 2015 were reviewed by a few researchers.
Liyanagunawardena et al. (2013) reviewed 45 published literature on MOOCs
between 2008 and 2012. They revealed that research on MOOCs increased
dramatically after they had been in existence in 2008 encompassing several domains
from pedagogy and theory to technology.
The theme ‘Social learning’ received the highest interest and mixed research
methods was the most favoured research approach; which was revealed by Gasevic
et al. (2014) while analysing themes of research and methodologies of research
adopted in MOOC studies.

10
 The studentship on MOOCs is reflected by temporal dimension from
Connectivist MOOCs, Engagement to Creativity and MOOCs Learning Analytics,
Assessment, and Critical Discourses (Ebben and Murphy, 2014).
Sa’don et al (2014) examined and found that pedagogical issues, assessment and
accreditation, engagement or motivation, knowledge sharing, cultural diversity,
technology, social interaction, participant retention, learning analytics, policy,
and instructional design etc., were the top research trends in MOOCs for Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs). These top 10 areas were identified based on the
analysis of 164 research papers published during 2008 to 2014. While, Kennedy
(2014) identified the characteristics of MOOCs viz determination, openness, and
MOOCs models were the main characteristics that dominated MOOCs research
during 2009 to 2012.
Descriptive and inferential statistics applied to bibliometric data to investigate
inter-disciplinarity in MOOCs research by Veletsianos and Shepherdson (2015).
They examined 183 research papers published between 2013 and 2015 and found
that education and computer science disciplines were the most dominant fields in
MOOCs with a shift in approaches, integrating more disciplines between 2013 and
2015 (Veletsianos & Shepherdson, 2015) compared to MOOCs research conducted
during 2008 and 2012 (Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013).
Raffaghelli et al (2015) analysed 60 articles published during 2008 to 2014
focusing on methodological approaches in MOOCs research. Majority of research
consisted of theoretical studies and case studies; and emphasised the need for clear
guidelines to identify research methodologies appropriate for the ontological and
epistemological questions that address MOOCs.
They found that pedagogical strategies, learner motivation, and implications
for Higher Education Institutions were the most popular focus areas (Sangra et al
(2015).

Veletsianos and Shepherdson (2016) found that North America and Europe
were the pioneers in MOOCs studies with a focus on students, design, context and
impact, and instructors during 2013 and 2015.

11
 Chapter-2
Piloting of MOOC @ NAARM
ICAR – NAARM is the pioneering institution in competency building for the
National Agricultural Research and Education System of India. The Academy is in
existence since 1976, catering the needs of the NARES through its on-campus and
off- campus programmes for scientists, faculty and other stakeholders imparting
capacity building in broad domains of Teaching, Research and Extension.
Agricultural education is a sunrise sector where technologies like MOOCs have
a great role to play to address issues like:
• Severe faculty shortage in agricultural universities (almost 40 percent)
• Reaching learners in remote institutes
• Shortage of experienced faculty in many universities/colleges
• Providing quality education (moving from textbook to ebook and beyond)
• Lack of Information Technology perspectives to promote technology as a
driver of education
• Educating learners with rural/ remote area background
• Providing employment oriented education to the rural youth/entrepreneurs
MOOCs is considered to have promise for the education but most of MOOCs
have a very low course completion rates of less than 10 per cent. Sustaining interest
among learners, identifying suitable courses that draw motivated learners and
effective and simple use of technology integration are key factors that decide the
success of MOOCs. The impact of MOOCs is questionable due to long history of
revolutionary potential in Open Distance Learning as expressed by the “hope, hype
and disappointment” (Gouseti, 2010).
Agricultural Education being the key mandate of the Academy; bestowing
efforts to build capacities of Agricultural Education System for overall development.
The driving force for development of the nation i.e. quality of education depends
largely on competencies of the teacher. Teaching profession requires a prior initial
training, not only in terms of formation of specialized professional knowledge but
also psycho-pedagogical competencies. In most of professional universities, the
faculty don’t receive any special training on pedagogic techniques. Most of the times,
self-training, observation of colleagues, trial and error are means of acquiring the

13
teaching competencies; not by any formal mechanism in professional universities.
Challenges faced by teaching fraternity are multifold and more significant in
professional universities / colleges. Necessity for enhancement of quality of faculty
is realized by the Academy and multi-pronged capacity building strategies were
adopted and Massive Open Online Courses has been the best choice for reaching
many.
Digital Learning Initiatives
Academy had a significant role in leading the agricultural education towards
digital mode since 2007 by way of providing capacity building in open source
e-learning, developing e-courses for UG streams and developing protocols and
methodologies for digital education. Its initiative in the form of Technology
Enhanced Learning in Agricultural Education (TELAgE), an ICAR Education
division supported activity has paved the way for bringing MOOCs on to a
realistic mode. The activities of TELAgE have been translated into various digital
learning initiatives of which MOOCs form a major constituent and the interest it
has generated among dignitaries from national and international fronts. Different
activities of TELAgE were depicted in Fig. 1.

Dr. S. Ayyappan, Former DG, ICAR, Dr. Trilochan Mohapatra, Secretary (DARE)
releasing the MOOC CD & Director General (ICAR), addressing
MOOC participants.

Dr.Ch.Srinivasa Rao, Director, NAARM Standing Parliamentary Committee’s visit to

addressing MOOC participants TELAgE Lab
14
Release of Interactive digital course modules by Dr Trilochan Mohapatra,
Secretary (DARE) & Director General (ICAR)

Enlightening on MOOCs and digital learning for School Children

MOOCs webpage (https://elearning.naarm.org.in)

15
 Publications

Fig. 1: TELAgE activities for promotion of MOOCs

The available expertise and experience gained in nurturing e-Learning across

NARES and with availability of infrastructural facilities, a MOOC on Competency
Enhancement Through Micro Teaching Methodology was piloted during the year
2015. This MOOC was the first attempt by any organization in NARES; attracted
318 participants with great diversity in terms of geography, background, education,
experience etc. This programme was organized from 11-12-2015 to 7-1-2015.

MOOCs Process
The Academy’s strength of having multiple competencies from digital content
creation using state of art TELAgE facility to content hosting, managing and
certifying has made the MOOCs process flow much more effective. The process
flow chart is presented in Fig 2.

16
 Course & Content Content
Resource Person Creation and Publishing on
Identification Editing LMS

Content access
Course Online
by students from
Announcement Registration
Scheduled date

Verification Activity
Online Result
& Monitoring
Payment Compilation
Authentication and Evaluation

Fig.2: MOOC Process Flowchart Adopted at the Academy

Being the first MOOC in National Agricultural Research and Education System,
the experience was unique and rewarding and some of key learnings are:
1. Motivation to continue these MOOCs because of high success rate of 31.13
percent (normally 8-10 percent is achieved in online courses)
2. Understood technological glitches (eg: integration of youtube into elearning
platform)
3. Learner Engagement strategies evolved
4. Need for Online Certification recognized
5. Assessment methodologies developed
6. Content delivery – following four quadrant approach

Feedback of participants
The participants of pilot MOOC were impressed about online course and
following were the attributes of MOOCs as expressed by participants
• Accessibility - Improved the accessibility by keeping time, distance, domain
barriers away in reaching the unreached.
• Asynchronous learning - Online user centred learning, as learner is at the
centre stage and resulted in self-paced learning; not inferior to traditional mode.
Sometimes challenging to learners also.
• Convenience - Facilitative learning in terms of time, resources, repetition,
archive, sharing etc.

