- Valued as a natural part of universities’ course offerings
- Valued as valuable learning and educational initiatives
- Recognized as valid courses taken at learners’ own universities or from other providers
- Valued as pedagogical innovations
- Valued as change agents and facilitators in the transition to opening up education
- Valued as fostering innovation, access, equity, inclusion
- Valued as lifelong learning opportunities and continuing professional development
- Valued in policy, strategies, and action plans
- Included in quality enhancement and quality assurance processes
The Definition and Role of MOOCs
[MOOCs are] online courses designed for large numbers of participants… [They] can be accessed by anyone anywhere as long as they have an Internet connection, are open to everyone without entry qualifications, and offer a full/complete course experience for free.
2.1. Sources of Data
2.2. Data Analysis
- Identifying a phenomenon, object, event, or setting of interest.
- Identifying a few local concepts, principles, structural or process features of the experience or phenomenon of interest.
- Making decisions regarding the initial collection of data based on one’s initial understanding of the phenomenon.
3.1. MOOCs and Quality-Related Issues
- Openness to learners—includes free of charge, free admittance, open access, learn anywhere online, start anytime, self-paced learning as well as diversity in languages and cultures.
- Digital openness—includes free of charge and open licenses.
- Learner-centered approach—includes the removal of all unnecessary barriers to learning. Courses should aid students to construct their own learning in a rich environment and to share and communicate their learning with others; they should not simply focus on the transmission of content knowledge to students. The learner-centered approach includes learner-centered activities.
- Independent learning—includes built-in support, tutoring, and the best online resources.
- Media-supported interaction—course materials should use online affordances (e.g., interactivity, communication, collaboration) as well as rich media (e.g., video and audio) to engage learners.
- Recognition options—the opportunity to get a badge or a certificate of course completion (as evidence of completion). Because MOOCs are considered courses, they should offer educational content, facilitate interaction among peers (including some but limited interaction with academic staff), activities/tasks, tests, including feedback, some (non-formal) recognition options, and a study guide or syllabus.
- Quality focus—the quality of the course is assured and is accredited by the European Qualification Framework (EQF). In short, OpenupEd provides real opportunities to participate in higher education and quality learning opportunities to all.
- Spectrum of diversity—diversity in languages and cultures, approaches and contexts, variety and profiling. Diversity is a main advantage of new learning technologies.
- Allows possibilities for choice-based learning
- Fosters ownership
- Fosters flexibility
- Embraces and allows recognition and validation
3.4. Course Credits
3.5. Interactions with Other Learners and with the Materials
3.7. Lifelong Learning and Continuous Professional Development
3.8. MOOCs Promote the Validation and Recognition of Prior and Informal Learning
3.9. MOOCs as Facilitators and Change Agents to Promote Innovation and the Transition to Open Online Learning
...truly open up education while enhancing learning, the pedagogies in place by 2030 must take into account entirely new groups of learners as well as vastly new roles that will emerge for educators. Such pedagogical approaches must also utilize innovative approaches to the design of that learning.
3.10. MOOCs Change Business Models for Universities
Conflicts of Interest
- European Commission. Opening up Education to Boost Innovation and Digital Skills in Schools and Universities. 2013. Available online: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-859_en.htm (accessed on 30 March 2016).
- Dos Santos, A.I.; Punie, Y.; Castaño-Muñoz, J. Opportunities and challenges for the future of MOOCs and open education in Europe. In From Books to MOOCs? Emerging Models of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education; de Corte, E., Engwall, L., Teichler, U., Eds.; Portland Press: London, UK, 2016; Volume 88, pp. 81–91. [Google Scholar]
- Ossiannilsson, E. Let the Learners Take the Lead For Their Learning and Educational Lifelong Learning Journey. In Handbook of Research on Learning-Centred Pedagogy in Teacher Education and Professional Development; Keengwe, J., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Daniel, J. Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2012, 3, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ossiannilsson, E. Challenges and Opportunities for Active and Hybrid Learning Related to UNESCO post 2015. In Handbook of Research on Active Learning and the Flipped Classroom Model in the Digital Age; Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 333–351. [Google Scholar]
- Atkins, D.E.; Brown, J.S.; Hammond, A.L. A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities; Creative Commons: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Haggard, S.; Brown, S.; Mills, R.; Tait, A.; Warburton, S.; Lawton, W.; Angulo, T. The Maturing of the MOOC: Literature Review of Massive Open Online Courses and Other Forms of Online Learning; BIS research paper, Research paper no. 130; Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, UK Government: London, UK, 2013.
- Shan, D. MOOCs in 2015: Breaking Down the Numbers. EdSurge. Available online: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2015-12-28-moocs-in-2015-breaking-down-the-numbers (accessed on 30 March 2016).
- Gaebel, M. MOOCs: Massive Open Online Courses. An Update of EUS’s First Paper (January 2013); The European University Association (EUA): Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- McAuley, A.; Stewart, B.; Siemens, G.; Cormier, D. The MOOC Model for Digital Practice, SSHRC Knowledge Synthesis Grant on the Digital Economy. ElearningSpace, 2010. Available online: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2016).
- Jansen, D.; Schuwer, R. Institutional MOOC Strategies in Europe: Status Report Based on a Mapping Survey Conducted in October–December 2015; EADTU: Heerlen, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Forbes. Use of MOOCs and Online Education is Exploding: Here’s Why. 2015. Available online: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2016/01/05/use-of-moocs-and-online-education-is-exploding-heres-why/#10e5c5b87f09 (accessed on 30 March 2016).
