The Mooc Concept: Exploring Global Mooc Development - A Literature Review

THE MOOC CONCEPT: EXPLORING GLOBAL MOOC DEVELOPMENT –

A LITERATURE REVIEW
Maria O’Donovan, Joergen Bang, Christian Dalsgaard
Centre for Teaching Development and Digital Media, Aarhus

University, ,-./
THE MOOC CONCEPT: EXPLORING GLOBAL MOOC DEVELOPMENT – A
LITERATURE REVIEW

Table of Contents

PREAMBLE ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
DISRUPTIVE INNOVATIONS AND DRIVERS FOR CHANGE .................................................................................. 3
What are the drivers in Europe? ................................................................................................................... 4
Promises of disruptive technologies pathing future directions .................................................................... 5
CATEGORIES OF ADDED VALUE ........................................................................................................................ 7
Integration of MOOCS into University education ......................................................................................... 7
Controversial Discussions ............................................................................................................................. 8
Dialogue as the mechanism for retaining ideas and holding on to students ................................................ 9
Understanding the dynamics of engagement for design, retention, grading options ................................ 11
Homing in on Peer cohorts-‐ their different learning styles and community forms .................................... 12
Informing design – learners’ reasons for study and how this is lived out in practice ................................. 13
Closing Gaps and maintaining learning excellence ..................................................................................... 15
Standards for measuring participation and pedagogies of engagement – forging against misleading and
counterproductive indicators ..................................................................................................................... 16
Furthering our understanding of intent and course participation pathways ............................................. 18
Social engagement strengthens learning in the early days of MOOC courses – but do we know how? .... 18
Issues pertaining to return on investment ................................................................................................. 20
PEDAGOGICAL DISTINCTIONS AND COMMONALITIES BETWEEN DIFFERENCES ............................................ 23
Emergent pedagogies ................................................................................................................................. 23
Retention and tensions around learner participation ................................................................................ 24
Scale ............................................................................................................................................................ 25
Educating educators ................................................................................................................................... 26
PANORAMA OF LONGE RANGE VISIONS (Concluding Remarks) ..................................................................... 27
Addressing pedagogical challenges with Mooc learning design and gleaning motivation enhancing
strategies .................................................................................................................................................... 27
Creating meaningful discussions and the importance of designing for it ................................................... 28
The MOOC engagement contract causes students to behave differently .................................................. 29
Particular to MOOCS – Freedoms to not engage with all content and activities ........................................ 30
Inspiration for framing the conversation about MOOC engagement differently ....................................... 31
Entertaining alternative engagement pathways and consciously anticipating spaces for engagement .... 33
1

LITERATURE REVIEW

Within these spaces of engagement, are we facilitating higher order thinking? ....................................... 35
Future research needed to understand engagement ................................................................................. 35
An approach for examining the innovative potential of new educational technologies ............................ 36
Goals in higher education ........................................................................................................................... 36
Example of a university delivering innovation ............................................................................................ 37
Unique ways MOOCs can bring innovation to business models ................................................................. 37
The Danish idea – an experiment in cohorts with different engagement pathways .................................. 38
Within Europe – Innovation takes on many paths ...................................................................................... 38
Further Research Needed ........................................................................................................................... 39
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 43

PREAMBLE

“MOOCS in Europe: A Literature Review” is an integrated part of the Exploitation work package of the
HOME project: Higher education Online: MOOCs the European way. It has been carried out in order to
compare the results from the HOME project with the ongoing European and International discussions on
MOOCs. The literature review has monitored the development within MOOCs within the lifetime of the
HOME project. The review has identified several themes for further research and development in order to
exploit the full potential of the MOOC model for higher education and lifelong learning in the 21st century.

This literature review seeks to evaluate the current state of knowledge, perspectives and the potential
future for MOOCs within a Pan-‐European setting. It provides an overview of currently perceived value
concepts from a wide reaching assortment of up to date research and then explores three interlinked
themes.
The first explores the overall added value concept MOOCs could be thought of supplying, including
nuanced understandings of learner behaviour within MOOCs. Firstly, this document visits the challenge of
developing a more precise definition for how MOOCs can be considered disruptive innovations and drivers
for change. This theme is explored within DISRUPTIVE INNOVATIONS AND DRIVERS FOR CHANGE. Then,
dynamics of participation among learners and pedagogies of engagement are explored extensively within
CATEGORIES OF ADDED VALUE.
The second theme, in the section entitled PEDAGOGICAL DISTINCTIONS AND COMMONALITIES BETWEEN
DIFFERENCES, examines more closely, the role of retention and tensions around learner participation, scale
2

LITERATURE REVIEW

in learning (massiveness), educating educators, digital literacies and refocuses attention on social models of
networked learning as a backdrop to the pedagogical discussion.
The third theme develops a wider discussion about measures of success, including understanding
engagement pathways, business models, improving quality, reputation enhancement, the attraction of the
best learners etc. Here, the overriding question is “can individual institutions reach their full potential
without embracing widening access (openness) and engagement through open education. Indeed without
such a commitment would higher education institutions be able to make the cultural and institutional
changes needed for them to realise their full potential-‐ to be able to live up to the greater purpose of
supporting "values like openness, equity, quality and diversity" ( Goals of HOME application). These themes
are explored within the section entitled PANORAMA OF LONG RANGE VISIONS.
It is noted that whilst much of the accessible research is on micro-‐level, its implications are far reaching: as
we develop insight into how individual institutions grapple with the issues of openness, massiveness,
collaboration and partnerships, we should continue to extend our notions of how further provisions of
access to materials and shared supportive services can enhance European wide competence development
and our sense of how this can deepen a commitment to equity, quality and diversity.
DISRUPTIVE INNOVATIONS AND DRIVERS FOR CHANGE

The results of the Porto Conference, which are summed up in the “Porto Declaration on European MOOCs”
(Jansen, D 2015) highlight the need for embracing opportunities to open up education in a manner
consistent with European values of equity, inclusion and social justice, and to increase life-‐long learning and
social mobility.

The paper highlights that there is no international consensus on the scope of MOOC definition -‐ whilst
MOOCs are seen as a “disruptive force and an important driver for change”, this paper observes that
“MOOCs remain relatively poorly defined[1] and they should not all be assumed to confer similar benefits.”

Furthermore, in lieu of the fact that MOOC initiatives and their perceived value are continuously and
rapidly evolving, the paper points out that efforts to direct and shape MOOC initiatives must involve a Pan-‐
European response (involving the European Commission and individual member governments) to explore
opportunities to provide scale in learning opportunities, open educational resource creation, the principle of
‘openness’.
It is also noted that the “threats that MOOCs pose to the traditional educational system need further
analysis and public debate.” (Jansen, D 2015, p.1)
3

LITERATURE REVIEW

What are the drivers in Europe?
So exactly what opportunities do MOOCs present that would be considered drivers for change within a
European setting?
The outcomes of the recent report, Institutional MOOC strategies in Europe, points to reasons European
institutions see for offering MOOCs. Whilst in US the primary objective for using MOOCs is to increase
institution visibility and to drive student recruitment, in Europe, although increasing institution visibility
weighs just as highly, driving student recruitment is low down in the list of priorities. In contrast, for
European institutions, providing flexible learning opportunities is seen equally as paramount to increasing
visibility. Flexible learning is therefore seen as an important goal and driver for change. It would be
interesting to visit the discourse surrounding it.

Whilst the Institutional MOOC strategies in Europe: Status report based on a mapping survey conducted in
October-‐December 2014 (Jansen, D. and Schuwer, R. 2015) does not explicitly expand upon what is meant
by flexible learning, it does through a network of contextual associations allude to online education and
innovation, to education “in a flexible way that meets the needs of today’s learners for an increasingly
complex world”.
Other research indicates that the term is about accessing education in a way that is responsive to pace,
place and/or mode of delivery. This can include distance or blended learning and using technology to
provide remote or online study:
“The term flexible learning was introduced as a unifying term, signifying the types of education or parts of
the education where there is a distance in time and/or space between the teacher and the student, and
where two-‐way communication and use of technology had been established” (Kjeldstad, B., Alvestrand H.,
Elvestad E. O., Ingebretsen T., Melve I.,& Bongo M., 2014)
With regard to driving change, MOOCS in Europe are not seen according to EUA as being a catalyst for any
major upheavals. Rather, they are seen as contributing to existing education and being accommodated by
campus education that already has provisions for flexible learning.

A notable progression in the use of integrating MOOCs with existing campus education can be seen to
incorporate flexible learning services, sometimes with credits: “Current MOOCs are more integrated with
established flexible learning services and campus education, and in many instances yield results in the form
of credits” (Kjeldstad, B. et al 2014)

This trend of incorporating delivery of flexible learning through technology has the added benefits of
promoting digital literacies and social models of networked learning for both on campus and distance
education:
The development of flexible education methods at universities and university colleges is
about to become more closely integrated with the development of a more extensive use of
technology in campus education. Gradually, it will be difficult to separate the various
4

LITERATURE REVIEW

education programmes from each other. Findings from Norwegian Opening Universities’
monitor study “Digital status 2011”, indicate that students see advantages in flexibility and
use of digital tools and media in a larger context, and not just in those studies which are
defined as more traditionally flexible or distance education. The students appreciate the
general flexibility provided by the technology to vary education methods and place of study.
(Kjeldstad, B. et al 2014, page 22)
What comes across from much of the research in European MOOCs is the need for personalised, flexible
learning paths, that are greatly influenced by learner expectations and engagement. This flexibility should
further, be enabled through elastic mechanisms that allow for emergent pedagogies for scaling up and
down. What is more, though community-‐based social learning is encouraged in many MOOCs and is at the
forefront of what is seen as the newest models in peer to peer instruction, including small group learning
and team assessment, the place and visibility of the teacher remain of central importance. (Bayne, S., 2014;
Dillenbourg, P., 2014; Kjeldstad, B. 2014; White, B., 2013)

If the role of the teacher is still seen as vitally important, present MOOCs that allow for peer-‐peer
evaluation, invite the question of whether peer assessment does contribute to better learning outcomes:

“There is less knowledge as to whether there would be a similar correlation between peer assessment and
teacher assessment in MOOCs, and whether the peer assessment would contribute to better learning
outcomes.” (Kjeldstad, B. et al 2014, page 56)

This is one of perhaps many emergent research questions that we can already glean, that are needing to be
taken seriously as part of the ongoing discourse going forward.
Promises of disruptive technologies pathing future directions

The Perspectives Workshop on “Massive Open Online Courses: Current State and Perspectives”, in which
twenty-‐three leading researchers and practitioners from informatics and pedagogical sciences presented
and discussed current experiences and future directions, challenges, and visions for the influence of
MOOCs on university teaching and learning, point out that MOOCs have a
“uniquely powerful combination of classical digital teaching tools (videos, audios, graphics or slides),
individualized tools for acquiring and validating knowledge, and appropriate use of dedicated social
networks makes them a new and powerful means of accessing knowledge and education.” (Dillenbourg, P.,
Fox, A., Kirchner, C., Mitchell, J.,and Wirsing, M, 2014)

The promise of MOOCS providing disruptive innovation and their perceived ability to bring about change is
evident – they provide a means through which personalised flexible learning can be structured, and
through which collaborative social learning is made possible. Rethinking in learning and teaching on a meta-‐
level is required:
5

LITERATURE REVIEW

However, MOOCs represent a new level of engagement between these communities
because of their scale, their links to economic and production systems in higher education,
and the conversations about teaching that they have provoked, some of which may induce
radical changes in teaching and learning mechanisms. The consequences on transmission of
culture and educational content, and on society as a whole, will be deep. (Dillenbourg, P.,
Fox, A., Kirchner, C., Mitchell, J.,and Wirsing, M, 2014)

The definitions of added value are already perceived as being reputation enhancement, new financial
opportunities, and the attraction of the best learners:
Similarly, we believe modern universities must embrace the disruptive technology of MOOCs
as vigorously as European Renaissance universities embraced printing to enhance and
cement their intellectual leadership. Like the printing press, MOOCs provide not only new
financial opportunities, but new ways to enhance reputation. They can help attract the best
learners and faculty, provide them with modern learning environments, and in so doing,
contribute to the success of both learners and institutions. These characteristics will make
MOOCs an essential component of success and visibility in today’s higher education.
(Dillenbourg, P., Fox, A., Kirchner, C., Mitchell, J.,and Wirsing, M, 2014, page 25)
Quintessentially, looking to the future, the researchers from The Perspectives Workshop emphasise the
importance of being open to new educational modalities, markets and opportunities which will arise, as
opposed to concentrating on the perceived potential of existing technologies.
This perspective of as yet unforeseen opportunities, particularly with regard to the pedagogical aspect,
which is seen as being subject to negotiation and as having an emergent property, is echoed in The
pedagogy of the Massive Open Online Course: the UK view. (Bayne, S. and Ross, J., 2014). However, the
paper points out that education is “a complex system, and that MOOCs cannot replace existing universities
in the same way as iTunes replaced CDs in the music industry.” (Bayne, S. and Ross, J., 2014, page 18).

What MOOCs can do, however, is to take up a place in a new emergent space where digital innovations
broach and prompt connections among students on and off campus in collaborative digital spaces:

“Campuses may have to rethink facilities in light of the increasing role of personal devices such as
smartphones and tablets in and out of class, the greater importance of social learning and interaction”
(Dillenbourg, P., Fox, A., Kirchner, C., Mitchell, J.,and Wirsing, M, 2014, page 8 )
Given that the potential added value of institutions is interdependent with the conditions of their
surroundings, there is reason to believe there is a need for strengthening their student and
student/instructor led networks onsite and digitally.
6

LITERATURE REVIEW

Indeed, investment in quality teaching and in the social dynamics of complimentary online and offline
peer/peer and peer/ instructor interactions not only boosts on-‐campus higher education, but can also play
a leading role in catalysing and facilitating the collaborations needed to address problems of attrition in
larger scale MOOCs, which by their scale are facilitating a commitment to openness and universal access,
but which, through their size, are in danger of estranging large numbers of learners:

openness should, however, be accompanied by initiatives through which more learners
could achieve a MOOC and obtain credits, while keeping both the current policy of universal
access and the level of expectation on final outcomes. These initiatives could explore richer
individual support, social dynamics such as meet-‐up groups, analytics for drop-‐out
prediction, increased time flexibility, and so on. In general, we hypothesize that a strong
investment in the quality of teaching will contribute to lower attrition; we want learners to
feel that teachers are there to help them navigate difficult learning processes.