17
• Cost effectiveness – Online free training with no restriction on specialization,
qualifications, experience, gender, place etc.
• Dialogue – Between participants with diversity and different perspectives,
enriched learning.
• Discussion Forum – With peers & experts helped generation of new ideas
and concepts; strengthened CoP (Community of Practice) through sharing of
inputs, materials resulting in overall group learning .
• Duration of course – Spaced learning with 2-3 hours per week for four weeks,
sustained interest.
• Effective platform – Lead to change in education paradigm by simulation of
real classroom situation.
• Evaluation - By peers and experts has crystallized learning.
• Flexible training and learning for both trainer and learner, keeping intact daily
routines and convenience with reference to place and time.
• Hands on experience – Content facilitated hands on experience at their location
with online guidance.
• Interactivity for cross learning - With experts and peers leading to formation
of sound knowledge, stimulation of group dynamics; widening of knowledge;
networking etc.
• Enhanced Knowledge, Skills and Attitude - Continuous, systematic, spaced
self learning activities with facilitation from experts resulted in enhanced levels
of Knowledge, Skills and Attitude.
• Multi-disciplinary – Subject neutral learners from different disciplines, with
different perspectives enhanced effectiveness.
• Multiplier effect – Reached many through online.
• Strengthening of Networking – Embedded mandatory interactive discussion
threads and exercises strengthened online relations.
• Physical barriers – Breaks the barriers of ‘in house’ training.
• Reinforcement of learning - Structured reinforcement included in the content.
• Optimal use of resources – Many benefited, saving of resources of both trainer
and learners (time, money etc.)
• Technology Enhanced Learning – Short duration and quality videos, video
production and editing skills, self-paced learning through small frames,
harnessing of internet beyond routine surfing etc., made MOOCs as an effective
platform.
• User attributes - Improved confidence, active learning, and curiosity among
participants.

18
 Chapter-3
MOOC as strategy for Capacity Building
The success of MOOC experiment was translated into an online capacity
building strategy of the Academy for reaching many stakeholders and it became a
regular programme of the Academy. Since then three programmes were organised
as detailed below.
• Competency Enhancement for Effective Teaching (2016)
• Teaching Management (2017)
• Dynamics of Teaching and Learning (2018)

The study on the impact of Massive Open Online Courses helps to refine and or
redefine the online strategy of the Academy. With this background, a study with the
following objective was conceived – to study the impact of Massive Open Online
Courses on Capacity Building.
Methodology of Impact Study:
The ‘Logic Model’ is used to study the impact of Massive Open Online Courses
on the ASK (Attitude, Skill and Knowledge). The Logic Model is a popular method
used to evaluate effectiveness of the programme. The model describes logical linkages
among program resources, activities, outputs, audiences, short-, intermediate, and
long-term outcomes related to a specific problem or situation (Paul F. McCawley).
It’s an illustration of a sequence of cause-and-effect relationship - a system approach
to communicate the path toward a desired result.

19
The Logic Model has the following elements
• Inputs:  Includes the resources invested in a program, for example, technical
assistance, financial resources, infrastructure and equipment.
• Processes: Indicates the activities carried out to achieve program’s objectives,
such as training and outreach.
• Outputs: Denotes the immediate deliverables of a program achieved through
implementation of activities, such as course material.
• Outcomes:  Potrays the short-term and intermediate results at the population
level achieved by the program through implementation of program activities,
such as changes in people’s knowledge, attitudes or behavior.
• Impact: Signifies the long-term effects of a program, for example, changes in
competency etc.
Data Collection
The data to achieve objectives were collected in 3 levels and 8 data sets
• Need Assessment/ Expectations before the start of course (3 nos)
• Feedback immediately at the end course (3 nos)
• Impact after 6/ 24 months’ completion of MOOC (2 nos)

Statistical tools
Various statistical tools such as frequency, percentage, correlation coefficient,
ANOVA etc. are used for analysis of data.

Results and Discussion

The results as per the objectives were discussed under the headings of Inputs,
Processes, Outputs, Outputs, Impact (steps of logic model).
I. Inputs
The inputs for any programme include human resources (time invested by
faculty, staff etc.), financial resources (funds), facilities and equipment, knowledge
base (training materials, curriculum, certification, learning standards), organisations
involved in planning, delivery and evaluation etc.

20
1. Need Assessment
The development and delivery of Massive Open Online Courses is based on the
need assessment of prospective users/ participants. An application was developed
and integrated into the e-Learning platform, which was built on Moodle, an open
source Learning Management System to capture items viz. topics to be covered/
added/ deleted; preferred format of content delivery, expectations from MOOCs,
preferred modes of engagement in learning/ assessment, internet connectivity,
preferred tool for network access etc.; which helped to design courses as per
expectations.
2. Learners’ Content Management
Learners Content Management is impacted by different factors such as
content formats, tools, mode of delivery etc. Understanding these factors helped
to distinguish and develop courses for achieving training objectives. The data on
participants’ choices/ preferences were obtained before the start of the programme
and given due weightage in production of content.
3. Videos are the key
The preferred formats were videos (96.49%), followed by ppt (96.30%), pdf
(95.13%), images (89.28%), text (87.72%), animated objects (87.72%) and audio
(74.27%). The text, animated objects and audio files are least preferred formats
among all others (Fig 3).

100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
Percent

50.00 96.49 96.30 95.13 89.28 87.72 87.72

40.00 74.27
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00

Fig. 3: Preferred Formats of Content Delivery

21
4. Online Education Through Smart Phones
The availability and accessibility of online learning devices, platforms,
connectivity, tools etc., play a significant role in online learning. The preferred tools
for access of MOOCs were ascertained (Fig 4) through a survey. Majority participants
preferred desktops (60.8%) over laptops (50.0%) for accessing internet based
e-content. A sizeable number preferred smart phones (31.8%) over tablet (5.3%) to
access the content of MOOCs. Currently use of smart phones in educational context
is increasing and for instance about 12.2 percent increase in use of smart phones
observed during a particular month (November 2017); (Fig. 5) which is otherwise
reflected in use of desktops. So smart phones are essentially a good means for
capacity building through MOOCs.

