Massive Open Online Courses and Higher Education

What Went Right, What Went Wrong and Where to Next?

Rebecca Bennett, Mike Kent, Rebecca Bennett, Mike Kent

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317099604
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Since the first MOOC was launched at the University of Manitoba in 2008, this new form of the massification of higher education has been a rollercoaster ride for the university sector. The New York Times famously declared 2012 to be the year of the MOOC. However, by 2014, the number of academic leaders who believed the model was unsustainable doubled to more than 50%. While the MOOC hype has somewhat subsided, the attitudes and anxieties of this peak time can still be seen influencing universities and their administrations.

This is the first volume that addresses Massive Open Online Courses from a post-MOOC perspective. We move beyond the initial hype and revolutionary promises of the peak-MOOC period and take a sober look at what endures in an area that is still rapidly growing, albeit without the headlines. This book explores the future of the MOOC in higher education by examining what went right, what went wrong and where to next for the massification of higher education and online learning and teaching. The chapters in this collection address these questions from a wide variety of different backgrounds, methodologies and regional perspectives. They explore learner experiences, the move towards course for credit, innovative design, transformations and implications of the MOOC in turn.

This book is valuable reading for students and academics interested in education, eLearning, globalisation and information services.

1 What was all that about? Peak MOOC hype and post-MOOC legacies

Mike Kent and Rebecca Bennett

Massive open online courses, better known as MOOCs, are a phenomenon that has been with us for less than 10 years. However, their impact, particularly in higher education, over this relatively short period of time has been profound. This introductory chapter of the collection sketches out the brief history of MOOCs, and explores the promise that MOOCs presented and the disruptive challenge they offered to universities and university education. Beyond this, we turn to the contemporary MOOC environment that, without the hype, could be considered a ‘post-MOOC’ world. However, recent data tells us that the number of MOOCs offered continues to rise – as do MOOC enrolments (Shah, 2015). With this continued interest in MOOCs in mind, the chapters presented in this volume are therefore composed in response to the question ‘where to next?’ for MOOCs and higher education.

The first ‘official’ MOOC came from the University of Manitoba in 2009 (Daniel, 2012); however, a more commonly cited starting point for this type of online presence is 2011 and, more specifically, Sebastian Thrun’s Artificial Intelligence MOOC and Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng’s course on Machine Learning. Both units were run through Stanford University and had enrolments of more than 100,000 students. They also led to the founding of the two earliest and largest MOOC providers in Udacity and Coursera respectively. By the end of 2011, there were only 10 MOOCs in the world, yet, by 2012, the New York Times was heralding the ‘year of the MOOC’ (Pappano, 2012).

By 2013 the world reached the peak of MOOC hype (Agarwal, 2013; Booker, 2013; Friedman, 2013) and, simultaneously, questions started to emerge about the viability of the massive education platforms alongside predictions that they would disappear as quickly as they appeared (Strauss, 2013; Yang, 2013). Adding to the perception that MOOCs were just a ‘flash in the pan’ was Thrun’s 2013 announcement that Udacity was planning to abandon the higher education space to focus on vocational education, labelling the available higher education MOOCs as ‘lousy’ (Schuman, 2013). At the same time that media coverage receded, scholarly publications about MOOCs appeared, perhaps reflecting the lag in time involved in the academic publication cycle, with several special issues of prominent education journals being published focusing on this topic including the Journal of Online Learning and Teaching in 2013, the International Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning, the Journal of Global Literacies, Technology and Emerging Pedagogy and Distance Education in 2014, and the British Journal of Educational Technology in 2015. Despite this academic activity, by 2014 it seemed that much of the initial focus on MOOCs had died down (Zemsky, 2014) leading to a perception that the predictions of demise were coming to pass.

However, the latest data on MOOCs does not support this hypothesis. While MOOCs may not have had the revolutionary impact that was envisaged in 2012, MOOCs have continued a steady evolution in the higher education sector. In 2012 only 2.6% of institutions in the United States were hosting a MOOC; this figure grew to 11.3% by 2014 (Allan & Seaman, 2016). In 2015, approximately 1,800 new MOOCs were announced, taking the total number of MOOCs presented since the first in 2009 to 4,200, representing a 75% growth rate over that year. More than 500 universities now offer MOOCs and more than 35 million students have enrolled in one (Shah, 2015), with more students taking a MOOC in 2015 than the previous three years combined (Online and eLearning, 2016). Thus, like Mark Twain, is seems that reports of the death of the MOOC may have been greatly exaggerated. So while the media hype that was linked to MOOCs in 2012 and 2013 has abated, MOOCs – as platforms for delivering higher education – continue to grow at significant rates.