What we can also determine is that there is a shift from knowledge content to pedagogy, from teaching to
learning and that technologies for delivering content are now varied (BOOCs, SPOCs, POOCs, DOCCs) and
can be restructured according to instructors’ individual preferences. (Bayne, S. and Ross, J., The pedagogy
of the Massive Open Online Course: the UK view, Edinburgh University, 2014, page 57). These tailor made
MOOC offshoots are winning their way into campuses as carefully architected communities of cognitive and
social knowledge. Guiding and mentoring of students is however of vital importance as already noted, and
this in a complex process of adaptation and appropriation of various MOOC structures as designed objects.
(Bayne, S. and Ross, J., 2014)
CATEGORIES OF ADDED VALUE

The Perspectives Workshop (Dillenbourg, P., Fox, A., Kirchner, C., Mitchell, J., & Wirsing, M, 2014) put
forward key findings and specific recommendations for eight positions identified. We will look at some of
their recommendations within the integration of MOOCs within university education.
Integration of MOOCS into University education

With regard to university education, it is apparent that students' are in today’s digitally connected world,
able to access a wealth of online learning materials that shape their aspirations for how they see added
value in teacher roles. Teachers are no longer the sole providers of content oriented skills and the sources
of knowledge. Rather, they must rethink their roles to become context creators:

Instructors present their personal views on the content based on domain expertise and puts
them into perspective with examples, applications, analogies or anything else they deem
7

LITERATURE REVIEW

useful. Lecturers question the content’s assumptions and perspectives, helping learners
evaluate alternative explanations of content and thereby guiding them in applying the
material (the third step in Bloom’s taxonomy). The role of contextualization is especially
important across disciplines: a course on “building user-‐friendly and secure databases”
requires interweaving expertise in databases, human-‐computer interaction, software
engineering, and security. (Dillenbourg,P., Fox,A., Kirchner,C., Mitchell,J.,and Wirsing,M,
2014, page 7)

Rethinking long established modes of teacher/ student interaction, must necessarily include the tailored
combination of having a flexible teaching staff with MOOC-‐like “self-‐service” resources -‐ this would mean
that on campus education could supplement content heavy instructor resources with MOOCs, whilst
leveraging the best of both online and offline worlds for content delivery, teaching, curricula structure and
peer engagement.

“This restructuring of course elements into more-‐scalable and less-‐scalable components will leave
instructors more time to conduct interaction-‐intensive learning activities such as small-‐group discussions
and design projects.” (Dillenbourg, P., et al., 2014, page 7)

SPOCs (Small Private Online Courses) which are smaller type MOOCs, that are aimed at supporting
classroom teaching, are particularly useful for enabling informed class discussions that involve problem
solving and active learning among students, as they are better prepared, after having used the online
materials to then participate more actively in class. (Dillenbourg, P., 2014; White, B., 2013; Bayne, S., 2014;
Kjeldstad, B. 2014)

Controversial Discussions
The debate surrounding MOOCs remains controversial. Low retention rates is possibly the biggest thorn in
its side (Clow, 2013; Lewin, 2013). However, much is yet not understood with regard to this issue, and in
particular, the dynamics of online communities:
students have a much greater effect on the attitudes of other students than do faculty
members, considering them the primary agents of socialization in this type of academic
environment (Bean 1985). Also, future work should look into the interactions between the
individual and the academic and social systems. In particular, researchers should closely
study individual student goals (e.g. importance of successfully completing the course),
attributes (e.g. ability), educational background and academic performance (e.g. academic
major, grade-‐point average, and academic attainments), family background (e.g. social status
attributes), faculty contact and interaction (e.g. type and frequency of contact), as well as
environmental factors (e.g. finances, employment rates) (Adamopoulos, 2013, page 15 )
8

LITERATURE REVIEW

What has transpired is the suggestion that course characteristics (e.g. estimated difficulty, workload,
duration, whether there is automated grading, etc.)
“are important determinants of students' satisfaction and suggest useful guidelines for course design. For
instance, MOOCs in general should have a specific instructor-‐based timetable, but for the most difficult
courses students should be allowed to follow their own pace “ (Adamopoulos, 2013, page16 )
Dialogue as the mechanism for retaining ideas and holding on to students
The potential implications for higher education, with regard to pedagogical enhancements rest upon our
understandings of MOOC affordances. We are at a stage where our understanding of the xMOOC/cMOOC
distinctions lend themselves to different educational applications:
There are researchers who argue that the xMOOCs might be better suited for studying a
wide range of knowledge that can be learned through repetitive practice, while the cMOOCs
enable learners to obtain "higher order creative skills” (Grünewald, Meinel, Totschnig, &
Willems, 2013). Thus, these two pedagogical types shouldn't be treated or evaluated in the
same way (Daniel, 2012). (Soffer, T., & Cohen, A., 2015)
Central to perpetuating the discussion about the usefulness of MOOCs, and in particular, as a strategy for
combating student retention, is the dimension of facilitating social collaboration:
Both types of MOOCs emphasize dialogue as an important element in the learning process.
Almost every MOOC actively encourages dialogue and discussion among course participants.
Furthermore, dialogue is actually perceived to be the primary mechanism for maintaining
connections between different ideas, which are the base upon which knowledge is
developed (Ravenscroft, 2011.) (Soffer, T., & Cohen, A., 2015)
We need to consider this -‐ are there implications on our understanding of success based on retention and
dropout rates, if we continue to hold to old paradigms of conceptualising education? Should we in any way
continue to view MOOCs under this older paradigm, knowing that they offer a new and disruptive
potential?
So far it seems, that the overarching somewhat unwritten argument has been to homogenise MOOCs and
traditional educational offers into the same category to be subjected to somewhat similar critique
mechanisms. As Yang et al (2014) put it:
“Current research on attrition in MOOCs (Koller et al., 2013; Jordan, 2013) has focused heavily on
summative measures rather than on the question of how to create a more socially conducive
environment.”
This insistency to look at MOOCs with metrics of dropout rates, has left behind a need to understand the
inner workings of social interactions, especially of bonds between students that provide a pattern for
9

LITERATURE REVIEW

emerging social structures that power an as yet, not fully understood motivational context that defies
generic characterisation.
Stewart (2013) points out that that: “[w]e insist on thinking about educational ventures in institutional
terms’ even when those are “disruptions” to institutionalized education.”
Koller et al (2013) write: is “retention even the right metric by which to measure success in a MOOC?”
In fact it would seem that we should be concentrating on how students engage within these environments
and the combined institutional efforts put in to create a conducive study environment as well as the more
unpredictable effect of the social network.
According to Yang et al (2014): “social support exchanged through online discussions has been identified as
a significant factor leading to decreased attrition in other types of online communities (e.g., Wang, Kraut, &
Levine, 2012) “ In their study the researchers set out to work with the hypothesis:

that if we can understand better how the affordances for social interaction in MOOCs are
functioning currently, we may be able to obtain insights into ways in which we can design
more socially conducive MOOCs that will draw in a larger proportion of students, provide
them with needed social support, and ultimately reduce attrition (Yang et al 2014).

Their work has yielded valuable insights into social emergence and the cumulative effect of networks of
discussion forum sub communities online. Their findings can be summed up in this statement:
The lesson we learn from the qualitative analysis presented in this paper is that students are
vulnerable to dropout when they have not yet found a personal connection between their
interests and goals and the specific content provided by the course. Mentors present within
the discussions to coach students to find such personal connections might serve to keep
students motivated until they have made it past initial confusions and have settled more
comfortably into the course. On average, it is the more motivated students who participate
in the discussions at all. However, the analysis presented here reveals that even among
those students, we can identify ones that are vulnerable. Real time analysis of the texts
could enable triggering interventions, such as alerting a human mentor of an opportunity to
step in and provide support to a student who is motivated, but nevertheless does not
possess quite enough of what it takes to make it in the course without support. Real time
analysis of discussions for triggering supportive interventions that lead to increased learning
are more common in the field of computer supported collaborative learning (Kumar & Rosé,
2011; Adamson et al., 2014), and such approaches could potentially be adapted for use in a
MOOC context (Yang et al., 2014)
10

LITERATURE REVIEW

Echoing this, research into students' participation in sub communities and links to their peers’ activity,
reveals social emergence and dropout patterns that have a degree of predictability:
As students participate in the MOOC, they begin to form virtual cohorts of students who are
moving at a similar pace, are at a similar place in the course, and are engaging with the
material in similar ways. If students begin to see others in their cohort leaving, they may find
the environment less supportive and engaging and may be more likely to drop out in turn
(Rose et al 2014)
Understanding the dynamics of engagement for design, retention, grading options
We should try to understand the dynamics of engagement -‐ to understand what drives significant
interaction in online networks, to come forward to best practice design and intervention strategies that can
afford optimal learning.
From a paper by Oxford University that investigates behaviour patterns among students in online networks,
particularly at group level interactions in MOOC forums, but points out the structural limitations of large-‐
scale crowd-‐based learning, we read:
“In theory, the openness and scale of MOOCs can promote iterative dialogue that facilitates group
cognition and knowledge construction…. however what is not known in fact, “is the degree to which
MOOCs in practice allow for deep and meaningful learning“ (Gillani, et al 2014)
We learn in fact that – “Despite a growing body of research, many questions relating to the characteristics
of group interactions and dialogue in these courses have largely been ignored “(Gillani, N., et al, 2014, page
2)
Understanding what comprises significant interactions and how these can be facilitated/scaffolded,
particularly at group level, is seemingly, pivotal to understanding learning processes. For just as learning
can be scaffolded, we can also view vulnerabilities within a network. Interestingly this relates to the
networks created autonomously by learners themselves, and not necessarily to the discussion spaces made
available within the confines of the prescribed system -‐ as many students may prefer to take conversations
over into facebook or other social media sites.
When two large scale business courses, having in excess of 70,000 and 90,000 students, were studied on
Coursera in Spring and Autumn of 2013, researchers discovered that “more than 2 out of 3 connections in
the study groups sub-‐forum were considered “insignificant”’. This is because conversations were taken
elsewhere. It was the learners themselves that grew the networks and who created significant connections:
“That indeed the ‘“critical set” of learners is responsible for potential information flow in a communication
network” (Gillani, N., et al, 2014, page 4)
Here we can derive a relationship between iterative dialogue and knowledge construction and the critical
set of nodes (learners) that support these activities. Furthermore: “different incentives for participation
promoted different levels of inclusiveness and engagement among learners… This would in part be
11

LITERATURE REVIEW

intervention from instructors: how the forums are leveraged by course staff to encourage participation.”
(Gillani, N., et al, 2014, page 4)
We can also observe that understanding peer activity is not only interesting for learning outcomes, but for
student retention and even for grading students:
Students were encouraged to use the forums to discuss weekly business cases on existing
companies such as Google, Apple, Disney, etc. In FOBS-‐1, students were not evaluated on
their performance in the forums; in FOBS-‐2, 8% of students' final scores was derived from
their forum participation as a function of the total number of “upvotes” they received on
their posts or comments. (Gillani, N., et al, 2014, page 7)
Homing in on Peer cohorts-‐ their different learning styles and community forms
There is evidence to suggest that large scale crowd based learning, when analysed in depth, exhibits a
degree of heterogeneity among learners, who because of their differences in learning styles, geographic
regions etc., find their way into sub groups quite randomly, that suit in one way or other, their preferences:
Recent work on a subset of this data employed qualitative content analysis – combined with
community detection schemes from machine learning – to infer latent learner communities
according to the content of their forum posts. Interestingly, for the Cases and Final Projects
sub-‐forums, the inferred communities had statistically significant differences in the
geographic and prior educational experiences of constituent learners, as well as their final
course performance and overall engagement in the discussion forums. (Gillani, N., et al,
2014, page 6)
Another study, also by Oxford University, looks at communication within networks, particularly at differing
characteristics within emerging communities of learners and how interaction profiles relate to learner
characteristics, is “Communication Communities in MOOCs” (Gillani, N., et al, Communication Communities
in MOOCs, 2014). This study offers additional insights into the business strategy MOOC offered on the
Coursera platform in Spring 2013.
Two of the sub-‐forums aimed at promoting learner engagement and interactions were analysed to better
understand the ways in which students engage with one another and construct knowledge. Learner
demographics, course outcomes, broader forum behaviours and types of posts for each of its constituent
learners were analysed.
What emerged within these forums, were distinct types of communities. In the first part of the course,
these sub communities were given these distinctions by researchers: committed crowd engagers,
discussion initiators, strategists, and individualists. For each group these differences were noted: the
degree to which posts featuring higher-‐order learning were posted, how much the students read and
posted in the forums, the percentage of students completing the course and possible hypotheses of why
this was the case. What transpired from these analyses were a number of things including:
To what degree the different categories of students were seeking support and opportunities for
collaboration, to what degree they were interested in receiving formal acknowledgement or recognition for
passing the course as opposed to exchanging ideas with others, how interested they were in discussing
12

LITERATURE REVIEW

their projects with peers, how strategic they were in using the sub forums for attaining necessary
information only etc. These findings point to:
“distinctively different interaction patterns that characterize the groups in each sub-‐forum indicate that
learners have very different needs and expectations of the discussion forums, and these needs must be
considered in order to truly understand how to support learning in massive open online courses” (Gillani,
N., et al, 2014, page 8)
This research does not seem to suggest a singular prescriptive design style over others, but rather it
furnishes us with insight into the multiple ways learners can and do create their own networks and find
their own communities that have similar collective behaviours. Furthermore, it establishes an argument for
an open design that would allow for a spectrum of networking possibilities:
Participants can, to a large extent, choose for themselves how much they wish to use the
forums to construct knowledge together, i.e. adopting a more socio-‐cultural approach to
learning, or use the forums as a way to react on their own ideas, more in-‐line with cognitive
and social constructivist approach to learning (Stahl, 2006). (Gillani, N., et al, 2014, page 8)