Fig. 4: Preference of IT Tools for MOOCs Fig. 5: Real time

Use of IT Tools

5. Expectations from MOOCs

The expectations of MOOCs in agricultural education was ascertained through
an online questionnaire from registered users of MOOCs before actual launch of the
course on 9 parameters as indicated in Fig 6
Variation in the priority and magnitude was observed among participants
of two MOOCs. Both MOOC learners gave utmost importance to enhancement
of teaching skills; however, there is a decline in the magnitude of enhancement
of skills up to 5 per cent. Apart from teaching skills, the former MOOC learners
emphasized more on motivation to teach while the later MOOC learners gave

22
importance to enrichment in knowledge. Variation in other expectations among
two MOOC learners was presented in Fig 6

Fig.6: Change in Expectations from MOOCs

The results emphasised that MOOC courses bring changes in terms of three
cognitive domains - Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes. The other attributes viz.
convenience, flexibility, resources, technology, motivation etc. facilitate online
learning and contribute for the quality education. The expectations of participants
of two MOOC courses also varied over two years (2016 and 2017). A drop of 4 to 5
per cent in expectation is due to common participants of both MOOCs (about 8.5%
are common learners).
6. Approach for development of course ware
Designed and developed the course ware for massive open online courses
targeting two important senses i.e. sight and hearing, which are vital for online
learning. The content developed in three formats viz. videos, reading materials and
supported by power point presentations. The content is totally produced in-house
i.e. Course Content Design, Development, Packaging, Delivery, Management, User
Administration, Technology Integration etc. in the existing TELAgE lab. Learners
are invited in the knowledge construction and course development in tune with the
connectivist pedagogical philosophy through pre knowledge instrument. The three
component of instructional design viz. structure, interaction and assessment are
internalised in development of courses.

23
7. Four Quadrant Approach (advocated by MHRD, Govt. of India), was
adopted in development of MOOCs; which is as follows
Quadrant-I is e-Tutorial: which shall contain - video and audio content in an
organised form, animation, simulations, video demonstrations, virtual labs, etc.
Quadrant-II is e-Content: which shall contain - pdf, text, e-books, illustrations,
video demonstrations, documents and interactive simulations wherever required.
Quadrant-III is Web Resources: which shall contain - related links, wikipedia
development of course, open source content on internet, case studies, books
including e-books, research papers & journals, anecdotal information, historical
development of the subject, articles, etc.
Quadrant-IV is Self-Assessment: which shall contain - problems and solutions,
which could be in the form of multiple choice questions, fill in the blanks, matching
questions, short answer questions, long answer questions, quizzes, assignments
and solutions, discussion forum topics and setting up the FAQs, clarifications on
general misconceptions.

II Processes
1. Giving and Getting Information
Various ways and means used to popularise among targeted audience about
MOOCs such as social media, print and electronic media, internet, posters, face
to face communication etc.; two months prior to start. Major information sources
for participants were friends and acquaintances (32.76%), followed by internet
(31.55%) and formal communication from their respective organisations (20.57%)
and other combinations as given Table 8. However, variations were noticed among
male and female and agriculture and non-agriculture professionals. Agricultural
professionals and males are better informed than non-agriculture and female
category participants (Fig 7).

24
Table 8: Sources of Information for MOOCs
S. Sources of Informa- Profession Gender
No tion of MOOCs Non Agri Agri Total Female Male Total
1 Friends and 154 225 379 150 229 379
acquaintances (13.31) (19.45) (32.76) (12.96) (19.79) (32.76)
2 Internet 119 246 365 73 292 365
(10.29) (21.26) (31.55) ( 6.31) (25.24) (31.55)
3 My organization 92 146 238 85 153 238
(7.95) (12.62) (20.57) (7.35) (13.22) (20.57)
4 Friends and acquain- 21 34 55 19 36 55
tances, Internet (1.82) (2.94) (4.75) ( 1.74) (3.11) ( 4.75)
5 Friends and 11 16 27 6 15 21
acquaintances, (0.95) (1.38) (2.33) ( 0.52) (1.30) ( 1.82)
My organization
6 Internet, My 12 14 (1.21) 26 (2.25) 3 23 26
organization (1.04) ( 0.26) ( 1.99) (2.25)
7 Other Sources 36 31 (2.68) 67 (5.79) 26 47 73
(3.11) (2.25) (4.06) (6.31)
  Grand Total 445 712 1157 362 795 1157
(38.46) (61.54) (100.0) (31.29) (68.71) (100.0)
(Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage)

Fig.7: Sources of Information about MOOCs (in per cent)

25
2. User Registration at https://elearning.naarm.org.in/
The registration of participants was done through a customised application;
embedded into eLearning platform (Fig 8).
The details of participants enrolled for courses are given below
S.No Course Title Duration and Year No of registrations
1 Competency Enhancement for Four weeks, 1003
Effective Teaching 2016-17
2 Teaching Management Four weeks, 2017 982
3 Dynamics of Teaching and Learning Four weeks, 2018 1194
Total 3179

Fig.8: e-Learning Platform

3. Profile of participants
The MOOCs were organised with the main aim of improving quality of
education in the country by providing access to capacity building programmes,
resources, processes through online asynchronous mode. Actively engaged in
teaching or at the beginning of career in teaching profession and aspiring teachers,
apart from other interested candidates were target audiences. The philosophy of
MOOCs is clearly reflected in present online courses, offered by the Academy –
unlimited participation and open access to all. Participants represented 12 different

26
domains – agriculture, business, commerce, computer applications, dairy science,
engineering, fishery, forestry, general science, horticulture, veterinary science and
others. Half of participants were at the beginning of career and one fifths were post
graduate and doctoral students, who are aspiring to be faculty in near future. About
one tenth were young scientists (Assistant Professor-cum- Junior Scientist, Scientists,
Assistant Research Scientist). So more than three fourths of registered users were
either young faculty/ scientist/ postgraduate/ doctoral students. Remaining
were Senior Scientists/Associate Professors, Professors/ Principal Scientists/
HoDs/ Dean/ Director, Junior/ Senior Research Fellow/ PDF, Teaching/ Research
Associate, Officials of line departments and others. The course attracted senior
professors and administrators as well.
4. Course Development Process
Appropriate topics and faculty/experts were foundations for the development
of quality course content. The topics fulfilling course objectives were shortlisted,
while giving importance to expectations of participants. Expertise and experience
were keys for identification of in house and external experts. Implemented common
guidelines in course design and development such as duration of video lesson,
format of presentations, ppt template etc. keeping the four quadrant approach at
the centre stage.
5. Content Management and Learning
The collaborative learning is very important for the success of MOOCs. The
content evenly distributed into four blocks/ weeks; each block contained video
lessons supported by reading materials and ppts spaced with 1 or 2 days between
lessons for better knowledge, comprehension and participation in discussion forum.
This pedagogical approach is also supported by relevant web links and OERs (Open
Educational Resources). Faculty moderated healthy and purposeful discussion for
effective cross learning. Coherence between and among topics and or blocks is
maintained for effective learning outcomes. Anywhere, anytime content access/
availability is ensured for self directed and non-formal education of participants.
The content is packaged, compatible to different devices (desktops, laptops, mobile
platforms, tabs) and browsers.
Engagement is the key for the success of online learning, which is ensured
through different activities such as pre knowledge test, participation in discussion
forum, submission of weekly assignments/ reflections and participation in terminal
examination etc. on a continuous basis. The whole process is monitored by course
directors/ teachers.