The arrival of MOOCs in the broad consciousness of students, educators, and university administrators had two quite different impacts. The first was the excitement of the emancipatory potential of this type of access to higher education – they enabled anyone to study, from anywhere in the world, for free, and provided tuition by some of the most well-regarded and prestigious universities. This was seen as having the revolutionary potential to bring about the democratisation of higher education and open it up beyond the barriers of wealth, location and credentials that act to limit access for many people (McKenna, 2013).

The second, less positive, impact was to create a level of panic in the higher education sector about the disruptive potential of this type of educational delivery on how traditional universities operate, and the concomitant dismay over the assumptions around teaching and learning that MOOCs employed. Indeed, MOOCs were seen as a threat to the very existence of the university as an institution (Groove, 2013; Shirky, 2013; Zhu, 2012). Sebastian Thrun famously speculated in 2012 that in 50 years’ time there might only be 10 institutions teaching higher education due to the revolutionary impact of MOOCs, and that of these at least one he could see as being a MOOC provider rather than a university (Leckart, 2012). In this vision, MOOCs would cause the disintermediation of the university system as the MOOC replaced traditional university teaching; the free nature of these online courses would significantly threaten the capacity for institutions to generate funding, as tuition fees would be forced to compete with MOOC offerings.

Concurrently with these perceived threats to the university system were concerns about the sort of future higher education might have if it were to be led through MOOCs. There were anxieties about the low completion rates for students in MOOCs (Pretz, 2014); the poor learning outcomes (Perez-Hernandez, 2014); and the behaviourist–pedagogical assumptions of direct knowledge transmission at the expense of critical and creative thinking that seemed to underpin the place of teaching and learning in the MOOC model (Bates, 2012). Some of this criticism was addressed at the very idea of higher education offered through the internet (Rees, 2013) and indeed much of the hype around MOOCs did seem to conflate them with other forms of distance education offered through the web (Kent & Leaver, 2014).

Despite, or perhaps because of, their perceived threat to the prevailing university system, many institutions started to produce them. In some cases, this was to explore the potential of a new way of delivering education at a distance; however, there was also a sense of not wanting to miss out, not wanting to be left behind if MOOCs lived up to Thrun’s frightening predictions for the university sector. While the desire to produce MOOCs was strong, there were a number of barriers to quick adoption. Universities, as generally risk-adverse institutions, often take time to make decisions that require devoting resources to learning and teaching innovation, particularly when there is no obvious financial return. Additionally, MOOCs can be expensive to develop as well as run (Parr, 2015). They are also time-consuming, as aside from the institutional inertia in gaining approval for MOOC production, MOOC development itself can also be a time-consuming process. These lengthy time delays may help explain the continuing development of MOOCs into the present, but they do not adequately account for the level of continued rapid growth.

Since their conceptions, MOOCs and MOOC providers have rapidly responded to the demands of the online education market, and have continually changed and adapted their product. They have developed forms of recognised credentials for participants ranging from badges on LinkedIn to more formal certifications. MOOC providers have also found ways to monetise their product (Shah, 2015), including charging universities to run their MOOCs and charging students for completion credentials. It must be noted, however, that this increase in MOOC ‘fees’ challenges the ‘openness’ promised by the first ‘o’ in the acronym and may have contributed to the change in the MOOC subjects being offered, with a noticeable growth in technology and business over humanities and social sciences (Shah, 2015). There are exceptions to this generalisation, for example the A Life of Happiness and Fulfilment MOOC from the Indian School of Business in Hyderabad, was the third most popular MOOC in 2015 (Wexler, 2015). MOOC providers have also, like Udacity, expanded beyond university markets into other areas of education and training.

This continued growth seems to show that the MOOC, at least in the foreseeable future, is here to stay. Wexler observes ‘even as the MOOC hype has started to die down, interest hasn’t tapered off’ (2015). So where to next for MOOCs? They are surviving, and arguably thriving, yet they have become unshackled from their original premise – to fundamentally change the university sector, to always be cost-free and to remain massive in scale. With the initial hype and, to an extent, the promise presented in that hype subsiding, the question to be answered in this collection is – what role do MOOCs fulfil in a ‘post-MOOC’ landscape now that the hysteria has died down and the form has become a viable – and, arguably, ordinary – vehicle for delivering higher education online?

Much of the initial analysis of MOOCs has focused on the divide between the cMOOC’ or connectivist MOOC, a style that mirrors the initial University of Manitoba MOOC from 2009 that is more focused on collective learning and the xMOOC that is more commonly associated with the larger MOOCs from Stanford in 2011 and tends to feature less student and staff interaction (Daniel, 2012). While the chapters in this volume discuss this divide, the chapters presented here go further to explore the contemporary MOOC environment from the perspectives of both students and academic developers. They also look at different ways of deploying MOOCs both in terms of the platforms they are used on, and the content and target market for students. They explore how MOOCs can be brought more into the mainstream of higher education by providing students with credit towards a larger degree. Chapters here also critique the contemporary MOOC environment and question the failure of the platforms to reach their earlier optimistic promise of providing an education for all, looking at both their Western English language focus on the developed world, and also the economic and pedagogical assumptions that underpinned the MOOC as a vehicle for learning and teaching.