Informing design – learners’ reasons for study and how this is lived out in practice
Diverse cohorts of learners have diverse learning styles and preferences for MOOC affordances.
Research that would better inform development to enhance the learning experience and more precisely –
“how quality is understood by learners, what leads people to complete courses, and the role of social
learning are currently under-‐researched aspects of the new courses.”(Kjeldstad, B. et al 2014, page 6), can
be very valuable insights to have at this stage.
Understanding the underlying motivation for taking a MOOC, learners’ perception of quality and how the
role of social learning play in, are timely research questions taken up by The Higher Education Academy.
In the HEA report entitled “Liberating Learning: Experiences of MOOCs “ (Kjeldstad, B. et al 2015), which is
the third report in a series of reports, the first two being: “The Pedagogy of the Massive Open Online
Course: the UK View” (HEA 2013), and “Engaged Learning in MOOCs: a Study Using the UK Engagement
Survey” (HEA 2014), we are provided with substantive feedback on experiences of different learners and
discover that there are two primary reasons for study: personal enjoyment, and learning for work or
professional reasons. These reasons for study are juxtaposed against whether learners study alone, or
participate strongly in social interaction:
“The study reported here sought in-‐depth accounts of learning on a MOOC from ten people who completed
one of the University of Southampton’s first two such courses during 2014. Its goal is to better understand
their motivations for studying in this way, and the learning opportunities and problems they encountered.”
(Kjeldstad, B. et al 2014, page 6).
The interviews, which were conducted with ten people, currently resident in UK, who completed one of
Southampton’s MOOCs during 2014, resulted in these four categories of findings regarding learners'
motivations for taking MOOCs:
13

LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Flexible, fascinating and free
This theme captures the motivations of interviewees. Many saw themselves as ‘finishers’,
either squeezing MOOC learning into busy lives or structuring free time around demanding
self-‐imposed learning schedules. A high level of mental stimulation, high quality learning
resources, and being able to work flexibly and at their own pace were key attractive features
of MOOCs. Scope to experiment with new topics, knowing there were no financial costs or
commitments to being assessed, also emerged as a major attraction of MOOC learning.
2. Feeling part of something
The social learning generated by certain activities – notably the discussion forum, reading or
posting questions and replies, sharing resources, and to a lesser degree using social media –
all contributed to a sense of being part of a community of learners. This extended to those
who only participated in passive ways, as a great deal of gratitude and appreciation was
expressed to more active contributors. Many talked of the global community, being very
inspired by conversations with people studying the same subjects from very different
geographical and political environments. The enthusiasm and online presence of educators
was found to be engaging and interesting.
3. Ways of learning
This theme describes in detailed ways interviewees’ organisation and use of various learning
resources. It presents very different views of the place of video, video transcripts, journal
articles and quizzes. Progressing through MOOCs in a step-‐by-‐step way, rather than ‘dipping
in and out’, comes across as the preferred approach as it allows people to ‘keep up’ and
converse with peers about weekly topics. Although quizzes were not universally popular,
interviewees’ ideas and suggestions for helpful activities are offered.
4. A bit of proof?
Interviewees were sceptical about the various ways in which their learning through MOOCs
could be ‘verified’. They also revealed a cost sensitivity when asked whether they were
prepared to purchase additional resources or further accredited tests. Their personal
motivations for MOOC study did not generally include progressing in higher education. Just
one was considering purchasing a certificate of completion (Kjeldstad, B. et al 2014, page 7)
This type of qualitative research that reports on the learner experience can help us build deeper reflective
knowledge to identify what matters for successful engaged learning. This power of engagement is further
attested to in the research document “Online Learning at Research-‐Intensive Universities” ( EADTU, 2014)
which introduces interests in the concept of co-‐enquirers. This relates to social interaction among
participants in crowd sourced driven frameworks (using the power of crowds to add value in terms of
digital content for research or community collections):
14

LITERATURE REVIEW

Crowd-‐sourcing initiatives are an area where RIUs could provide a significant lead, and where
people have a real opportunity to participate as co-‐enquirers as opposed to learners. This
will also give some universities the opportunity more extensively to use their library and
museum collections as forms of public engagement and educational enhancement for co
enquiry (Mapstone, Buitendijk and Wiberg 2014, page 14)
Of course, research universities have an inherent motivation to pursue on campus teaching innovations.
These 3 various motivations for having MOOCs are presented:
On-‐campus teaching innovations can take place in direct conjunction with MOOCs or related
types of courses offered by the university. For instance, professors who develop and
implement MOOCs can involve their regular students in a variety of tasks from testing the
teaching materials to supervising peer grading to regulating online discussions and
safeguarding their academic level. Secondly, MOOCs can become research driven virtual
learning environments for on-‐campus students when the MOOCs are being used for research
purposes. Students can for instance be involved in research into the learning outcomes of
MOOCs or in implementing surveys among the learners, on topics related to the MOOC and
in analysing the survey outcomes for research. Thirdly, MOOC-‐platforms can be used to run
Small Private Online Courses (SPOCs). Those can involve on-‐campus students only, or a mix
of on-‐campus and off-‐campus students. Especially in topics that would benefit from an
international classroom, this form of learning can create an enhanced experience for the
regular students and for the teacher. (Mapstone, Buitendijk and Wiberg 2014, page 6)

Closing Gaps and maintaining learning excellence
Much of the controversial discussion revolves around the ways in which MOOCs do/do not reduce costs,
enable mass access to education and if they do in fact promote learning excellence. Often these are seen as
two mutually exclusive entities. However, it is interesting to note that Tel Aviv University (TAU) have
offered MOOCs to the worldwide public and simultaneously incorporated these as part of their academic
curriculum, engaging the claim that closing gaps and achieving learning excellence can be complimentarily
supportive.
TAU has offered three academic MOOCs, taught in English, in the fields of Archaeology, History and
Science. The courses have been made available through Coursera and have been offered as a “public
service and as future training for the information society” (Soffer, T., & Cohen, A., 2015). Interestingly, TAU
has also opened these courses to TAU undergraduate students to take these MOOCs as part of their current
curriculum and receive academic credit for them upon completion. TAU students were required to take
their final exam on campus, in addition to completing the assignments and the official online course exam.
The added value these MOOCs have had on TAU students, as well as suggestions for improvement can be
seen as having value for other universities wishing to integrate MOOCs as part of their academic
curriculum:
mentioned the valuable convenience of flexible learning – any place and any time, according
to their schedule. In addition, several suggestions for improvement were made, such as
15

LITERATURE REVIEW

receiving specific guidelines regarding course assignments and especially the final test,
adding subtitles to videos to assist with any language issues, and addressing the imbalance
between the difficulty level of the assignments and quizzes versus the final exam (Soffer, T.,
& Cohen, A., 2015)
Contrastingly, The Tel Aviv pilot study points out that although fewer universities are allowing their
students to take the MOOCs as part of their academic curriculum (Eaton, 2012; ACE, 2012; Masterson,
2013) the ones that are, are: “increasingly exploring ways to incorporate MOOCs as part of their academic
curriculum in different models (Firmin, Schiorring, Whitmer, Willett, Collins & Sujitparapitaya, 2014; Taneja
& Goel, 2014; Joseph & Nath, 2013) “(Soffer, T., & Cohen, A., 2015)
Another very interesting and similar model, is the case of the HOOC —a hybrid open online course—
project at the University of Pittsburgh. Here, students are proactively encouraged to interact with online
students on the wider MOOC platform: “The online students can listen to an hour of each three-‐hour
seminar and participate in the discussion by posting comments on Twitter. And each doctoral students
enrolled in the campus class is required to prepare a lesson in the course and teach it to the online
students.” Associate professor of communication, Gordon Mitchell, comments on the dynamic:
“It’s a symbiotic evolution for two courses that are happening at the same time.”
(Negrea, S. 2014)
Standards for measuring participation and pedagogies of engagement – forging

against misleading and counterproductive indicators
Completion rates remain to be a contentious issue for MOOCs, however research efforts have in the past
few years, begun to look more at the impact and potential of MOOCs to understand how they create value.
In other words, how to educate at scale. Engagement, usage patterns, variation in registrant background
and intention, are all of interest.
A collaboration between the HarvardX Research Committee at Harvard University and the Office of Digital
Learning at MIT, studying the differences and commonalities among 17 massive open online courses
offered on the edX platform in 2012 and 2013, has come forward to some interesting findings. Among them
are these observations:
-‐Course certification rates are misleading and counterproductive indicators of the impact and
potential of open online courses… For open online courses that support large-‐scale
enrollment, there is no forced tradeoff between numbers of certified and noncertified
registrants—both numbers can increase freely by design. In these circumstances, focusing on
certification rates alone penalizes desirable activities like browsing and exploring courses,
which open online courses are generally designed to support…Pressure to increase
certification rates may decrease the impact of open online courses, by encouraging
instructors and administrators to suppress or restrict registration, lower certification
standards, deemphasize recruitment of target subpopulations, or disregard interventions
16

LITERATURE REVIEW

that may disproportionately increase numbers of non-‐certified registrants over certified
registrants
-‐Course exploration and certification may benefit from synchronous course schedules and
the cohorts that they build.
-‐New metrics, far beyond grades and course certification, are necessary to capture the
diverse usage patterns in the data (Ho, A. D. et al, 2014)
Dr Keith Devlin, Mathematician at Stanford University invites us to rethink our approach to the evaluation
of MOOCs as learning programmes:
“…applying the traditional metrics of higher education to MOOCs is entirely misleading. MOOCs are a very
different kind of educational package, and they need different metrics -‐-‐ metrics that we do not yet know
how to construct” (Devlin, K., 2013)
Indeed, it would seem that methodologies and metrics that focus on learning as an event, extend back to
formal classroom-‐based training or time-‐capsuled formats, where learning is greatly regarded as a
commodity with a start and end. However, MOOCs present us with a rather different service focused
framework, replete with the dynamics of complex communication among peers. This poses a challenge not
only for capturing perceived value in such an intangible world of online social negotiation, but also with
regard to measuring and improving engagement.
An approach for charting the path to devise an appropriate response to evaluation is uppermost in the
minds of many researchers these days.
A recent report from The Open University, UK, from 2015, entitled “Examining engagement: analysing
learner subpopulations in massive open online courses (MOOCs)”, (Ferguson, R., & Clow, D. 2015) which
has studied patterns of engagement in massive learning environments, notes that these patterns are
greatly influenced by decisions about pedagogy. Evaluation in this regard is clearly seen as a process to
improve engagement, where the continuous shaping of that engagement is reliant upon course context,
course design and course pedagogy. The study in this case was of four MOOCs on the FutureLearn platform.
These MOOOCs employ a social constructivist pedagogy-‐ where knowledge is jointly constructed through
conversation.
Seven distinct patterns of engagement or “clusters” were found to be present: Samplers, Strong Starters,
Returners, Mid-‐way Dropouts, Nearly There, Late Completers and Keen Completers. These patterns of
engagement were found after studying not only the content and assessment within the course’s learning
design but also the discussion. The clusters identified were then able to inform a range of strategies for
intervention and improvement. (Ferguson, R., and Clow, D., 2015, page 7)
We can engage the claim that understanding and managing patterns of engagement particularly among
peer cohorts taking the same course, synchronously, is very relevant. We can further consider the degree
to which a permeability is possible in the boundaries between asynchronous postings among students at
different stages of any given course:
17

LITERATURE REVIEW

“Managing asynchronicity to maintain registrant involvement regardless of enrollment date is an ongoing
challenge for instructors and a fertile area for future research” (Ho, A. D. et al, 2014, page 3)
In any case it would seem that focusing on completion rates can be misleading and that not every student is
attempting to complete a course, but has their own standards for success.
“This isn’t just about MOOCs”, Andrew Ho, an associate professor in Harvard's Graduate School of
Education, says: “This is about the democratization of learning: Learners are in control. We are at the
beginning of an exciting effort to understand how people learn and how to educate well and effectively at
scale.” (MIT Newsoffice, 2014)

Furthering our understanding of intent and course participation pathways
The reasons for course enrolment and what these motivations can predict for ultimate actions, i.e. the
behaviours of course registrants are interesting to find. Can we depict participant intent? Can we speculate
on how to chart course participation pathways? If so, there may be interventions to increase engagement -‐
pedagogical and technological innovations that serve as resources for online, residential, and blended
teaching.
These interventions can be evaluated on a wide variety of outcome measures, including student
performance, persistence, and participation. Some students register for a MOOC to browse the materials,
while others fully commit to completing all course activities. Furthermore, it seems that performance in the
early stages of MOOC courses are indicative of the further levels of participation -‐ A study on students’
assignment performance and social interaction in the first week of a MOOC course, seems to suggest that
“assignment performance in Week 1 is a strong predictor of students’ performance at the end of the
course. The degree of social integration in the learning community in Week 1 is positively correlated with
the achievement of Distinction certificates.” (Jiang, S., et al, 2014).
This paper says about “the existent opportunities for the improvement of online education” that “Future
research should focus on how to increase students’ social integration and interaction in the online learning
community, as these factors have been shown to influence student participation in MOOCs.”
Indeed, social integration and interaction seem to be pivotal to driving motivation for completing MOOC
courses: “Students with external incentive are more likely to complete the course compared to students in
general, even in comparison with students who have similar backgrounds.” (Jiang, S., et al, 2014).
Social engagement strengthens learning in the early days of MOOC courses – but
do we know how?
What we see in the propensity for the more productive students to exhibit more externally incentivized
behaviour, particularly in the early days of MOOC courses, and also in the thereafter conclusions regarding
intervention, are recommendations for the creation of a set of practices paralleling the collective identity
formed and that is built on shared practice -‐ this belonging to a social constructivistic understanding of
learning.
18

LITERATURE REVIEW

Of current particular interest to many researchers are ”reliable early predictors of student dropout and
performance in MOOC environments.” This is with a view to providing “a framework for developing
scaffolding mechanisms in MOOCs that provide individualized guidance and small-‐group support, which
should significantly increase retention rates.” Indeed the most illuminating metrics are those that in
themselves involve students’ interest in their peers: “Once scores on a peer assessment were available,
they became the best indicators of performance.“ (Biswas, G., and Ye, C., 2014).
For instructors, this information can be useful and may incentivise them to focus on promoting group
cohesion as an organising principle already in the early part of MOOC courses: “findings suggest that
instructors concerned about attrition should consider focusing their efforts on building community and
engagement in the early days of a course when attrition is highest.” (Reich, J. 2014).
This said, presently there do not seem to be definitive recipes for course design because the causal factors
that do promote student learning are still not completely known:
It does not require trillions of event logs to demonstrate that effort is correlated with
achievement. As these are observational findings, the causal linkages between doing more
and doing better are unclear. Beyond exhorting students to be more active, there are no
practical implications for course design. The next generation of MOOC research needs to
adopt a wider range of research designs with greater attention to causal factors promoting
student learning (Reich, J. 2015)
To be able to make claims about what students learn, there needs to be more assessments capture
multiple dimensions of learning: “Assessments should capture multiple dimensions of learning, from
procedural to conceptual.” (Reich, J. 2015)
And it is not only engagement we need to understand but comparisons across contexts, interventions with
experimental design, learning itself:
For MOOC research to advance the science of learning, researchers, course developers, and
other stakeholders must advance the field along three trajectories: from studies of
engagement to research about learning, from investigations of individual courses to
comparisons across contexts, and from a reliance on post hoc analyses to greater use of
multidisciplinary, experimental design. (Reich, J. 2015)
Although we can see a positive relationship between students who engage actively with peers and their
learning outcomes, one of the pitfalls before us is to focus on improving engagement in the earlier stages of
a MOOC course without fully understanding the consequences for actually learning:

“Course developers optimizing for engagement statistics can create pleasurable media experiences that
keep students watching without necessarily learning” (Reich, J. 2015)
It is therefore of vital importance that, in our efforts to creatively invoke better engagement among
students in the early stages of a MOOC course, we do not run counter to our own efforts and sabotage real
learning opportunities that may require a more complex approach.
19

LITERATURE REVIEW

The example of creating pleasurable media experiences may lend logic to the engagement issue, but may
not wholly solve the research direction for future possibilities related to productive learning:
“Distinguishing between engagement and learning is particularly crucial in voluntary online learning
settings, because media that provoke confusion and disequilibrium can be productive for learners” (Reich,
J. 2015)

Issues pertaining to return on investment
Producing educational outcomes at scale might not be the overriding goal of having a MOOC for many
institutions. They may want to operate at a smaller scale level. They may not want to produce MOOCs
themselves (producers) but to be consumers of MOOCs. MOOCS may be seen as vehicles to pursue multiple
goals.
A recent report by the Center for Benefit Cost Studies of Education, Columbia University (Hollands,
Tirthali,D., 2015), offers an exploration of the goals of institutions creating or adopting MOOCs and how
these institutions define effectiveness of their MOOC initiatives. Empiri was gathered from interview-‐based
perspectives on the costs and benefits of MOOCs as perceived and experienced by 62 institutions in North
America, Europe, and China. Six major goals for MOOC initiatives were identified, among the 29 institutions
that were already offering or using MOOCs in some way:
• Extending the reach of the institution and access to education
• Building and maintaining brand
• Improving economics by lowering costs or increasing revenues
• Improving educational outcomes for both MOOC participants and on-‐campus students
• Innovation in teaching and learning
• Conducting research on teaching and learning goals.

(Hollands, Tirthal,i D., 2015)

These goals can be compared with the major cost drivers in MOOC production and delivery, which are:
• Number of faculty members, administrators, and instructional support personnel involved
MOOC production teams seldom included fewer than five professionals and, in at least one
instance described to us, over 30 people were involved. Faculty members typically reported
spending several hundred hours in the production and delivery of a single MOOC.
• Quality of videography; we estimated costs for high quality video production at $4,300 per
hour of finished video, using national average prices.
• The nature of the delivery platform
20

LITERATURE REVIEW

• Technical support for participants
• Programming for special features such as computer code auto-‐graders, virtual labs,
simulations, or gamification
• Analysis of platform data

(Hollands, Tirthal,i D., 2015)

Variable costs can be offset over the longer term by automating functions and substituting instructional
support provided by expensive faculty members with less costly teaching assistants, part-‐time instructors, or
peer-‐to-‐peer learning and assessment.
It is clear however, that MOOCs and their derivatives -‐ the various types of blended or hybrid delivery
models on-‐campus, will increasingly be experimented with as educational resources rather than as stand-‐
alone courses -‐ this is at least the consensus among many of the 83 interviewees, when asked about the
future or education (Hollands, Tirthali, D., 2015, page 14). This tendency allows institutions to make use of
already existing MOOCs to supplement there on campus education. The addition of MOOCs into this
equation can perhaps be best expressed with: “There is considerable need for models that leverage high-‐
quality online learning platforms while taking into account what professors do best — facilitating inquiry,
guiding learners to resources, and imparting wisdom that comes with experience in the field. “(Johnson et
al 2014)
Interestingly, however, in USA, ”only a small percentage of institutions of higher education are actually
offering MOOCs (5% according to Allen & Seaman, 2014).”(Hollands, Tirthali, D., 2015). And in UK many
prestigious institutions, including Oxford and Cambridge, have declined to use the new platforms (The
Economist 2014)
A market for MOOC courses could be inculcated and become financially viable if credentials of economic
value are put in place and incentivised by the educational system:
if MOOC providers are able to offer participants credentials of economic value (e.g., college
or high school credits; verified certificates of accomplishment; virtual badges to certify skills
or noncognitive traits), a market will be established for individual courses, which could be
extended to a variety of non-‐degree-‐based educational experiences. Such a market would
greatly benefit from a system for evaluating and accrediting each course or educational
experience -‐ one that is trusted by employers, educators, and funding agencies alike, and
that reflects a learner’s ability to contribute productively to society. If funding agencies
subsequently become willing to allow learners to apply financial aid to any such recognized
educational experience, the landscape of higher education will be opened to more
competition, leading to lower costs.
(Hollands, Tirthali, D., 2015, page 13)
In Europe there are divided opinions regarding the uptake of accreditation:
21

LITERATURE REVIEW

Under rules designed to promote student mobility between EU member-‐states, students can
transfer course credits, at the discretion of universities, in any of the 53 countries that have
signed the Lisbon Recognition Convention, “regardless of whether the knowledge, skills and
competences were acquired through formal, non-‐formal or informal learning paths”. The
catch is getting European universities to accept MOOC credits, in order to trade them.
“Europe will not quickly take to new forms of degree delivery,” predicts Santiago Iñiguez, the
president of Spain’s IE university. Others are more optimistic. Hans Klöpper, the managing
director of iversity, points out that it is easy for students to assess MOOCs’ quality, since they
are open for all to see. Once students start to complete them in large numbers and clamour
for recognition, it will be hard for Europe’s universities to resist accrediting the best of them,
he believes. (The Economist 2014)
The premise for valuing these different accreditation models is at the basis of competency based education
-‐ the idea of providing a more flexible approach to learning and degree attainment, which augers in with
priorities of offering bundles of educational units that will help one progress toward degrees:
“An extension of the shift in focus toward measuring student learning will be the growth of competency-‐
based education. This model allows students to progress toward degrees—outside the typical semester
track—by demonstrating mastery of skills and content.” (Opidee 2015)
EDUCAUSE defines competency-‐based education:
“Competency-‐based education (CBE) awards academic credit based on mastery of clearly defined
competencies. CBE replaces the conventional model in which time is fixed and learning is variable with a
model in which time is variable and the learning is fixed.” (Blake, D., 2014)
MOOCs can be seen as lending themselves to this type of learning: “In theory, students can learn in any
way that they learn best, including via MOOCs and other open educational resources. Using MOOCs and
OER in this way could dramatically reduce the cost of getting an education—perhaps even bringing it down
to something reasonable.” (Blake, D. 2014)
The article, from 2014 lays out how MOOCs can become providers of competency based education and lets
us know which large MOOC providers met the criteria for these at that time:
In order for MOOCs to be useful to students in competency-‐based programs, however, a
couple of things would need to change. First, more MOOCs would need to be self-‐paced and
accessible at any time. Currently, of the top MOOC providers only Udacity’s free courses fit
this model; Coursera and edX’s courses are scheduled. Second, accrediting agencies will
need to figure out how to accredit knowledge instead of seat time (Blake, D. 2014)

An updated look at the field shows how edX in cooperation with Arizona State University are offering credit
based courses through MOOCs:
The new partnership between the flagship public university and EdX, a MOOC provider, flips
the typical process of getting into college on its head.
22

LITERATURE REVIEW

Students interested in the MOOCs won’t have to apply and be admitted to Arizona State, but
can simply register for the courses. Instead of paying up front for tuition and working to
make sure the money was well spent, the MOOC students decide whether or not to pay to
earn credit only after they have received their final grades. (Straumsheim, C. 2015)
The programmes offered through their online platform, the Global Freshman Academy, are to all intents
and purposes online, competency-‐based programs however, these emerging forms of competency-‐based
education, also known as direct assessment, are still in their infancy, and have received from their
accreditation body a critical stance, questioning the degree to which they live up to: regular and
substantive interaction between students and faculty members.
PEDAGOGICAL DISTINCTIONS AND COMMONALITIES BETWEEN

DIFFERENCES
Emergent pedagogies
The paper by HEA -‐ the Higher Education Academy, which is the national body for learning and teaching in
higher education in UK, points out that pedagogy is an emergent entity that is subject to negotiation. It
reports that we can no longer choose to see MOOCs within a preconceived duality of xMOOCs or cMOOCs,
but should think within a broader framework where commonalities between differences are to be found.
(Bayne, S. and Ross, J., 2014, page 4; page 8)
Indeed we are reminded that MOOC pedagogy is not something that can be conveniently categorised
instead, the report shows, it is emergent, diverse, cannot be relegated to simply a binary decoding and is
determined by individual institutional preferences:
UK MOOCs have multiple pedagogic forms and intentions, and we can no longer define them
as a single ‘transformative’ entity. Broad-‐brush descriptions of MOOC pedagogy in terms of a
cMOOC/xMOOC binary are no longer representative or particularly useful. A more nuanced
approach to institutional thinking around MOOCs is now needed: one which takes account of
an analysis of MOOC pedagogy at a micro level of individual course design (Bayne, S. and
Ross, J., 2014, page 8)

and
MOOC pedagogy is not embedded in MOOC platforms, but is negotiated and emergent.
Multiple social and material influences converge when MOOC pedagogy is enacted: teacher
preferences and beliefs, disciplinary influences, patterns of learner expectation and
engagement, and other contextual factors such as institutional teaching culture or the desire
to generate analytics. We need to give greater attention to MOOC pedagogy as a socio-‐
material and discipline-‐informed issue. (Bayne, S. and Ross, J., 2014, page 8)
23

LITERATURE REVIEW

Likewise, the manifesto from Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop reiterates the finding that MOOCs cannot be
identified purely as an xMOOC or as a cMOOC:
“Most current MOOCs lie between these extremes, with some structure (weekly content in the form of
video and quizzes) and some important social interactions (discussions, peer-‐review of work, and so on)”
(Dillenbourg et al., 2014, page 5 )

A relevant finding with regard to emergent pedagogy are the ways in which peer interactions among an
educated learner base can contribute to engaging learning:

“The absence of the “sage on the stage” will open new ways to foster teacher and learner commitment.
Campuses should focus less on conveying content-‐oriented skills and more on social/professional skills,
such as collaborative work and perspective-‐broadening activities, to complement independent study and
discovery” (Dillenbourg et al., 2014, page 5 )
In this emerging setting, it will become increasingly important for institutions to devise pedagogical
strategies that are consistent with their social and professional networking assets:

“Campuses should also capitalize on their social and professional networking benefits, teaching skills that
are less content-‐oriented and more crosscutting such as teamwork and collaboration” (Dillenbourg, P. et
al., 2014, page 7)

Retention and tensions around learner participation
Although this topic has been addressed in part, further up, in it is relevant to address how the concept of
retention and learner participation should be reconceptualised for MOOCs.

Dillenbourg et al make a convincing case for why MOOCS in higher education are uniquely positioned to
engage an educated learner base:
Interestingly, instructor guidance around inquiry-‐based use of existing materials combined
with teamwork and collaboration are the underlying format for another kind of education
many universities already practice: graduate research. While undergraduates would be
mainly exploring an existing body of knowledge rather than discovering new knowledge, it is
possible that the undergraduate educational process could become more like graduate
research and less like the unidirectional presentation of information that dominates much of
undergraduate education today. (Dillenbourg,P., et al, 2014)
There is much debate regarding MOOC dropout rates, however much of the current research is now
challenging the view, if indeed dropout rates is the real problem and proposing that, instead, a rethinking
of what it means to be a student should be examined:
24

LITERATURE REVIEW

“DeBoer and others have argued, however, that the concept of “retention” should be reconceptualized for
MOOCs [6], given the very different risk/benefit profile that MOOCs offer relative to traditional credit-‐
bearing courses that charge a fee or tuition” (Dillenbourg,P., et al, 2014, page 5):
This required rethinking of criteria for learner participation is echoed in various research papers:
There has been a vigorous debate as to whether the high dropout rate experienced by
MOOCs is the result of a design failure or a failure to filter out underqualified, uncommitted
students. Gary Matkins, Dean, Continuing Education and Distance Learning at UC Irvine,
thinks that MOOCs are being critized for what they are not rather than being judged for what
they actually are. The preoccupation with course completion rates has obscured more
important qualitative issues – such as learning and retention rates among serious learners.
(De Souza, G. et al 2013)
Indeed, learner motivations which are linked to peer-‐peer conversations/networking and to real world
problem solving, are emerging as the key motivational drivers for student engagement levels:
and their Gillani’s (2013) analysis of patterns of participation on a business strategy MOOC
on the (xMOOC) Coursera platform found that most of the 4,337 discussion forum
participants in the MOOC received below a 50% score on the MOOC, suggesting that ‘most
discussion forum participants are more interested in connecting with others to talk about
issues with real-‐world significance and implications than they are in being formally
recognized for their work.’ (Bayne, S. and Ross, J., 2014, page 22)

Scale
On the pedagogical side, The Perspectives Workshop paper (Dillenbourg, P., et al., 2014,) suggests the
dynamic regrouping of learners to match learning styles and paces. Furthermore, it is noted that the range
of pedagogies for xMOOCs is limited primarily to delivery of content and computer-‐based assessment and
that although the larger the network, the more opportunities there are for direct learner-‐to-‐learner
communication there are significant challenges for the large scale preparation, monitoring, grouping,
surveying, directing, and coaching of learners within such MOOCs.
It is further implied that smaller scale MOOCs would lend themselves more to group activities oriented to
joint production of artifacts like essays or design documents in project-‐based learning.
However, the paper puts forward the possibility of allowing from borrowings from smaller scale MOOCs, if
not at least to entertain the conceptions and constructions of 21st century competencies within larger scale
MOOCs:
In the diversity of pedagogical methods, those that are difficult to conduct at scale tend to be
those that scaffold high order thinking skills or competencies such as creativity, critical
thinking, collaboration skills, and scientific rigour. The importance of these skills explains why
we care about pedagogical diversity at scale and leads us to the following recommendation
expressed as a research question: How can we create a broad range of effective pedagogies
25

LITERATURE REVIEW

at massive scale, and thereby efficiently contribute to achieving 21st century competencies.
(Dillenbourg, P., et al., 2014, page 10).