27
 The concept of CoP (Community of Practice) is also nurtured among online
learners to promote social nature of human learning and sharing. The CoP helped
participants to strengthen and establish linkages and sharing of quality resources,
leading to competency enhancement.
Learners’ Support - A dedicated team is in place for 24X7 troubleshooting;
which facilitated continuity in learning (Fig. 9).

Fig.9: 1st MOOC Team at NAARM with Dr S Ayyappan, Former DG, ICAR

6. Assessment and Evaluation of MOOCs

Assessment of participants’ performance similar to Classroom Assessment
Techniques adopted in these courses also. The parameters such as background
knowledge, diversity in terms of educational background, tools, preferences,
expectation etc. are ascertained. Discussion threads, weekly reflections and final
examination performance etc. are considered in grading participants. Considering
large size enrolment, machine based grading is used through online examination.

28
7. Certification
Awarding of certificate is the terminal process; automated to a greater extent.
The qualified participants are given two types of certificates – successful completion
and participation based on performance in evaluation/ assessment processes.
A revenue generation model with the theme of free learning for all but pay for
certification is evolved. Embedded an application into e-Learning platform for
providing online downloadable certificate in pdf format (Fig.10).

Fig. 10: A Model Certificate

III. Outputs
The outputs from the study were presented under three broad areas – Diversity
in participation (individuals and organisations), Content Generation and Viewing,
Revenue Generation.

29
1. Diversity in participation
The three MOOCs attracted 3179 participants across different disciplines, geo
graphical locations, gender variations etc. and 1527 (48.03%) participants became
eligible for certification (Table 9).
Table 9: Participants trained through MOOCs
No of Eligible for
S.No. Course Title Duration and Year
registrations certification
1 Competency Enhancement Four weeks 1003 529
for Effective Teaching 2016-17 (52.74%)
2 Teaching Management Four weeks 982 516
2017 (52.54%)
3 Dynamics of Teaching and Four weeks 1194 482
Learning 2018 (40.36%)
Total 3179 1527
(48.03%)

2. Educational Background
Among MOOCs learns, majority were Post Graduates (47.5%), followed by
Doctoral degree holders (45.8%), Undergraduate (6.5%) and PDFs (0.3%) in that
order. The participants possessed qualifications viz. - B Tech, B. Sc (Ag), B.F.Sc,
B.Sc, B.Sc (Forestry), B.Sc (Horti), B.V.Sc, D.Phil, M Ed, M.Com, M.F.Sc, M.Lib,
M.Phil, M.S.W, M.Sc, M.Sc (Ag), M.Sc (Dairy), M.Sc (Forestry), M.Sc (Horti),M.
Tech, M.V.Sc, MA, MBA, MCA, MD, PDF, Ph.D. etc.
3. Domains and Participants
A great deal of diversity among participants were observed and majority of
participants from agriculture domain (40.48%), followed by Veterinary Sciences
(27.75%) and other sciences as given in Table 10. Over last three years a decline in
participation is noticed in agriculture domain, while increased participation was
observed in Veterinary Sciences.

30
Table 10: Diversity among MOOCs learners
MOOC Participants (%)
S.No. Specialization Total
2016 2017 2018
1 Agriculture 43.41 38.81 36.83 40.48
2 Veterinary Science 24.92 26.60 36.83 27.75
3 Community Science, Forestry & Sericulture 1.63 2.42 1.95 1.99
4 Fishery Science 4.60 4.47 1.22 3.93
5 Horticulture 6.23 4.59 4.88 5.37
6 Engineering 5.52 5.44 4.63 5.32
7 Others 13.69 17.65 13.66 15.16
  100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

About 11.29 percent of participants represented agriculture and allied sciences

such as community science, forestry & sericulture, fishery science, horticulture.
But about 15.16 per cent of participants belonged to traditional streams, including
management sciences. However, a sizeable number from engineering stream
(5.32%) had taken the advantage of course. The courses on teaching competencies
had potential to attract participants from all domains as more than one fifths
of participants were outside NARES. So the MOOCs reached beyond higher
agricultural institutions and to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics) streams.
4. Diversity of organizations
The MOOCs had benefitted 550 organizations by building capacities of their
staff/ students. However, more than three fourths (77.8%) of organizations belonged
to NARES and the remaining 22.2 percent were represented by Government
Departments, Private Organizations, Banking Sector, Foreign Organizations and
Others which included traditional universities (Table 11). All three important
domains of teaching, research and education of NARES were benefitted.

31
Table 11: Participating Institutions in MOOCs
S.No. Category of Institution Frequency Percent
1 Agricultural Education 130 23.6
2 Veterinary Education (including dairy) 94 17.1
3 Private Education 34 6.2
4 Traditional Education 31 5.6
5 Technical Education 30 5.5
6 Horticulture Education 17 3.1
7 Fishery Education 12 2.2
8 Community Science, Forestry and Sericulture 9 1.6
Education
  Sub Total 357 64.9
9 Agricultural Research 32 5.8
10 Fishery Research 7 1.3
11 Horticulture Research 7 1.3
12 Veterinary Research 7 1.3
  Sub Total 53 9.6
13 Extension 18 3.3
  Sub Total 18 3.3
14 Government Departments 53 9.6
15 Private Organizations 33 6.0
16 Banking Sector 5 0.9
17 Foreign Organizations 4 0.7
18 Others 27 4.9
  Sub Total 122 22.2
  Grand Total 550 100

5. Content Generated
The details of course content generated were presented in Table 12. The faculty
willingness and readiness obtained and also facilitated content generation (videos,
ppts etc.); suitable to online course. About 14 - 17 video modules of total duration
of 3 hours 2 minutes to 5 hours 33 minutes delivered to participants. In all, 189-216
slides content and 111 to 135 pages of reading material supported learning. The
expertise of 6 - 11 faculty utilised for producing the content. Some contents are used
often, since all three courses had similar objectives (Fig. 11).

32
 1.8
PPTs 1.78
1.94
Avg. views/ User

1.57
PDFs 1.56
1.74

4.35
Videos 3.71
4.01

0 1 2 3 4 5

MOOC 3 MOOC 2 MOOC 1

Fig.11: Content Viewing Pattern in MOOCs

Table 12: Content Generated

Content Delivery MOOC 1 MOOC 2 MOOC 3
Videos 14 (3h 2m) 17 (5h 33m) 15 (4h 12m)
PPTs 11 (189 nos) 15 ( 241 nos) 14 (216 nos)
PDFs 7 (113 pages) 9 (135 pages) 8 (111 pages)
No of faculty engaged 6 11 10

6. Learner – Course Interaction

It is a very critical element in the success of MOOCs. The frequency of contact of
learners (viewing, reading, listening etc.) with course content determines learning
effectiveness. The management of learning is facilitated by unique characters of
MOOCs i.e. asynchronous learning, convenience, flexible, blended with technology
etc. Among three formats of content delivery, based on average views per individual,
the video format received highest priority than ppts and reading materials. The
content was developed based on perceptions and expectations of participants. The
users rated videos with highest quality in their feedback.