The opening chapters help to establish the limitations of MOOCs in the present – while offering insights and incentives to push beyond these into the future – examining cultural, social and economic barriers that prevent certain student demographics from fully participating in higher education MOOC learning. They present a rationale for statistics that suggest the ‘average’ MOOC user is university-educated, middle-aged, middle-class and from the ‘developed world’ (Greene, Oswald, & Pomeranz, 2015). Further, the confusion between ‘access’ and ‘active participation’ in MOOCs is explored through post-Fordist and post-colonial analysis of the various forms of power, experience and capital needed to transform MOOC education into a vehicle for social and class mobility.

For example, Bennett and Kent compare the massification of the manufacturing industry in the 1920s with the massification of university education in the 2010s, in the form of MOOCs. Using automobile analogies, we focus on the early MOOC template’s failure to consider the needs of non-traditional students in their development and design, thus limiting their ability to function as a tool for improving economic, social and cultural circumstances though education. Bali and Sharma continue this critical conversation, extending the discussion into the post-colonial space. They highlight the Western-centric history and form of the majority of MOOCs on offer and explore barriers to participation for students outside a ‘Western’ paradigm. Looking to the future, the chapter envisions how a globally inclusive, post-colonial MOOC might function.

Xin Wang then takes a contrasting approach looking at how MOOCs can be reinterpreted at a local level and challenge the traditional understanding of the internationalisation of higher education. Focusing on China, this chapter explores how universities are using MOOCs to engage with both global and local learners to provide ‘their own voice and agendas’. Ng and McRae then explore when and how university credit can be attributed to MOOCs and the consequences of this for the place of the MOOC in the broader higher education context.

Having explored the arguments that MOOC education does not adequately cater to non-traditional students as the early hype suggested it might, the collection turns to the experiences of students who do join and participate in MOOCs. University teacher Melanie James applies auto-ethnographic analysis to her own experiences as a MOOC student. From the dual perspectives of student and someone who may have to design a MOOC in the future, she was pleasantly surprised by the high quality learning materials she was presented with and suggested that they would definitely appeal to certain types of student demographics – notably those with some higher education experience. Conversely, James expresses concern with the lack of academic mentoring in discussion forums and peer-feedback, both of which seemed to lead students astray. Liyanagunawardenu, Parslow and Williams offer a different take on MOOC participation, in a qualitative investigation of student perceptions of success. The study examines the correlation between completion and engagement, allowing students to define their own experiences of ‘success’. The results find that perceptions of successful participation in a MOOC are subjective and flexible, suggesting that accreditation is not the only – or even ideal – measure of a successful MOOC experience.

Smith, Dowse, Soldatic and Kent next approach the process of the development of a MOOC from the academic’s perspective. This interview based chapter works through the process of the development of the Disability and a Good Life MOOC series at the University of New South Wales in 2016. The chapter explores the process of development from institutional approval through to launch. It also provides a reflection on disability and accessibility in higher education in the MOOC context.

Transitioning from the contemporary student, educator and designer perspective the final chapters in the collection focus on innovative uses of MOOCs in the education space and potential future directions for the platform. This technological evolution sets a strong foundation for the future survival of this – still relatively new – educational genre once the dust has settled. Additionally, the merger of social media and MOOC learning is a common thread that connects the final chapters. Each one offers a template for a MOOC of the future, setting a ‘post-MOOC’ scene in higher education where the original xMOOC format is almost unrecognisable and the acronyms are beginning to morph and change. This post-MOOC landscape illustrates successful variations of the MOOC that harness the potential in social media to fuel massive engagement in online learning space – and/or, conversely, using online learning space to better understand the potential for learning, connecting and sharing thorough social media.

Moseley and Scarborough recount the success of intentionally embedding social media into the curriculum of their Community Journalism MOOC. The context-relevant social media discussions simultaneously fuelled student engagement and mirrored the social media driven aspects of the community journalism profession. Additionally, the insights gained from conversations between journalism students from a diverse range of national, political and ethnic backgrounds, enabled through the ‘massive’ format, deepened the students’ political and cultural awareness and understanding of the issues presented. Booth et al. utilise the hashtag to create a ‘third space’ for online education by illustrating the ‘MOOC-like’ engagement catalysed through a mandated hashtag discussion based on the tag: #walkmyworld. This experience resulted in a pedagogical outlook that re-interprets the MOOC acronym to stand for a blended mentored open online community, where university courses and MOOCs intersect and complement one another instead of competing for students and resources.

Another example of...