Whilst current thinking seems to support the belief that degree level education cannot be facilitated
through MOOCs, the debate on whether this is true or not does not seem to be a simple thumbs-‐up or
thumbs down proposition. It encompasses a variety of questions, yet unanswered, and also, according to
Dillenbourg requires further research:
a degree usually covers higher-‐order learning outcomes that are rarely addressed in MOOCs,
such as creativity, sense of rigour, critical analytic skills, skills of synthesis, reflection, ability
to identify problems, social skills, and so on. We recommend research on MOOC activities
that support the development of these high-‐level skills. Replacing exams by projects or even
capstone projects are examples of such activities

This is a research question that neither the Porto Declaration (Jansen, D., 2015) nor the Institutional MOOC
strategies in Europe report touch upon. (Jansen, D. and Schuwer, R., 2015)

Educating educators
One of the priority objectives that was put forward during perspectives explored at the World Academy's
Forum on Global Higher Education conducted at the University of California at Berkeley on October 2-‐3,
2013, was the:
“expanding accessibility to make quality higher education available to a much larger proportion of the
population in both economically advanced and developing countries” (De Souza, G. et al., 2013)
MOOCs and hybrid versions of MOOCs were seen as providing structures that -‐
“can make the best quality course content accessible globally, including in places where a shortage of
qualified teachers and textbooks deprives many students of access to reliable knowledge.” (De Souza, G. et
al., 2013)
SPOCS (Small Private Online Courses) lend themselves to introducing advanced materials in a flipped
classroom model. These could become extremely useful for providing teaching instructors in
underdeveloped nations with the necessary framework for internal skills development:
SPOC (Small Private Online Course) targeted not at learners but at other instructors
becoming involved with a course. These materials could familiarize staff with particular
course topics, give guidance on resolving common learner problems, and so on. By exploiting
the ability to create such materials, it becomes possible to train new strata of teaching staff
that further leverage the effectiveness of the lead instructor, potentially allowing us to
educate more learners with a sublinear increase in instructor resources.
(Dillenbourg, P., et al., 2014, page 8)
26

LITERATURE REVIEW

PANORAMA OF LONGE RANGE VISIONS (Concluding Remarks)

In these concluding remarks, the discussion about the importance of developing a sustainable open
knowledge network to serve as scaffolding to drive the research agenda in Europe is at the forefront of the
authors of this paper. From what we have learned in the past 2 years, it becomes clear that achieving
success with MOOC deployments is greatly impacted by learners motivations and intents, their behavioural
mechanisms within courses and of course by designed spaces that contstrain or afford learning,
engagement. Even though Europe is defined by diverse languages, cultures, settings, pedagogies and
technologies, within the MOOC sphere, there are nevertheless threads of similarities that we can draw
upon from all over the world. This has been our intention and our lens from which we can view the further
developments within the field.
We hope this paper contributes to the deconstruction of the dichotomy between cMOOCs/xMOOCs,
between ideas of what constitute successful learning paths/ unsuccessful learning paths, between
engagement spaces that have fulfilled their jobs to engage learners in “independent learning” and in those
which do not.
Addressing pedagogical challenges with Mooc learning design and gleaning

motivation enhancing strategies

In the early stages of MOOC implementation it seems that technological capacities and concern for
technological platforms have greatly dominated and even eclipsed the pedagogical discussion. However,
we would be grossly remiss not to examine pedagogical strategies. Indeed it is critical to the success of any
online learning endeavor, that we consider learner preferences. Understanding and promoting peer
interaction and discussion looms large in the discussion – with regard to engagement and retention and
indeed certification rates. This would denote a further impetus for research within usage patterns of peer
cohorts. Newer findings have found that peer cohorts within MOOOCs portray behavior quite different
from that in other online learning contexts-‐ they behave as crowds and not as communities. The challenge
is thus creating collaborative environments.

An overall focus on sharing understandings of pedagogical and didactical factors is desirable, as the
conversation on MOOCs as largely been about platform, purpose and whilst flexible learning opportunities
27

LITERATURE REVIEW

have been a high ranking motivation for engagement with MOOCs, innovative learning has been fairly low
on the list

Creating meaningful discussions and the importance of designing for it

There are challenges in creating opportunities for meaningful discussion on MOOCs (to enable cycles of
communication between teachers and learners and among learners). This will necessarily involve
considerations for designing for greater peer-‐to-‐peer communication so as to enable initial group
formations and ultimately team-‐work. The ability to “moderate” is additionally, a crucial component. A
recent report from Glasgow University, entitled “Building and Executing MOOCS – a practical review of
Glasgow's first two MOOCs” exhibits evidence for this:

Based on the experiences of the two Glasgow MOOCs, forum moderation is a vital component of
a MOOC’s success. For both courses, this was the single biggest factor in keeping participants
engaged throughout the duration of the MOOC. It allowed the participants to feel part of a larger
cohort which collaborated on activities and enabled learners to guide one another through the
material, in keeping with a social connectivist model.
(Kerr et al 2015, page 22)

That said, the MOOC courses at Glasgow University also provided space for learners who like to take on the
role of silent learners : “but of course it should be noted that some learners may wish to observe the course
and therefore may be considered ‘silent’ learners”. (Kerr et al 2015, page 22)

With this need for providing for different learning styles, in mind, Glasgow University was aware that their
MOOC platform, which was Futurelearn, provided both xMOOC and some cMOOC facilities. They were
therefore cognizant of designing for two distinct learning styles:

“To ensure the course achieved the correct balance of xMOOC and cMOOC pedagogy, the team focused on
two main learning styles: Acquisition and Participation”
(Kerr et al 2015, page 22)

Making the case for the need for moderation, Margaryan, Bianco & Littlejohn (2015) note a lack of support
for collaborative learning between peers in MOOCs they studied. Seaton et al’s (2014) study maintain that
there is a direct relationship between the frequency with which learners accessed forums and learning.

For those learners wishing to interact in a more constructivistic manner with other learners, the need for
facilities for interacting in smaller groups is something to be considered in MOOC design. This is vitally
important especially in a "massive" environment where learners may feel overwhelmed. However, these
facilities for social learning in smaller groups is greatly missing in xMOOCs:

'Referring to online learning environments in particular, Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems
identified two pitfalls for social learning online: "the assumption that social interaction can be
taken for granted and that it will automatically happen" and "forgetting the social-‐
psychological/social dimension of social interaction that is salient in non-‐task contexts."3 These
shortcomings have been widely recognized in xMOOCs, with even the president of Stanford
saying, "When I think about MOOCs, the advantage — the ability to prepare a course and offer it
28

LITERATURE REVIEW

without personal interaction — is what makes them inexpensive and makes them very limited”’'
(Bryant, T., 2015)

Part of the challenge is perhaps that the sharing of knowledge and understanding does not just happen by
itself, especially in large scale learning environments:

“The issue is not can the learning that matters most be done online, but can it be scaled up
through online learning? Certainly, I would argue that the main criticism of xMOOCs is that they
spectacularly fail to address this form of learning. However, cMOOCs, when they operate at the
level of communities of practice with relatively shared levels of understanding and knowledge
among the participants, do have at least the potential for such economies of scale while
maintaining or even improving quality of learning outcomes” (Bates, T., 2013).

Indeed within xMOOCs "discussions can remain superficial, become difficult to navigate, or never develop
beyond isolated posts." (Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Kennedy, E., & Cuffe , P, 2015).

And of linking the open content that is relatively easy to produce, to collaborative learning we can read in
Todd Bryant’s article in Educause, of the importance of facilitating social interaction and collaboration:

For MOOCs to function as the bridge between open content and collaborative learning, they
need to include opportunities for social interaction and collaboration, which have consistently
proven to be beneficial to learners. Failure to do so would relegate MOOCs to little more than
content repositories, which, while still valuable, would be used primarily by the highly educated,
mature, and motivated independent learners they currently serve.
(Bryant, T., 2015)

Despite the difficulties faced in introducing social collaboration and interaction within xMOOCs, strategies
are indeed being developed to circumvent the void that produces superficial, isolated postings -‐ Todd
Bryant points out an interesting innovation in the direction of offering a cMOOC style self-‐directed and
personalised discussion facility within a Coursera xMOOC:

Two new tools added to the EdX platform for the DALMOOC create learning networks around
common goals, organize learners into groups, and facilitate discussion and collaboration. The first
tool, ProSolo, allows learners to organize themselves around learning goals for the course.
Learners can select competencies they would like to pursue, then ProSolo suggests partners
based on common interests. The other tool, Bazaar, matches students on a per-‐assignment basis
within a chat room and then presents them with prompts for the discussion or collaboration.
Unlike the add-‐ons in other courses, these tools form a core part of the course and are integrated
with both the assignments and course goals. (Bryant, T., 2015)

The MOOC engagement contract causes students to behave differently

There is evidence to suggest that learners on MOOC platforms behave differently from other learners
because of the very different nature of the MOOC context. The engagement contract provides an incentive
for a more laissez faire interaction with the course:

29

LITERATURE REVIEW

“In comparison the engagement contract with a MOOC is totally different. It’s free I can dip in and out. I
hurt no-‐one by dropping out. I can drop in anytime. This makes another sort of engagement contract”
(Liyanagunawardena et al., 2014)

Indeed the purpose of a MOOC is from the very start perceived differently from paying enrolment courses,
and when there is no financial binding or other legal/social obligation to follow the course, the incentive for
commitment is low. A positive boost to enrolment can be induced however, through applying a motivation
enhancing strategy, that at the level of playing with enrolment parameters, offers the opportunity for
identity verified and university-‐branded certification:

Koller et. al. (2013) show that in general a typical Coursera MOOC (in 2012) attracted 40,000 to
60,000 enrolments but only 50-‐60% of these students actually returned for the first lecture. Out
of these huge enrolment numbers only about 5% of students earned an official statement of
accomplishment. In contrast out of the students who registered for ‘Signature Track’ scheme,
paying US$30-‐100, with the intention of obtaining an identity verified and university-‐branded
certification, the completion rates are much higher. This seems to suggest that learners’
intention for the course, for example whether to use it as a taster class, drop-‐in and drop-‐out for
interesting topics, or to earn a verified certification has had a profound effect on their
‘engagement’ in the course.
(Liyanagunawardena, Parslow & Williams, 2014, Bentley et al, 2014)

Learners may be ‘active participants’, ‘passive participants’ or they may take on roles such as ‘lurkers’,
‘drop-‐ins’ (Hill, 2013). What is noticeable is that among the students who are ‘active” at the beginning, a
greater percentage of these remain to complete the course: “active participants tend to have the highest
retention week-‐to-‐week” (Hill, 2013)

Particular to MOOCS – Freedoms to not engage with all content and activities
Particular to MOOCs is the very interesting phenomenon of having freedoms to not engage with all content
or activities or assessments or indeed conversations in forums, as one chooses. The phenomenon of
behaving like crowds has been observed:

‘Differences between online distance learning and MOOCs are created inter alia by scale, and
the learners’ freedom to use or not use any element of the ‘course’. These make it difficult to
create activities to act as a “spark” (Salmon, 2002) to discussion in forums, particularly since
learners work less as communities and more as crowds (Haythornthwaite, 2009). Indeed
Margaryan, Bianco & Littlejohn (2015) note a lack of evidence of collaborative learning
between peers in most MOOC designs they examined.’ ( Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Kennedy,
E., Cuffe , P , 2015)
It seems apparent that learners acting as crowds, ie .having loose, non-‐ committal connections, present
challenges to course instructors/designers, precisely because of their lack of interest in committing to
producing collective artefacts and in interacting with others :
30

LITERATURE REVIEW

“Processes of repeated interaction, norm negotiation, commitments to quality of collective products, are
atypical to crowds, but characteristic of the communities.“ (Poquet , O., Dawson, S ., 2015)
This makes designing for engagement a challenge, however the study by Poquet and Dawson at University
of South Australia, which studied how networks of regular and occasional participants develop and
interacted in MOOC forums., respectively found that whilst the networks representing interpersonal
interactions are loosely connected (for all learners), there were hubs of activity linked by the individuals
with higher degrees of participation ( regular particpants). In fact, a “ quarter of the interactions in the
regular participants network were recurrent.” (Poquet , O., & Dawson, S ., 2015)
and
While it is evident that the vast majority of connections made in the forum could be classified as weak and
infrequent, a quarter of the interactions in the regular participants network were recurrent. In fact, there
were pairs of individuals who interacted with each other in over a hundred of instances. This suggests that
among this diverse and disparate network strong relationships can still be established. (Poquet , O., &
Dawson, S ., 2015)
The above named study distinguishes between two networks of learners that they label all learners and
regular participants and points out that these two networks may be characterised by different modes of
peer production processes. We learn how important forums/ strong ties/ shared histories/ moderators are
for promoting knowledge collaboration processes. It notes that ties in all networks are lose and so hubs of
interpersonal reaction activity are only seen between participants with high levels of participation and
growing stronger ties. However peer production processes are different in different networks ( In regular
participants and all learners which can be described as two distinct networks having different social
processes) Also, active students appointed to maintain the forum community are active contributors and
broker information between conversations. It was found that shared histories promoted continuous strong
ties and collaborative interactions. This paper recommends further inquires to identify how the strength of
a relationship between individual actors in a MOOC influences the quality of discussion and depth of
knowledge construction
The above study was carried out in a MOOC where forum participation was studied. However, as we have
learned, MOOC learners do not always choose to engage massively in forums. The following study which
we look at in the next section, chose to omit forum participation analytics and to concentrate on the ways
students engaged with content and assessments.
Inspiration for framing the conversation about MOOC engagement differently

As we have seen, MOOCs attract a wide variety of learners, each with particular motivations, behaviours,
and objectives. Understanding learners ‘ behaviour and motivations in MOOCs and in particular the ways in
31

LITERATURE REVIEW

which they engage with the content and the facilities would not only give insight into what drives them,
but would allow designers to predict possible design interventions that may improve engagement.
The paper entitled “Deconstructing Disengagement: Analyzing Learner Subpopulations in Massive Open
Online Courses” (Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. 2013) suggests that we “incorporate an
understanding of the high level ways in which students engage.” and that such a lens would be “much more
insightful than a raw report of the number of students who enrolled or the number of students who
obtained a certicate”
In fact, how we presently award certificates in online courses greatly resembles college education. For
students whose engagement patterns ‘ is most similar to a student in a traditional class’ obtain some form
of course credit – it reflecting assignments attempted and duration of course followed given ( these would
be described as Completing learners according to the groupings described below). For students who would
rather consciously skip assignments, but who nevertheless follow the course and sample its content on
their own terms, no credit is given ( these would be described as Auditing learners according to the
groupings described below).
The above paper which looks at several MOOC courses, studying how learners engage with content and
assessments, points out different student behaviours and plots them into 4 different groupings:

1. `Completing': learners who completed the majority of
the assessments o_ered in the class. Though these par-‐
ticipants varied in how well they performed on the as-‐
sessment, they all at least attempted the assignments.
This engagement pattern is most similar to a student in
a traditional class.