33
7. Prior Knowledge
Majority of participants (74.75%) below 40 years of age had undergone online
courses (from 1 to 5 courses) and hence MOOCs are well received among the
younger category (Table 13).
Table 13: Uptake of MOOCs as per age groups
No of MOOCs Age (years)
undergone Less than 30 31-40 41-50 More than 50 Total
72 162 52 18
Upto 5 courses 304 (97.12)
(23.0) (51.75) (16.61) (5.75)
2 3 2 0 7
6- 10 Courses
(0.64) (0.95) (0.63) (0.0) (2.24)
2 0 0 0 2
More than 10 courses
(0.64) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.63)
76 165 54 18 313
Total
(24.28) (52.71) (17.25) (5.75) (100.00)
(Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage)

8. Revenue Generation
MOOCs had evolved into a revenue generation model. The certification charges
were collected from desirous participants @ Rs 500 for 1st MOOC and @ Rs 1000
for 2nd and 3rd MOOCs and thus Rs 10.24 lakhs revenue was generated from three
courses.

IV. Outcomes
1. Knowledge Acquisition
The participants gained about 15 percent in knowledge, as evident from pre
knowledge test scores and final knowledge test scores. The average score in online
pre knowledge test (administered before the start) was 50.0 per cent which was
enhanced to 65.0 per cent by the end of course (after one month). However, the
average performance was 63.82 marks for those who haven’t taken pre knowledge
test. The gain in knowledge is attributed to course content, online pedagogy,
evaluation etc. The knowledge score from fresh candidates is about 61.59 and it and
72.18 for those old learners. Pre knowledge score for old learners is 50.55 marks.
About 39 learners had participated in more than one course.

34
2. Social Engagement of learners
Social engagement of learners is a challenge and that too in online education.
Various formats viz. Discussion Threads, Discussion Forums, Assignments,
CoP (Community of Practice), Examinations (mock & final), Feedback etc. are
incorporated for effective engagement of learners; a prime factor for ensuring
quality of learning. The engagement (in terms of quality and quantity) of learners
improved in the series of MOOCs, which resulted in increased success rates and
decreased participation rates (Table 14). The content was hosted at http://elearning.
naarm.org.in/ using the open source software MOODLE.
Table 14: Online Engagement of learners through MOOC
MOOC 1 MOOC 2 MOOC 3
Item
(n=1003) (n=982) ( n=1194)
Assignments (nos) 1456 1648 1171
Feedback (nos) 386 448 473
Mock Exam (Online) (nos) 341 307 169
Final Exam (Online) (nos) 473 506 456
Total events (nos) 2656 2909 2269
Success Rates (%) 34.89 42.87 22.36

The academic engagement and success rate were positively associated i.e. more
engagement, high success rate.
3. Learners – Learner Interaction
Cross learning is the key outcome of MOOC, which results in collaborative
learning. The learners were provided a platform for continuous interaction among
themselves during course period. Participation in discussion threads, sharing of
resources through CoP (Community of Practice) and discussion on key issues of
teaching – learning etc. are included in assessment for promotion of learner – learner
interaction.
Table 15: Means of Learner – Learner Interaction
Factor MOOC 1 MOOC 2 MOOC 3
Discussion Threads (nos) 305 1290 2197
CoP (Community of Practice) (nos) 13 130 200
Challenges/Problems in Teaching (nos) 0 180 179

35
 The significant increase in number of discussion threads is a reflection of
active learner- learner interaction. The MOOCs encouraged intensive participation
over time and is evidently increased from 305 in 2016 to 2197 in 2018. Likewise,
considerable change in sharing of resources through CoP was also observed. The
engagement through discussion on ‘challenges/ problems in teaching’ was ensured
in last 2 courses.

V. Impact of Massive Open Online Courses

1. Professional efficiency
It was ascertained from participants to indicate percent of change in the
professional efficiency on two time lines – after 6 months and after 24 months of
completion of course. The enhanced professional efficiency after six months after
course completion was in range of 29.2% to 36.6% and it was in the range of 24.2% to
42.4% after 24 months’ timeline. In other classes, the reported professional efficiency
over two time periods is reduced marginally (up to 5 percent). But more than 60
per cent enhanced efficiency was reported by 42.4 percent of respondents after 24
months against perceived change of 36.6 percent after 6 months (5.8% increase). The
impact of MOOCs on enhancement of professional efficiency was incremental over
a period of time (Table 16).
Table 16: Enhancement in Professional Efficiency (extent of change %)
Extent of perceived change After 6 months After 24 months Total
Upto 30% 59 (29.2%) 16 (24.2%) 75 (28.0%)
31 to 60% 69 (34.2%) 22 (33.3%) 91 (34.0%)
More than 60 % 74 (36.6%) 28 (42.4%) 102 (38.1%)
(Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage)

Candidates with agricultural sciences background reported higher change

(more than 60%) over a period of time than non-agricultural candidates.

2. Collaborative Social Networking

The key impacts of MOOCs were both establishment and strengthening
of network among online learners. About 71 per cent expressed that they could
establish network among other online learners, which was slightly declined by the
end of 24 months by 1.4 per cent.

36
 About 40 per cent decline in perception was noticed in ‘continuing the network’
that resulted from MOOCs over two time lines. However, one fourths of participants
were still continuing the network. Conversion of online network into offline contact
also is very much needed for competency enhancement of faulty and to develop
into social capital (Table 17). (Fig. 12)
Table 17: Impact of MOOCs on Social Networking
S.No.  Item After 6 months After 24 months
1 Establishment of Networking 136 (70.8%) 43 (69.4%)
2 Continuation of Networking 121(64.7%) 39(24.4%)
3 Sharing learning or resources with others 168 (89.8%) 53 (86.9%)
either formally or informally
(Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage)

The beneficiaries of MOOCs continued to share learning and resources even after 2
years of time.