2. Àuditing': learners who did assessments infrequently if
at all and engaged instead by watching video lectures.
Students in this cluster followed the course for the major-‐
ity of its duration. No students in this cluster obtained
course credit.

3. `Disengaging': learners who did assessments at the be-‐
ginning of the course but then have a marked decrease in
engagement (their engagement patterns look like Com-‐
pleting at the beginning of the course but then the stu-‐
dent either disappears from the course entirely or sparsely
watches video lectures). The moments at which the
learners disengage di_er, but it is generally in the _rst
third of the class.

4. `Sampling': learners who watched video lectures for only
one or two assessment periods (generally learners in this
category watch just a single video). Though many learn-‐
ers \sample" at the beginning of the course, there are
many others that briey explore the material when the
32

LITERATURE REVIEW

class is already fully under way.

(Kizilcec et al., 2013)

These grouping provide a useful lens for understanding engagement trajectories in MOOCs, in which
learners are classified based on their patterns of interaction with video lectures and assessments, which are
the primary features of most MOOCs to date.

Of particular note is the fact that ‘Auditing': learners did assessments infrequently if at all and engaged
instead by watching video lectures, followed the course for the majority of its duration, but did not receive
any kind of course credit.

This perhaps warrants a rethink-‐ rethinking how to reward high level patterns of engagement that are not
necessarily backed up with ascribing to assessments. Auditing learners are after all, engaged, autonomous
learners displaying high levels of self-‐ direction and motivation. A more nuanced measure of engagement is
certainly called for.

Entertaining alternative engagement pathways and consciously anticipating spaces for engagement

Through appreciation of the high level ways that students engage, we can on better premises, credit
learners with different types of certification and provide positive incentments for course engagement.

Learners whose personal and work commitments cause them to disengage may be better served by a
course that was offered at a slower pace or even entirely self-‐paced. And for autonomous learners who
belong to the auditing group as exemplified above, who by their very nature, display high levels of
autonomy, self-‐directed learning, and indeed relative high levels of satisfaction with the course, could –

be encouraged to focus on video-‐watching and not be shown potentially frustrating
reminders about assessment completion. Moreover, instructors could downplay the
importance of assessments when outlining expectations for the course, in order to avoid
discouraging learners from following this alternative engagement path. Another design
strategy could be removing assessments altogether for Auditing learners. (Kizilcec, at al.,
2013)

Furthermore, although auditing learners may not be greatly active within forums, it is reasonable to
conclude that viewing discussions among active learners nevertheless benefit them, as synchronous
interactions actually encourage learning in passive learners. (Smith & Smith 2014)

Indeed asynchronous communications allow for deeper reflection upon ideas, as one is ‘intellectually
engaging with and extending or critiquing them’ (Coffin et al, 2005).

33

LITERATURE REVIEW

In “Examining engagement: analysing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses (MOOCs)” we
hear about many more clustering possibilities, as levels of activity within discusssions were used to find
many more clusters of cohorts (Ferguson, R., & Clow, D., 2015). Two have emerged clearly from this work:
the sampling behaviour employed by people who visit the course briefly, and the completing behaviour
employed by learners who complete the course thoroughly. In between, were many more groups, whose
falling from the course, or depreciating activity could with foresight and clever design, be prevented. This
study, unlike the Kizilcek study (which omitted forum analytics), emphasizes the importance of forum
participation and finely grained distinctions are made available, where forum interaction is taken into
account:
The two clusters Late Completers and Keen Completers can be considered as a pair, because
they include the learners who have engaged with the majority of the material and all the
assessments and who are therefore classified by FutureLearn as Fully Participating learners.
The main characteristic that differentiates the two clusters is the number of comments
posted. (Ferguson, R.,& Clow, D.,2015)

The paper points out how xMOOCs threw out the baby with the bath water, by keeping essential elements
of education which were content and assessment, but then throwing away conversational frameworks. The
outcome:

This led to an instructivist approach to teaching and learning in which ‘learning goals are
predefined by an instructor, learning pathways structured by environment and learners have
limited interactions with other learners’ [12]. In Siemens’ view, ‘cMOOCs focus on
knowledge creation and generation whereas xMOOCs focus on knowledge duplication’
(Ferguson, R.,& Clow, D.,2015)

Futurelearn were intent on taking a different approach – to provide a ‘social-‐constructivist pedagogy, based
on the Conversational Framework [11; 13]. This is a general theory of effective learning through
conversations, with oneself and others, about the immediate world and about abstract concepts [14]. To
engage in successful conversations, all parties need access to a shared representation of the subject matter
as well as tools for commenting, responding and reflecting, and so these tools and shared representations
formed part of the design of the FutureLearn platform.' (Ferguson, R.,& Clow, D.,2015)The paper, in
contrast to Kizilcec’s study which maintains “learning is a process of individual knowledge construction”
(Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E., 2013), holds to the social constructivistic theory that knowledge is
jointly constructed through conversation. Spaces for engagement within all of these dimensions are thus
held high:

“Contributing to or reading discussion comments is therefore an important part of the learning process. In
these cases, there are three elements to be taken into account: active engagement with course content,
active engagement with course assessment, and active engagement with course discussion.” (Ferguson,
R.,& Clow, D.,2015)
34

LITERATURE REVIEW

Within these spaces of engagement, are we facilitating higher order thinking?
What these studies in engagement seem to be collectively pointing to, is for the promotion of spaces for
engagement , i.e facilitating different learning pathways where different cohorts gravitate and feel at ease
in those modes of behavior and therein providing spaces for engagement, for interaction, for discussion, for
collaboration, as ‘Gleaning Good Practice from Existing MOOCs’ points out:
the benefit of MOOCs lies not in the way they are designed, nor in what the instructor
"assigns" participants, but rather in the spaces for engagement made possible by the course.
It lies in the flexibility of pathways and options for lifelong learning to occur (Bali, 2013a;
Kitsiri, 2013). An instructor may not necessarily intend to develop critical thinking or to
promote interaction among students, but it can still happen in the MOOC. However, offering
a MOOC that neither intentionally develops higher order thinking, nor promotes student
interaction, is shortchanging the participants and providing nothing like a true college
education (Bali, M., 2014)
The higher levels of Blooms taxonomy are about critical thinking, interaction, but even in courses where
social interactions are facilitated, in the hope that prolific negotiation and co-‐ construction of knowledge
may take place, we can read in Poquet and Dawson, citing Kellog and colleagues (Kellogg, S., Booth, S., &
Oliver, K. 2014) that that “only 7% of all conversations go beyond the negotiation and co-‐construction of
knowledge phases.” (Poquet, O., & Dawson, S., 2015).
In the mean time, ‘insights from forum analysis tend to conclude that social learning in MOOCs resembles
‘learning in a crowd’ with its fragmented groups and weak relationships (Gillani, 2013; Gillani, Yasseri,
Eynon, & Hjorth, 2014; Milligan, 2015). (Poquet, O., & Dawson, S., 2015).
Future research needed to understand engagement

Understanding the various clusters of learners according to their engagement behaviour with courses,
reveals a plurality of engagement trajectories that can be targeted with design implementations to
encourage further engagement and to determine different accrediting frameworks. These pedagogical and
accreditation inerventions are currently not in place, simply because different types of student engagement
and disengagement are not seen as equally valued participation-‐ yet. Also the higher levels of Blooms
taxonomy, which attend to critical thinking, interaction are, at present, simply not happening in xMOOCs.
(Bali, M., 2014)
It is quite evident that more research is needed to understand the dynamics involved. Here are some
suggestions:

“Future research should examine the structure of the community in terms of the social networks that
develop, as well as the incentives to contribute and build trust among members. Another strand of
research could explore how discourse on MOOC discussion boards facilitates the construction of knowledge
[7].’ (Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. 2013). Of course, non-‐cognitive factors play in to a great
degree:

35

LITERATURE REVIEW

A particularly rich area for future research is combining more fine-‐grained analytics with data
on the noncognitive factors that inevitably influence the choices they make when moving
through a MOOC. Motivation, self-‐regulation, tenacity, attitudes towards the processes of
learning, and feelings of confidence and acceptance are but some of many psychological
factors that affect academic performance [12, 10]. Along with other unobserved latent
variables, these internal states are likely associated with choices that learners make about
particular activities as well as with overall patterns of engagement with the course. Those
factors that are found to be influential could inspire the design of tools, features, or
interventions that are either broadly applicable or adapted to the needs of particular types
of learners. Interventions can also be developed to directly target these factors, such as the
promotion of micro steps to simplify the learning process and increase learners' ability to
succeed [13], or interventions designed to promote a growth mindset among learners [9].
(Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. 2013).

An approach for examining the innovative potential of new educational

technologies
The paper entitled “Cutting through the hype: evaluating the innovative potential of new educational
technologies through business model analysis” by Yoram M. Kalmanan, introduces a framework for
analysing the strategic impact of a novel technology on an organisation’s business model. The potential
strategic value of educational technologies within higher education institutions are shown to be linked to
how they align with institutional goals. Ultimately, these goals can be seen to have an impact on improved
products or services or processes:

One useful definition of innovation is a “multi-‐stage process whereby organizations
transform ideas into new/improved products, service or processes, in order to advance,
compete and differentiate themselves successfully in their marketplace" (Baregheh, Rowley,
& Sambrook, 2009). We learn from this definition
that, in contrast with the popular conception that the title "innovation" can be applied to
anything which is new, the management literature emphasizes that the idea is only the
beginning of the innovation process, and that in order to innovate, organizations need to
transform the idea into something tangible which enables them to "advance, compete and
differentiate themselves (Kalman., Y. 2016)

The authors stress that if an innovation does not improve an organisation's ability to achieve its goals, it
cannot be deemed a valuable innovation or even an innovation at all.

Goals in higher education

Goals specific to HEIs may be related to teaching and research, academic freedom, financial viability etc.

Capturing the areas in which innovation can be observed or planned can be done by turning one's attention
to 3 components intrinsic to organisational business models:

-‐ the customer value proposition component
-‐ the infrastructure (resources and processes) component
-‐ the financial component
36

LITERATURE REVIEW

We are led through an understanding of how changes within these elements can amount to "disruptive
innovation” within an industry.

There has so far, been a focus on the financial component (finding ways to monetise MOOCs) and less
on service (consumer value proposition) and process innovations.

Example of a university delivering innovation

The Open University is an excellent example of a university creating, marketing and delivering value, whilst
staying true to their own business model:
“By establishing FutureLearn as a separate company, in consortium with other UK
universities and cultural institutions, the Open University kept itself on the cutting edge of
this emerging innovation (MOOCs), and developed MOOCs that positioned online education
as a valuable form of lifelong learning. All the while, the Open University maintained a clear
differentiation between MOOCs and credit-‐awarding courses. This allowed the university to
gain strategic benefits such as refreshing its innovative image, and creating an experimental
space for exploring new pedagogy, models of support, and use of technology without risking
damage to its core products.” (Sharples et al., 2012)
Conversely, it is easy to see how Harvard would be putting their own business model at risk if they were to
give credit to their own students for MOOCs led by their own faculty:
“Similarly, Hoxby (2014) explains why highly selective institutions of higher education such as Harvard will
risk destabilizing their own business model if they give credit to their own students for MOOCs led by their
own faculty.” (Kalman,Y., M, 2016)
Unique ways MOOCs can bring innovation to business models

We read that:
MOOCs can be used to improve the customer value proposition, for example, by (1)
enhancing the current face-‐to-‐face educational offerings by adding online components that
enable blended learning (e.g. Bruff, Fisher, McEwen, & Smith, 2013) or “flipping” the
classroom (Milman, 2012); (2) providing students with more flexibility; and (3) exposing
students to top professors from other universities. MOOCs can also be used to improve the
infrastructure component of the university business model, for example, by (1) augmenting
the university’s marketing through the national and international exposure the MOOC
receives; (2) stimulating innovation by faculty and staff through exposure to new forms of
educational technologies and online pedagogies; (3) providing extensive amounts of data
about student learning; and (4) improving advising by giving students the opportunity to
freely sample a MOOC or several MOOCs before they commit to selecting a course or major
(Kalman,Y., M, 2016)

37

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Danish idea – an experiment in cohorts with different engagement pathways
Aimed at addressing target groups that are not supported by the traditional educational system, and
steering away from the “massive” aspect, Aarhus University has launched a new initiative which is about
building OOCs (open online courses) on top of existing campus based courses.

The particularly innovative with this project is not only that it enhances on-‐campus education,creating an
enhanced and more attractive value proposition for its students who now have the possibility to use this
facility as partly flipped classroom material. This innovation also allows other learners to engage with the
course in various ways-‐ allowing them in fact the freedom to follow distinctly different engagement
pathways. They can engage with materials, with conversations as they wish:

“The OOC will be designed to support different levels of participation from external students, who can
chose to produce, discuss, browse or view elements of the course” (Bang, J., Dalsgaard, C., Kjaer, A.,
O’Donovan, M., (2016)

Furthermore this is a very good marketing tool for the university and gives prospective students the option
of freely sampling the MOOC before they commit to selecting the course – which if they do, can then be
followed for ECTS credits.