Fig. 12: MOOC Learners with Program Director at a Conference

37
3. Changes in learners’ perceptions
The effectiveness of Massive Open Online Courses was measured on 8
parameters as given Table 18. The data were obtained after 6 and 24 months
after course completion. Participants gave more importance to Flexible learning,
Motivation to teach effectively, Convenience of learning, Favourable attitude over
these two time lines, as evident from their ranking. However, the factors such as
‘Quality learning resources enriched my knowledge’ and ‘Development of skills’
interchanged their rankings. Positive change resulted marginally over 18 months
in factors viz. convenience of learning, learning from peers and others, flexible
learning, strengthening of networking and favourable attitude to the extent of 0.45
to 1.20 per cent.
The factors such as Quality learning resources enriched my knowledge,
Development of skills, Motivation to teach effectively etc. registered negative
perception in the range of -1.52 to -0.44 per cent. ANOVA revealed non-significant
change over two time lines which denoted persistence in the impact.
Table 18: Changes in Learners’ Perceptions
After 6 months After 24 months
S.No.  Impact Factor Percent Change F Value
Mean Rank Mean Rank
1 Flexible learning 4.181 I 4.222 I 0.98 0.076 NS
2 Motivation to 4.177 II 4.159 II -0.44 0.013 NS
teach effectively
3 Convenience of 4.124 III 4.143 III 0.45 0.014 NS
learning
4 Favourable 4.031 IV 4.079 IV 1.20 0.099 NS
attitude
5 Quality learning 3.949 V 3.889 VI -1.52 0.146 NS
resources
enriched my
knowledge
6 Development of 3.932 VI 3.905 V -0.70 0.033 NS
skills
7 Learning from 3.492 VII 3.524 VII 0.90 0.035 NS
peers and others
8 Strengthening 3.435 VIII 3.476 VIII 1.19 0.054 NS
of Networking

38
4. Completion Rates
Despite potential advantages of MOOCs, the attrition rates and drop outs are
always varying and worrying for organisations. The active users varied from 47.32
to 62.03 percent in three MOOCs organised. In all three MOOCs, significantly high
success rates achieved in the range of 22.36 to 34.89 per cent (Table 19) and about
10 to 18 per cent participation rates. The success rates are quiet significant when
compared to 8-10 per cent success rates in all other MOOCs.
Table 19: MOOCs Completion Rates
Partially
S. Duration Registered Active Successfully
Course Title Successful
No. and Year Users Users Completed
(Participation)
1 Competency Four weeks 1003 622 350 179
Enhancement 2016-17 (62.03%) (34.89%) (17.85%)
for Effective
Teaching
2 Teaching Four weeks 982 558 421 95
Management 2017 (56.82%) (42.87%) (9.67%)
3 Dynamics of Four weeks 1194 565 267 215
Teaching and 2018 (47.32%) (22.36%) (18.00%)
Learning
Total 3179 1745 1038 489
(54.89%) (32.65%) (15.38%)
(Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage)

The difference in participation and completion rates were in the range by 6.95
to 9.29 percent, who were turned to be drop outs at a later time. So 85 to 93 percent
of active users are able to complete the course either fully or partially.
Factors responsible for very high success rates was due to relevance of the course
for job, interest in the subject, personal career progression (promotion) etc. (Table
20). Other reasons attributed were brand value of the academy, non-availability of
courses related to teaching competency in public domain etc. In professional higher
education institutions, a mechanism for developing the teaching skills, especially at
entry level, is seldom available. These MOOCs attracted mainly young faculty who
are either in the initial stages of their career or yet to start the career in teaching

39
profession (post graduate and doctoral students). Unlike other courses, certification
charges are nominal ranging from Rs 500 to 1000. In all factors, male responses were
high than females.
Table 20: Factors for High Success Rate
S.No. Reasons for opting MOOC Female Male Total
1 Relevant to my job 86 (7.43) 198 (17.11) 284 (24.55)
2 Personal Interest 54 (4.67) 98 (8.47) 152 (13.14)
3 Relevant to my job, Brand value of 21 (1.82) 55 (4.75) 76 (6.57)
NAARM, Personal Interest, Personal
career progression (for promotion etc)
4 Relevant to my job, Personal Interest 21 (1.82) 50 (4.32) 71 (6.14)
5 Relevant to my job, Personal Interest, Personal 21 (1.82) 45 (3.89) 66 (5.70)
career progression (for promotion etc)
6 Personal career progression (for 17 (1.47) 46 (3.98) 63 (5.45)
promotion etc)
7 Relevant to my job, Brand value of 22 (1.90) 41 (3.54) 63 (5.45)
NAARM, Personal Interest
8 Relevant to my job, Brand value of 11 (0.95) 21 (1.82) 32 (2.77)
NAARM, Personal Interest, Personal
career progression ( for promotion etc),
Non availability of such courses
9 Relevant to my job, Brand value of 11 (0.95) 19 (1.64) 30 (2.59)
NAARM, Personal Interest, Non
availability of such courses
10 Relevant to my job, Personal career 12 (1.04) 16 (1.38) 28 (2.42)
progression ( for promotion etc)
11 Other reasons/ combinations 86 (7.43) 206 (17.80) 292 (25.24)
Total 362 (31.29) 795 (68.71) 1157 (100.0)
(Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage)

5. Organisational benefits
The success of MOOCs have opened newer vistas for the Academy in spreading
its knowledge, capacity building reach besides turning it as a revenue generation
avenue towards self-sustenance in future.
The Table 21 shows the MOOCs details at NAARM in terms of revenue
generation and the Table 22 shows the Academy’s support in developing the
MOOCs for other organisations like MANAGE, NIRD &PR, NIPHM, PJTSAU and

40
NDRI (Fig 13). The success of MOOCs at NAARM have spurred these institutes to
replicate the same in their institutes. The MOOCs development is in different stages
but one common thing in all of them is the support and handholding of NAARM.

MANAGE

MOOC
content
development,
NIRD&PR
MOOC
NDRI Process &
MOOC Lab
Establishment

ICAR-
NAARM
MOOCs
program

UoH
PJTSAU

NIPHM

Fig. 13: NAARM as a central support for promoting MOOCs

Table 21: Revenue Generation from MOOCs at NAARM

S. Revenue Generation
Name of programme for MOOC Institute Year
No. (Rs. In Lakhs)
1 Competency Enhancement through NAARM 2015 -
Micro Teaching Methodology
2 Competency Enhancement for NAARM 2016 2.65
Effective Teaching
3 Teaching Management NAARM 2017 4.40
4. Dynamics of Teaching Learning NAARM 2018 3.54

41
6. Handholding support
The Academy had provided handholding support to seven oganisations as
given Table 22 and earned Rs 61.65 lakhs during last one year.
Table 22: Handholding support to other institutes in MOOCs development
Revenue
S.
Name of programme for MOOC Institute Year Generation
No.
(Rs. In Lakhs)
1 Certified Farm Advisor MANAGE 2016-17 3.4
2 Certified Livestock Advisor MANAGE 2017-18 5.2
3 Diploma Programme on Panchayat Raj NIRDPR 2017-18 1.4
Governance & Rural Development
4 Agri-warehousing Management MANAGE 2018-19 9.3
5 Plant bio-security through MOOC NIPHM 2018-19 7.2
platform
6 Library Information System PJTSAU 2018-19 4.5
7 Commercial Dairy farming and Milk NDRI 2018-19 23.25
Processing
8 Rodents & Household Pest Management NIPHM 2018-19 7.4

7. Reaching the Unreached

The impact of MOOCs organised by NAARM was highly significant spreading
across all 29 states and majority were from states like Maharastra, Gujrat, Tamilnadu
etc. and fewer from North Eastern states (Fig 14).