Within Europe – Innovation takes on many paths
Within the HOME project overview of papers representing a collective European response on MOOCs –
MOOCS in Europe (EADTU, 2016) there are diverse and varied efforts spanning innovations in reputation
and exposure, in customer value propositions, furthermore there are innovations in flexible learning
Institution visibility, student recruitment, reputation enhancement and in many other areas.
The following lists a few of these innovations. In respect of a combination of several of these categories,
implementation of the flipped classroom has been very popular and can combine oncampus use/ blended
learning even with reaching out to other learners (e.g Delft University, Netherlands; Politehnica
University of Timisoara, Romania; University of Naples, Italy; University of Aarhus, Denmark)

To clearly explicate and consolidate collaborative efforts for MOOC developments in Europe, there is a
need for a shared understanding of business models and also institutions need to be able to clearly identify
their particular customer proposition with regard to their unique target market. Indentifying themselves in
this way will enable other universities to recognise areas for shared collaborations. A shared platform
listing the particular attributes of business models for each MOOC initiative is thus desirable. Models for
business innovation are presented within the HOME papers. The freemium model seems to be the one
many universities offering MOOCS, subscribe to:
Among all the models, the freemium seems the one often adopted. This model consists of
free registration and access to course materials and earning some amount of money for
added values or services, such as more on-‐demand/structured interaction with the
instructor/facilitator, receiving a formal certificate, joining a study group (learner
community), and so forth. ( Anadolu Unversity)
38

LITERATURE REVIEW

Discussions involving alternative certification models have been discussed including badges, certificates.
Anadolu University mentions e.g. Arizona University as a possible model (the convenience model) -‐
In this model, the providers offer either already available courses or course materials to these
universities or create special ones according to their needs. Those HE institutions who would
like have special courses for their needs often share the costs but those who would like to
provide this convenient and less expensive learning opportunity to their students do not pay
anything, students who take this rote pay for the courses to be able to get certificates.
Arizona State University, for instance, recognizes and accepts the credit transfers for entre
level course certificates earned in EdX platform. (EADTU, 2016)
Discussions are even exploring a transition from diplomas to ratings ( Maria Curie Sklodowska University)
and for catalysing transitions to coached, mentored, collaborative environments (Maria Curie Sklodowska
University, the Open University)
Wishes to address shared organisational issues are high up on the agenda e.g at The University of Foggia,
Italy, The National University of Ireland . Furthermore, facilitating recognition of learning by awarding
ECTS to MOOC courses and recognising these in a network of universities is similarly a forward looking
teaching innovation placed within an organizational ecosystem. . (The University of Foggia, Italy)

Recognising that the simple xMOOC/ cMOOC binary is no longer an expansive and precise enough
description for MOOCs, but rather that MOOCS can lie anywhere on a cMOOC – xMOOC continuum and
even have embeddings of one within the other, is foundational to understanding potential MOOC uses and
many universities are considering ways that hybrid implementations can add value. ( eg. University of
Naples,
Parameters such as the media used, the degree to which students know and are likely to interact with one
another eg. considering how established versus non established peer cohort networks interact is also very
much seen as being a defining variable for success. These issues are often interlined with engagement,
persistence and retention ( e.g Aar hus University, Demark; National University of Ireland, The Open
University).
We also see how innovations not only drive motivation within institutions, but how these self same
innovations help the organization better achieve its goals in the marketplace ( E.G Open University of Israel,
Aarhus University, Denmark)

Further Research Needed
Presently there is no systematic recognition of MOOC studies at higher education institutions in the UK,
according to Universities UK (2013) and neither are there top down efforts to encourage academic
recognition in US, but there are singular localised initiatives at various academic institutions (Eaton, 2012;
ACE, 2012; Masterson, 2013).
39

LITERATURE REVIEW

In a research paper entitled “The Maturing of the MOOC”, by the Department for Business Innovation and
Skills, UK, this point is put submitted regarding risks and opportunities ahead:
Formal research would make sense only where BIS sees benefit from knowing the
destination before the herd gets there. We believe UK HE and FE sectors face significant risks
or opportunities around MOOCs, worth investigating and understanding in advance, in the
following MOOC-‐driven questions:
-‐Potential disruptions in the HE sector, particularly overseas HE sales
-‐Technology solutions for accreditation, assessment and authentication. (Haggard, S., 2013,
page 103)
We can further read that many different dimensions within HE will be impacted:
MOOCs will disrupt business as normal in several domains of HE activity. Undergraduate
teaching and recruitment, pedagogy, commercial CPD, and most particularly international
recruitment and reputation may be sharply affected. This is a view shared by nearly all
authors (notably Pearson/IPPR, Austrade, UniversitiesUK, McAuley, Sharples). There will be
opportunities to both gain and lose positioning. (Haggard, S. 2013, page 104)
From our own literature research in this document, we can concur. Looking at the present literature we can
summarise the most evident pros and cons and gaps needing to be further researched:
We have seen that MOOCs facilitate a provision of online delivery that can be scheduled, is flexible for
students who work, who have parental commitments. Furthermore, with the benefits of the flipped
classroom model, educating students becomes more efficient than traditional classroom models. The
asynchronous nature of online learning furthermore promotes access to non-‐traditional students who
wouldn't otherwise be able to attend day classes and in specific locations.
Perceived widened access and equity, even to students further afield and outside of US-‐Canada -‐UK-‐
Australia is often cited as a valid rationale. Opinions are however, greatly divided on this:
On one side, MOOCs are hailed as a cost-‐free access to excellent resources and learning
experiences for students in less educationally privileged geographies, notably India, China
and Africa. An example would be the Financial Times front page story “Developing world’s
prodigies take online course to leading colleges”99 in which the New York correspondent
hailed the achievements of Amol Bhave, a 17 year-‐old from Jabalpur, India, who gained entry
to MIT after an exceptionally strong performance in the edX Circuits and Electronics MOOC.
Interviewing Bhave, the FT quoted his view that MOOCs would have a strong impact in India.
Bhave’s excitement was located in the emergent and hands-‐on nature of the experience –
“seeing experiments performed in front of you” in his words. Alternatively, MOOCs with
their high demands for connectivity, online literacy, and English language skills, may be
40

LITERATURE REVIEW

excluding developing world students and privileging learners from the most highly developed
educational environments. (Haggard, S. 2013)
There is still only limited evidence linking MOOCs with improved learning outcomes. It is even more difficult
to provide positive evidence for low income, minority students. (Jaggars, 2011). Digital exclusion is a factor
often overlooked in pursuit of loftier goals:
online courses are not increasing enrollment among new or low-‐income students (Jaggars,
2011; Jaggars & Xu, 2011). On average, community college students taking (and succeeding
in) online courses are white, higher income women who are academically well prepared for
college coursework (Halsne & Gatta, 2003; Jaggars & Xu, 2011; Jenkins & Downs, 2003; Xu &
Jaggars, 2011; Xu & Jaggars, forthcoming). In other words, the intended benefits of increased
access, retention, and completion that online course offerings aim to furnish, may not be
realized. Students often cite technical difficulties as a reason for withdrawing from or not
taking online courses (Bambara, Harbour, Davies, & Athey, 2009; El Mansour & Mupinga,
2007). Low income households disproportionately lack the necessary infrastructure, e.g.
high-‐speed Internet and home computer, to take full advantage of online courses (Jaggars,
2011). This “digital divide” also creates an obstacle for historically underrepresented
minority students, because in 2012 only fifty-‐one and forty-‐seven percent of African
Americans and Hispanics respectively had high-‐speed Internet access at home (National
Telecommunications & Information Administration, 2013). (Gross., J., Kleinmann, M. 2013)
Then there are the high attrition rates, the concerns about accreditation and quality. And the ubiquitous
question of what facilitates excellence in learning outcomes.
Looking ahead, as economies of scale are reached through MOOCs within the HE infrastructure, new
configurations of online/offline offerings may play out. We have already seen this put into use at
universities in Pittsburgh and Tel Aviv.
We can submit that more research is needing to be done into factors that influence online course taking
behaviour and more:
Researchers have only just begun to identify possible factors that influence online course
taking behavior. Because there are very few fully online programs, Jaggars (2011) points out
that most studies have focused on students enrolled in traditional or blended programs who
take one or more of their courses online. Research suggests that minority students are taking
online courses at lower rates than white students (Angiello, 2010; Xu & Jaggars, 2011).
Several studies indicate that female students are taking online courses at higher rates than
male students (Kramarae, 2001; Roy, & Schumm, 2011; Xu & Jaggars, 2011), but this effect
has not been separated from a higher prevalence of women in higher education overall.
Older students with full time jobs may also be more likely to choose online course options
(Halsne & Gatta, 2002).(Gross., J., Kleinmann, M., 2013)
41

LITERATURE REVIEW

Rather critical is the need for understanding factors that enhance or limit access to online learning
opportunities:
“As online courses and programs expand, it will become ever more important to understand who is taking
those courses, and what factors (e.g. motivation and goals, high speed and technological connectivity)
enhance or limit access to online learning opportunities.” (Gross., J., Kleinmann, M. 2013)
“Boyd raises the challenge of homophily, or the phenomenon in social networking where people with the
same interests and backgrounds often end up connecting with each other. This may lead to the
reinforcement of social divisions online, unless online destinations provide connections that will foster
democratic discourse” (Haggard, S. 2013).
There is a need for further research into a wide number of fields. Themes identified for investigation by the
Uk government include:
-‐ Disruptions to the HE infrastructure (Austrade, Pearson/IPPR)
-‐ Relevance of the MOOC model outside communities of IT-‐literate high achievers (Shirky,
Legon)
-‐ International Issues: problems of extending beyond US (Graebel) and into Developing
World (Trucano) and coping with globalised competition (Olds)
-‐Systems of accreditation (McAuley)
-‐Digital Literacy requirements in a MOOC-‐shaped future (Pearson/IPPR, Kop, Boyd)
-‐Pedagogy: how MOOCs complement/challenge F2F (Rivard, Education Advisory Board,

deWaard, Sharples, Siemens)
-‐ Use of MOOC environments by whole classes (MacLeod)
-‐ Using analytics for improving completion rates (Hill, Lytics Lab)
(Haggard, S. 2013)
With regard to our HOME project, European institutions will be able to develop and exploit findings from
other institutions and in that way further develop the European MOOC initiatives to support higher
education and lifelong learning in Europe.
42

LITERATURE REVIEW

REFERENCES
Adamopoulos, P. (2013). What makes a great MOOC? An interdisciplinary analysis of student
retention in online courses. Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan
2013. Retrieved from http://wcet.wiche.edu/wcet/docs/blog/WhatMakesAGreatMOOC.pdf
Bali, M., (2014). Gleaning Good Practice from Existing MOOCs. The American University in Cairo
Retrieved from: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no1/bali_0314.pdf
Bang, J., Dalsgaard, C., Kjaer, A., & O’Donovan, M., (2016). Building OOC layers on top of existing
courses. Centre for Teaching Development and Digital Media, Aarhus University, Denmark
Retrieved from: http://pure.au.dk/portal/da/persons/christian-‐dalsgaard(a032a79a-‐9405-‐4ff1-‐
8bf3-‐2a50865b3d01)/publications/building-‐ooc-‐layers-‐on-‐top-‐of-‐existing-‐courses(12843f6b-‐1b9a-‐
406c-‐b3f9-‐807e43e8a8ef).html
Bates, T., (2013). Improving productivity in online learning: can we scale ‘the learning that matters
most’. Retrieved from: http://www.tonybates.ca/2013/10/22/improving-‐productivity-‐in-‐online-‐
learning-‐can-‐we-‐scale-‐the-‐learning-‐that-‐matters-‐most/

Bayne, S. & Ross, J., (2014). The pedagogy of the Massive Open Online Course: the UK view,
Edinburgh University, The University of Edinburgh.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/4bu96jvbx84ec3n/HEA_Edinburgh_MOOC_WEB_240314byrossan
dbayne.pdf

Blake, D. (2014). MOOCs and the Move Toward Competency-‐Based Education. MOOCS.COM
Retrieved from: http://moocs.com/index.php/moocs-‐and-‐the-‐move-‐toward-‐competency-‐based-‐
education

43

LITERATURE REVIEW

Bryant, T., (2015). Bringing the Social Back to MOOCs. Educause Review.
Retrieved from: http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/bringing-‐the-‐social-‐back-‐to-‐moocs

Camilleri, A., F, Ehlers, & U., D. Pawlowski, J., (2014). State of the Art Review of Quality Issues
related to Open Educational Resources (OER). Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies, European Commission.
Retrieved from: http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/documents/201405JRC88304.pdf

De Souza, G., Harish J., Jacobs G., Nagan W., Šlaus I., & Zucconi A. (2013). Reflections on the Future
of Global Higher Education. WAAS Conference Report. Retrieved from:
http://cadmusjournal.org/files/pdfreprints/vol2issue1/reprint-‐cj-‐v2-‐i1-‐reflections-‐on-‐the-‐future-‐of-‐
global-‐higher-‐education.pdf

Devlin, K. (2013). MOOCs and the Myths of Dropout Rates and Certification.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-‐keith-‐devlin/moocs-‐and-‐the-‐myths-‐of-‐
dr_b_2785808.html

Dillenbourg, P., Fox, A., Kirchner, C., Mitchell, J., & Wirsing, M (2014). Manifesto from Dagstuhl
Perspectives Workshop. Massive Open Online Courses: Current State and Perspectives.
Retrieved from:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/bdl1eyawmvq4yqu/manifestofromdagstuhlperspectivesworkshop
moocscurrentstateandperspectives.pdf

Eaton, J. S. (2012). CHEA, MOOCs and Accreditation: Focus on the quality of 'direct-‐to-‐students'
education. Inside Accreditation, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/ia/IA_2012.10.31.html

The Economist. (June 2014). The future of universities, The digital degree.
Retrieved from: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21605899-‐staid-‐higher-‐education-‐
business-‐about-‐experience-‐welcome-‐earthquake-‐digital

Eynon, R. (2014). Conceptualising Interaction and Learning in MOOCs. Retrieved from:
http://www.moocresearch.com/wp-‐content/uploads/2014/06/C9146_EYNON_MOOC-‐Research-‐
InitiativeEynon9146Final.pdf

EADTU, 2014, Online Learning at Research-‐Intensive Universities
Retrieved from:
http://www.leru.org/files/publications/LERU_AP16__Online_Learning_at_RIUs_final.pdf

EADTU. (2016). MOOCs in Europe, Overview of papers representing a collective European response
on MOOCs as presented during the HOME conference in Rome November 2015. EADTU. Retrieved
from: http://eadtu.eu/images/publicaties/MOOCs_in_Europe_November_2015.pdf

44

LITERATURE REVIEW

Ferguson, R., & Clow, D. (2015). Examining engagement: analysing learner subpopulations in
massive open online courses (MOOCs). In: 5th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge
Conference (LAK15), 16–20 March 2015, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA, ACM
Retrieved from: http://oro.open.ac.uk/42345/1/LAK15%20Paper.pdf
Gillani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses.
Internet and Higher Education. Retrieved from:
http://www.academia.edu/7885216/Communication_Patterns_in_Massively_Open_Online_Course
s

Gillani, N., Eynon, R., Osborne, M., Hjorth, I., & Roberts S. (2014). Communication
Communities in MOOCs. Retrieved from:
http://www.academia.edu/6472662/Communication_Communities_in_MOOCs

Gillani, N., Yasseri,T., Eynon, R., & Hjorth, I. (2014). Structural limitations of learning in a crowd:
Communication vulnerability and information diffusion in MOOCs.
Retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140923/srep06447/full/srep06447.html
Gross., J., & Kleinmann, M. (2013). The Need for High Speed: Online Course Taking Behavior Among
Community College Students. University of Michigan. Retrieved from:
http://www.ashe.ws/images/Gross%20and%20Kleinman%20-‐%20Need%20for%20Speed.pdf

Haggard, S. (2013). The Maturing of the MOOC. BIS Research Paper Number 130. London:
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240193/13-‐
1173-‐maturing-‐of-‐the-‐mooc.pdf

Hashmi, A.H. (2013). HarvardX Set To Launch Second SPOC. Harvard Crimson.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/9/17/kennedy-‐school-‐spoc-‐edx/ [Accessed 22 March
2015].
Haythornthwaite, C. (2009). Social networks and online community. Oxford Handbook of Internet
Psychology.

Hill, P. (March 6, 2013), Emerging Student Patterns in MOOCs: A Graphical View.
Retrieved from http://mfeldstein.com/emerging_student_patterns_in_moocs_graphical_view/

Ho, A. D., Reich, J., Nesterko, S., Seaton, D. T., Mullaney, T., Waldo, J., & Chuang, I. (2014). HarvardX
and MITx: The first year of open online courses (HarvardX and MITx Working Paper No. 1).
Retrieved from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263

Ho, A. D., Chuang, I., Reich, J., Coleman, C., Whitehill, J., Northcutt, C., W illiams, J. J., Hansen, J.,
Lopez, G., & Petersen, R. (2015). HarvardX and MITx: Two years of open online courses (HarvardX
45

LITERATURE REVIEW

Working Paper No. 10). Retrieved from:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2586847

Hollands, F. M., Tirthali D. (May 2014) MOOCs: Expectations and Reality. Center for
Benefit-‐Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY,
Retrieved from http://cbcse.org/wordpress/wp-‐
content/uploads/2014/05/MOOCs_Expectations_and_Reality.pdf

Jaggars, S.S. (2011). Online learning: Does it help low-‐income and underprepared students?
Community College Research Center Working Paper No. 26. Retrieved from:
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/online-‐learning-‐help-‐students.pdf

Jansen, D. (2015). Porto Declaration of European MOOCs. European Association of Distance
Teaching Universities. Retrieved from:
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/News/Porto_Declaration_on_European_MOOCs_Final.pdf

Jansen, D. & Schuwer, R. (2015). Institutional MOOC strategies in Europe: Status report based on a
mapping survey conducted in October-‐December 2014. European Association of Distance Teaching
Universities. Retrieved from: http://www.eadtu.eu/home/policy-‐areas/open-‐education-‐and-‐
moocs/news/248-‐institutional-‐mooc-‐strategies-‐in-‐europe

Jiang, S., Williams, A.,Schenke, Warschauer, M., & O'dowd, D. (2014). Predicting MOOC
Performance with Week 1 Behavior, Educational Data Mining. Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Educational Data Mining. Retrieved from:
http://educationaldatamining.org/EDM2014/uploads/procs2014/short%20papers/273_EDM-‐2014-‐
Short.pdf

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC
Horizon Report: 2013 higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Retrieved from: http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2013-‐horizon-‐report-‐HE.pdf

Johnson, L., Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education.
Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from: http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2014-‐nmc-‐
horizon-‐report-‐he-‐EN.pdf

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 higher
education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/HR2015.pdf

Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The
International Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning. Retrieved from:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1651

46

LITERATURE REVIEW

Kalman,Y., M. (2016). Cutting through the hype: evaluating the innovative potential of new
educational technologies through business model analysis. Open Learning: The Journal of Open,
Distance and e-‐Learning. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2016.1164592
Kellogg, S., Booth, S., & Oliver, K. (2014). A social network perspective on peer supported learning
in MOOCs for educators. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
15(5). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1852

Kerr, J., Houston, S., Marks, L., & Richford, A. (2015). Building and Executing MOOCS – a practical
review of Glasgow's first two MOOCs. Retrieved from:
http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_395337_en.pdf.

King, C.,Doherty, K., Kelder,J., McInerney, F. Walls,J., Robinson,A., & Vickers, J. (2014).
Fit for Purpose: a cohort-‐centric approach to MOOC design. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya and
University of New England | Barcelona, Retrieved from:
http://journals.uoc.edu/index.php/rusc/article/view/v11n3-‐king-‐doherty-‐kelder-‐mcinerney-‐walls-‐
robinson-‐vickers/v11n3-‐king-‐doherty-‐kelder-‐mcinerney-‐walls-‐robinson-‐vickers-‐en
Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing Disengagement: Analyzing Learner
Subpopulations in Massive Open Online Courses. In 3rd International Conference on Learning
Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) (pp. 170–179). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Retrieved from: http://web.stanford.edu/~cpiech/bio/papers/deconstructingDisengagement.pdf

Kjeldstad, B., Alvestrand H., Elvestad E. O., Ingebretsen T., Melve I., Bongo M. (2014). MOOCs for
Norway: New digital learning methods in higher education. Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research. Retrieved from:
https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/NOU201420140005000EN_PDF
S.pdf

Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C., & Chen, Z. (2013). Retention and Intention in Massive Open Online
Courses. EDUCAUSE review, May/June 2, 62–63. Retreived from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1337.pdf

Lee, P. (2013, October 18). World Bank, Coursera to take MOOCs to developing world. University
World News Global Edition. Retrieved from:
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20131017131951244&mode=print
Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Kennedy, E., & Cuffe , P. ( 2015) , Design patterns for promoting peer
interaction in discussion forums in MOOCs. The MOOC Design Patterns project
(http://www.moocdesign.cde.london.ac.uk/). Retrieved from:
http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/article/Design-‐Patterns-‐for-‐Open-‐Online-‐Teaching-‐and-‐
Learning-‐Design-‐Paper-‐42-‐7?paper=170920

Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Lundqvist, K.O. & Williams, S.A. (2015) Who are with us: MOOC learners
on a FutureLearn course. British Journal of Educational Technology.

47

LITERATURE REVIEW

Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Parslow, P. & Williams, S. (2014). Dropout: MOOC participants’
perspective. In: EMOOCs 2014, the Second MOOC European Stakeholders Summit, 10-‐12 th
February 2014, Lausanne, Switzerland, 95-‐100. Retrieved from:
http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/36002/2/MOOC%20Dropout%20Participants%20Perspective.pp95-‐
100.pdf

Mapstone, S., Buitendijk, S. & Wiberg, E. (2014). Online Learning at Research-‐Intensive
Universities. League Of European Research Universities. Retrieved from:
http://www.leru.org/files/publications/LERU_AP16__Online_Learning_at_RIUs_final.pdf
Margaryan, A., Bianco, M. & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of Massive Open Online
Courses (MOOCs), Computers & Education, 80, 77-‐83. Retrieved from:
http://search.ror.unisa.edu.au/media/researcharchive/open/9916005909701831/5311657923000
1831

Masterson, K. (2013). Giving MOOCs some credit. ACE. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/the-‐
presidency/columns-‐and-‐features/Pages/Giving-‐MOOCs-‐Some-‐Credit.aspx

MIT Newsoffice (2014). MIT and Harvard release working papers on open online courses MIT News.
Retrieved from:http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/mit-‐and-‐harvard-‐release-‐working-‐papers-‐on-‐open-‐
online-‐courses-‐0121

Negrea, S. (2014). Stanford’s hybrid MOOC offers alternative, Graduate students work on same
projects as 25,000 MOOC takers. University Business. Retrieved from:
http://www.universitybusiness.com/article/stanford%E2%80%99s-‐hybrid-‐mooc-‐offers-‐alternative

Opidee I. (January 2015). University Busines Outlook on teaching: Academic return-‐on-‐investment.
University Business. Retrieved from:
http://www.universitybusiness.com/article/outlook-‐teaching-‐academic-‐return-‐investment
Poquet, O., & Dawson, S.(2015). Analysis of MOOC Forum Participation. Ascilite. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284385926_Analysis_of_MOOC_Forum_Participation

Reich, J. (2014). MOOC Completion and Retention in the Context of Student Intent.
EducauseReview. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/mooc-‐completion-‐and-‐
retention-‐context-‐student-‐intent)

Reich, J. (2015). Rebooting MOOC Research Improve assessment, data sharing, and experimental
design. Sciencemag.org, The American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Retrieved from: http://www.edtechresearcher.com/wp-‐content/uploads/2012/11/Science-‐2015-‐
Reich-‐34-‐5.pdf

Rosé, C. P., Carlson, R., Yang, D., Wen, M., Resnick, L., Goldman, P. & Sherer, J. (2014). Social
48

LITERATURE REVIEW

factors that contribute to attrition in MOOCs. Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning
@ Scale. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mwen/papers/p197-‐rose.pdf
Seaton, D.T.S., Bergner, Y., Chuang, I., Mitros, P. & Pritchard, D.E. (2014). Who Does What in a
Massive Open Online Course?. Communications of the ACM, 57(4), 58-‐65.

Smith, D. & Smith, K. (2015). The Case for ‘Passive’ Learning: The silent community of Online
Learners. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-‐Learning.

Soffer, T., & Cohen A. (2015). Implementation of Tel Aviv University MOOCs in academic
curriculum: A pilot study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning.
Retrieved from: https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/2031-‐16596-‐1-‐
PB.pdf

Stewart, B. (2013, May 05) ‘Not A Hand Up’. University of Venus Blog, Inside Higher Education.
Retrieved from: http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/university-‐venus/not-‐hand

Straumsheim, C. (2015) Change, but How Substantive?. INSIDE HIGHER ED. Retrieved from:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/24/arizona-‐state-‐u-‐moocs-‐credit-‐program-‐faces-‐
unanswered-‐accreditation-‐questions

Universities UK (2013). Massive open online courses -‐ higher education's digital moment? Retrieved
from:
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2013/MassiveOpenOnlineCourses.p
df

Valentin, M. A., Nafukho, F., Valentin, C., Johnson, D., & Lecounte, J. (2014). Return on Investment:
Contrary to Popular belief, MOOCs are not FREE. UFHRD. Edinburg, Scotland: University Forum for
Human Resource Development. Retrieved from: http://www.ufhrd.co.uk/wordpress/wp-‐
content/uploads/2014/11/Marie-‐Valentin.pdf

White, B. (2013). An edX SPOC as the Online Backbone of a Flipped College Course, edX. Retrieved
from: https://www.edx.org/blog/edx-‐spoc-‐online-‐backbone-‐flipped-‐college

Wintrup, J., Wakefield, K. & Davis, H. (2014). Engaged Learning in MOOCs: A Study using the UK
Engagement Survey. York, England: The Higher Education Academy (HEA). Retrieved from:
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/node/10346

Wintrup, J., Wakefield, K., Morris, D. & Davis, H. (2015). Liberating Learning: Experiences of
MOOCs. York, England: The Higher Education Academy (HEA). Retrieved from:
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/liberating-‐learning.pdf

49

LITERATURE REVIEW

Yang D., Wen M., Kumar A., Xing EP., & Rose CP. (2014). Towards an Integration of Text and Graph
Clustering Methods as a Lens for Studying Social Interaction in MOOCs.,The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/rt/printerFriendly/1853/3083

Ye, C., & Biswas, G. (2014). Early Prediction of Student Dropout and Performance in MOOCs using
Higher Granularity Temporal Information. Journal of Learning Analytics.
Retrieved from: http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/JLA/article/download/4212/4429

50

The Mooc Concept: Exploring Global Mooc Development - A Literature Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Mooc Concept: Exploring Global Mooc Development - A Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE MOOC CONCEPT: EXPLORING GLOBAL MOOC DEVELOPMENT –

Centre for Teaching Development and Digital Media, Aarhus

Table of Contents

DISRUPTIVE INNOVATIONS AND DRIVERS FOR CHANGE

Promises of disruptive technologies pathing future directions

CATEGORIES OF ADDED VALUE

Integration of MOOCS into University education

1. Flexible, fascinating and free

2. Feeling part of something

3. Ways of learning

4. A bit of proof?

Standards for measuring participation and pedagogies of engagement – forging

• Building and maintaining brand

• Improving economics by lowering costs or increasing revenues

• Innovation in teaching and learning

• Conducting research on teaching and learning goals.

• The nature of the delivery platform

• Analysis of platform data

EDUCAUSE defines competency-­‐based education:

PEDAGOGICAL DISTINCTIONS AND COMMONALITIES BETWEEN

PANORAMA OF LONGE RANGE VISIONS (Concluding Remarks)

Addressing pedagogical challenges with Mooc learning design and gleaning

The MOOC engagement contract causes students to behave differently

Inspiration for framing the conversation about MOOC engagement differently

Future research needed to understand engagement

An approach for examining the innovative potential of new educational

Goals in higher education

Example of a university delivering innovation

Unique ways MOOCs can bring innovation to business models

-­‐ Disruptions to the HE infrastructure (Austrade, Pearson/IPPR)

-­‐Systems of accreditation (McAuley)

-­‐Digital Literacy requirements in a MOOC-­‐shaped future (Pearson/IPPR, Kop, Boyd)

-­‐Pedagogy: how MOOCs complement/challenge F2F (Rivard, Education Advisory Board,

-­‐ Use of MOOC environments by whole classes (MacLeod)

(Haggard, S. 2013)

You might also like

EDUCAUSE defines competency-‐based education:

-‐ Disruptions to the HE infrastructure (Austrade, Pearson/IPPR)

-‐Systems of accreditation (McAuley)

-‐Digital Literacy requirements in a MOOC-‐shaped future (Pearson/IPPR, Kop, Boyd)

-‐Pedagogy: how MOOCs complement/challenge F2F (Rivard, Education Advisory Board,

-‐ Use of MOOC environments by whole classes (MacLeod)