Fig. 14: Reaching Unreached through MOOCs in India

42
8. Challenges in Organisation of MOOCs
• Credentials of online learners
• Requirements of learners for online courses – content, assessment, awareness of
latest IT tools, practices, data packages, security etc.
• Team skills
• Development of a specific and well defined rubric for assessment
• Preparedness of faculty
• Weak role of assessment 
• Inability in training and assessing higher-order practical competencies. 
• Unfulfilled role of learners as co-creators of knowledge and co-assessors of
learning in MOOCs.
• How to motivate learners to participate in discussion forum?
• Proper and well structured feedback flow from instructors to learners and vice
versa.
• Instructors readiness and impressions
• Open Online Courses without entry criteria possess a threat for designing
proper assessment methodologies.
• Learner Retention
9. Way Forward
• Institutionalisation of MOOCs through policy making exclusively for
agricultural education and knowledge transfer
• Infrastructure support for strengthening digital content development for
various courses through MOOCs
• Revolving Fund need to be established for MOOCs offering through AUs
• Central Unit for MOOCs at ICAR has to be established for guiding, policy
advocacy and conduct of MOOCs
• Partnerships need to be forged with other supporting/funding agencies who
promote MOOCs need to be explored and strengthened for providing a unified
MOOC platform
10. Prospects of MOOCs in Capacity Building
MOOC learners’ response pattern over two time periods, strongly supports
continuation of MOOCs as it is perceived as an effective platform. Further 81.78 per
cent expressed interest in MOOCs and 71 per cent of participants derived maximum
benefits from MOOCs.

43
Table 23: Future Prospects of MOOCs
After 6 months After 24 months
 Factor Total
(n= 240) ( n= 73)
MOOC as effective platform 200 (75.47) 65 (24.52) 265 (100.0)
Interest in MOOC 192 (75.59) 62 (24.41) 254 (100.0)
Maximum benefit 126 (70.76) 45 (26.32) 171 (54.63%)
(Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage)

Conclusion
MOOCs undoubtedly holds promise as the mode of knowledge acquisition and
future capacity building as the most of the MOOCs learners had sustained interest
even after two years of participating in MOOCs. In order to increase its positive
impact, technology has to be simple to motivate learners and evaluation methods
have to be properly strengthened to suit different scenarios. However, the learners’
engagement, assessment methodologies, learners’ motivation, credits to MOOCs
etc. are important.
Besides these, from organisational point of view, it is proven that such activities
not only spread its knowledge, and wisdom on a wider reach but enhances visibility
of an organisation and provides enough scope for revenue generation in a win-win
mode.
References
• Baker, R., Evans, B., Greenberg, E., & Dee, T. (2014). Understanding persistence in MOOCs
(Massive Open Online Courses): Descriptive & experimental evidence. Paper presented at the
European MOOC Stakeholder Summit, Lausanne, Switzerland
• Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in Massive Open Online
Courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94,
49-60
• Brown, M., Costello, E., Donlon, E., & Giolla-Mhichil, M. N. (2015). A strategic response
to MOOCs: How one European university is approaching the challenge. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6).
• Bulger, M., Bright, J., & Cobo, C. (2015). The real component of virtual learning: Motivations
for face-to-face MOOC meetings in developing and industrialised countries. Information,
Communication & Society, 18(10), 1200-1216.
• Campbell, J., Gibbs, A. L., Najafi, H., & Severinski, C. (2015). A comparison of learner intent
and behaviour in live and archived MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 15(5), 235-262
• Cisel, M. (2014). Analyzing completion rates in the first French xMOOC. Paper presented at
the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit, Lausanne, Switzerland

44
• Cisel, M., Mano, M., Bachelet, R., & Silberzahn, P. (2015). A tale of two MOOCs: Analyzing
long-term course dynamics. Paper presented at the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit,
Mons, Belgium.
• Cross, S., & Whitelock, D. (2016). Similarity and difference in fee-paying and no-fee learner
expectations, interaction and reaction to learning in a Massive Open Online Course. Interactive
Learning Environments, 1-13
• Ebben, M., & Murphy, J. S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: A review of nascent
MOOC scholarship. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(3), 328-345.
• Gallagher, S. E., & Savage, T. (2015). Comparing learner community behavior in multiple
presentations of a massive open online course. Paper presented at the 12th International
Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, Maynooth, Greater
Dublin.
• Gasevic, D., Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Where is research on
massive open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC Research Initiative. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 134-176.
• Gillani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses.
The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18-26.
• Gouseti, A. (2010). Web 2.0 and education: not just another case of hype, hope and
disappointment?. Learning, Media and Technology, 35(3), 351-356.
• Guo, P. J., & Reinecke, K. (2014). Demographic differences in how students navigate through
MOOCs. Paper presented at the ACM conference on Learning @ Scale, Atlanta, Georgia.
• Hill, A. J. (2015). Social learning in Massive Open Online Courses: An analysis of pedagogical
implications and students’ learning experiences. (Doctoral dissertation), University of
California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/docview/1681958848?ac countid=14723
• Kennedy, J. (2014). Characteristics of massive open online courses (MOOCs): A research
review. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(1), 1–16.
• Li, K. (2015). Motivating learners in Massive Open Online Courses: A design-based research
approach. (Doctoral dissertation), Ohio University, Athens, United States. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/docview/1769046180? accountid =14723
• Liu, M., Kang, J., Cao, M., Lim, M., Ko, Y., Myers, R., & Schmitz Weiss, A. (2014). Understanding
MOOCs as an emerging online learning tool: Perspectives from the students. American
Journal of Distance Education, 28(3), 147-159
• Liyanagunawardena, T., Adams, A., & Williams, S. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the
published literature. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
14(3), 202-227
• Moskal, P., Thompson, K., & Futch, L. (2015). Enrollment, engagement, and satisfaction in the
BlendKit faculty development open, online course. Online Learning, 19(4), 1-12
• Naidu, S. and Barbera, E. (2014) The Weakest Link -Assessment andAccreditation in MOOCs,
Digital Education Review, 25, 1-6.
• OpenupEd (2015). Definition Massive Open Online Courses. Heerlen: EADTU.

45
• Raffaghelli, J., Cucchiara, S., & Persico, D. (2015), Methodological approaches in MOOC
research: Retracing the myth of Proteus, British Journal of Educational Technologies, 46(3),
488–509
• Robinson, A. C., Kerski, J., Long, E. C., Luo, H., DiBiase, D., & Lee, A. (2015). Maps and the
geospatial revolution: Teaching a massive open online course (MOOC) in geography. Journal
of Geography in Higher Education, 39(1), 65-82.
• Rodrigues, V., & Leinster, S. (2016). ‘Clinical supervision with confidence’: Exploring the
potential of MOOCs for faculty development Paper presented at the European MOOC
Stakeholder Summit, Graz, Austria.
• Sa’don, N. F., Alias, R. A., & Ohshima, N. (2014). Nascent research trends in MOOCs in higher
educational institutions: A systematic literature review. In Web and Open Access to Learning
(ICWOAL), International Conference (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
• Salmon, G., Gregory, J., Lokuge Dona, K., & Ross, B. (2015). Experiential online development
for educators: The example of the Carpe Diem MOOC. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 46(3), 542-556
• Sangra, A., González-Sanmamed, M., & Anderson, T. (2015). Meta-analysis of the research
about MOOCs during, Educacion XX1, 1-28.
• Schulze, A. S. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCs) and completion rates: are self-
directed adult learners the most successful at MOOCs? (Doctoral dissertation), Malibu,
United States, Pepperdine University. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.
library.uq.edu.au/docview/1549976283?ac
• Thirouard, M., Bernaert, O., Dhorne, L., Bianchi, S., Pidol, L., Crepon, S. P., & Petit, Y. (2015).
Learning by doing: Integrating a serious game in a MOOC to promote new skills. Paper
presented at the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit, Mons, Belgium
• Tseng, S.-F., Tsao, Y.-W., Yu, L.-C., Chan, C.-L., & Lai, K. R. (2016). Who will pass? Analyzing
learner behaviors in MOOCs. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning,
11(1), 8
• Veletsianos, G. & Shepherdson, P. (2016). A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical
MOOC literature published in. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 17(2), 198-221
• Veletsianos, G. & Shepherdson, P. (2016). A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical
MOOC literature published in. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 17(2), 198-221
• Watson, W. R., Kim, W., & Watson, S. L. (2016). Learning outcomes of a MOOC designed for
attitudinal change: A case study of an Animal Behavior and Welfare MOOC. Computers &
Education, 96, 83-93
• Xiong, Y., Li, H., Kornhaber, M. L., Suen, H. K., Pursel, B., & Goins, D. D. (2015). Examining
the relations among student motivation, engagement, and retention in a MOOC: A structural
equation modeling approach. Global Education Review, 2(3), 23-33.
• Zawacki-Richter, O., & Naidu, S. (2016). Mapping research trends from 35 years
of publications in Distance Education. Distance Education, 37(3). http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1185 079

46
About the Authors
Dr. D. Thammi Raju obtained his Ph D from Acharya NG Ranga
Agricultural University in Veterinary and Animal Husbandry
Extension and served the NIRD, Krishi Vigyan Kenrdra, Department
of Animal Husbandry, Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University /
Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University in various capacities. In all he
had 27 years of experience in Animal Husbandry Sector and National
Agricultural Research System. He was trained at the University of
Reading, UK and the Texas A&M University, USA. He visited Switzerland,
Belgium, Netherlands, Germany under National Agricultural Higher
Principal Scientist,
ICAR-NAARM Education Project. He guided 14 Ph.D. / M.V.Sc. students and had
Email: dtraju@naarm.org.in more than 75 publications to his credit. His areas of interest are Teaching
methodologies, Extension and Communication Management, ICTs in
Livestock Extension, Expert Systems, Massive Open Online Courses.

Dr G.R.R.K. Murthy is working as a Principal Scientist at ICAR-

National Academy of Agriculture Research Management (NAARM),
Hyderabad. He is basically trained in agricultural engineering from
A.P. Agricultural University in 1987, and did masters and doctorate in
agricultural engineering with Farm Machinery and Power specialization
at IIT Kharagpur. He started his career as Scientist at DRR, Hyderabad,
in 1993. Later he served at IIT, Kharagpur and NAARM. He conducted
workshops on eLearning, Education Technology, Learning Design,
e-Assessment etc. He is into eLearning since 2007 and introduced the
Principal Scientist,
ICAR-NAARM concept of Moodle in agriculture and trained the faculty to develop
Email: murthy@naarm.org.in ecourses. He established an innovative technology enhanced learning
laboratory at NAARM in 2014 which resulted in development of digital
courses and MOOCs.

Dr S Senthil Vinayagam obtained his Doctoral degree from Kerala

Agricultural University in Agricultural Extension and served Zonal
Coordinating Unit, CRRI, & NRC for Soybean, Directorate of Sorghum
Research of ICAR. He also worked at RGNIYD, Chennai and NIRD,
and MANAGE, Hyderabad in various capacities for more than 28 years.
Currently he is working as Principal Scientist and Head (I/c), Education
Systems Management Division of NAARM. He was deputed to South
Africa, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi and Afghanistan as an expert for sharing
Indian experiences on Agricultural and Rural Development. His areas of
Principal Scientist,
ICAR-NAARM interest are Capacity Building, Entrepreneurship Development, Project
Email: senthil@naarm.org.in Management, Monitoring and Evaluation of Extension Projects, Agri-
Business Management, Participatory Approaches for Agricultural and
Rural Development.

47
 Dr. M. Krishnan joined the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
as Scientist (Agricultural Economics) at ICAR- Indian Agricultural
Research Institute, New Delhi in March 1982. He has worked as
Scientist (Senior Scale), Senior Scientist and Principal Scientist at
the ICAR- Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture, Chennai;
then as Head, Fisheries Economics, Extension and Statistics Division
at the ICAR- Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai and as
Head, Education Systems Management at ICAR - National Academy
Head, ESM Division (Rtd),
of Agricultural Research Management, Hyderabad from where he
ICAR-NAARM retired in November 2019. He has taken his PhD in Agricultural
Email: mkrishnan57@gmail.com Economics from ICAR-IARI, New Delhi. He is a specialist in
Social Media in Agriculture Education and also has contributed
significantly in the use of artwork as a medium of communicating
science, at ICAR-NAARM. He has completed several consultancy
projects including those for FAO, Rome; NACA, Bangkok and
SAARC Agriculture Centre, Dhaka. He has guided 6 PhD and 9
MFSc students in Fisheries Economics and Fisheries Extension. He
has published extensively and consistently in reputed high impact
factor journals. Post retirement, he is serving as Adviser, State Level
Project Advisory Committee for Marine Resources, O/o. Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Dr. Ch. Srinivasa Rao acquired his Ph.D. in Soil Science & Agril
Chemistry from IARI, New Delhi and Post-Doctoral (Fellow) from
Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. He served in various ICAR
institutes viz., Indian Institute of Soil Sciences (IISS), Bhopal and
served in various capacities, Indian Institute of Pulses Research (IIPR),
Kanpur and Central Research institute for Dryland Agriculture
(CRIDA), Hyderabad in different capacities from scientist to Director.
He also served the International Crop Research Institute for Semi-
Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, on deputation for two years.
Director, ICAR-NAARM
Email: chsrao_director@naarm.org.in He has been serving as Director of ICAR-NAARM since 2017. Areas
of interest include: Climate Change, Contingency Planning, Soil
Carbon Sequestration, Rainwater Management, Climate Resilient
Villages, Rainfed Mission Development, Climate and Conservation
Policy, Agriculture Research Management.

48