- Siemens, G. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Int. J. Instr. Technol. Distance Learn. 2005, 2, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
- Baker, R.M.; Passmore, D.L. Value and Pricing of MOOCs. Educ. Sci. 2016, 6, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reich, J. Rebooting MOOC Research. Science 2015, 347, 34–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, J. Can MOOCs Be Interesting to Students? An Experimental Investigation from a Regulatory Focus Perspective. Comput. Educ. 2016, 95, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raffaghelli, J.E.; Cucchiara, S.; Persico, D. Methodological Approaches in MOOC Research: Retracing the Myth of Proteus. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2015, 46, 488–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salisbury, A.D. The Impacts of MOOCs on Higher Education . Higher ED BETA, 2014. Available online: https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-beta/impacts-moocs-higher-education (accessed on 30 March 2016).
- Salisbury, A.D. The Inverse MOOC. Higher ED BETA, 2015. Available online: https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-beta/inverse-mooc (accessed on 30 March 2016).
- Cook, M. State of the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies: A Year of Changing Landscape. Change for Massive Open Online Courses. Online Course Report, 2016. Available online: http://www.onlinecoursereport.com/state-of-the-mooc-2016-a-year-of-massive-landscape-change-for-massive-open-online-courses/ (accessed on 30 March 2016).
- Witthaus, G.; dos Santos, A.I.; Childs, M.; Tannhäuser, A.; Conole, G.; Nkuyubwatsi, B.; Punie, Y. Validation of Non-Fformal MOOC-Based Learning: An Analysis of Assessment and Recognition Practices in Europe (OpenCred); EUR 27660 EN; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veletsianos, G.; Shepherdson, P. A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2016, 17, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glaser, B.G. The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis. Soc. Probl. 1965, 12, 436–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liyanagunawardena, T.R.; Adams, A.A.; Williams, S.A. MOOCs: A Systematic Study of the Published Literature 2008–2012. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2013, 14, 202–227. [Google Scholar]
- Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Aldine De Gruyter: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Miles, M.B.; Hubermans, A.M. Qualitative Data Analysis; SAGE: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, F.; Luo, T.; Zhang, K. Tweeting for Learning: A Critical Analysis of Research on Microblogging in Education Published in 2008–2011. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2012, 43, 783–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denzin, N.K.; Lincoln, Y.S. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials; SAGE: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Alcorn, B.; Christensen, G.; Devesh Kapur, D. Higher Education and MOOCs in India and the Global South. Chang. Mag. High. Learn. 2015, 47, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sancho, T.; de Vries, F. Virtual Learning Environments, Social Media and MOOCs: Key Elements in the Conceptualisation of New Scenarios in Higher Education; EADTU Conference 2013. Open Learn. J. Open Distance E-Learn. 2013, 28, 166–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scanlon, E. Open Educational Resources in Support of science learning: Tools for inquiry and observation. Distance Educ. 2012, 33, 221–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mune, C. Massive Open Online Librarianship: Emerging Practices in Response to MOOCs. J. Libr. Inf. Serv. Distance Learn. 2015, 9, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diver, P.; Martinez, I. MOOCs as a Massive Research Laboratory: Opportunities and Challenges. Distance Educ. 2015, 36, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Billington, P.; Fronmeller, M. MOOCs and the Future of Higher Education. J. High. Educ. Theory Pract. 2013, 13, 3–4. [Google Scholar]
- Ossiannilsson, E.; Williams, K.; Camilleri, A.; Brown, M. Quality Models in Online and Open Education Around the Globe; The International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE): Oslo, Norway, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kear, K.; Roswell, J.; Williams, K. Quality Assessment for E-Learning a Benchmarking Approach, 3rd ed.; The European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU): Heerlen, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Rosewell, J.; Jansen, D. The OpenupEd Quality Label: Benchmarks for MOOCs. INNOQUAL: Int. J. Innov. Qual. Learn. 2014, 2, 88–100. [Google Scholar]
- Zimmerman, L. Critical Importance of Social Interaction in Online Courses. ETC J. 2011. Available online: https://etcjournal.com/2011/01/02/7050/ (accessed on 30 March 2016). [Google Scholar]
- Lederman, D. Expanding Pathways to MOOC Credit. Inside Higher Education. Available online: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/07//ae-deems-5-massive-open-courses-worthy-credits (accessed on 30 March 2016).
- Pope, J. Coursera Announces 10 Public Universities Plan MOOC Adoption. JHETP 2013, 13. Available online: http://pickstuff.net/coursera-announces-10-public-universities-plan-mooc-adoption-2/ (accessed on 30 March 2016). [Google Scholar]
- Field, K. Student Aid Can Be Awarded for “Competencies,” Not Just Credit Hours, U.S. Says. Chronicle of Higher Education, 29 March 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Cole, A.W.; Timmerman, C.E. What Do Current College Students Think about MOOCs? MERLOT J. Online Learn. Teach. 2015, 11, 188–201. [Google Scholar]
- Veletsianos, G.; Collier, A.; Schneider, E. Digging Deeper into Learners’ Experiences in MOOCs: Participation in Social Networks outside of MOOCs, Notetaking and Contexts Surrounding Content Consumption. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2015, 46, 570–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conole, C. Designing Effective MOOCs. Educ. Media Int. 2015, 52, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emanuel, E.J. Online Education: Moocs Taken by Educated Few. Nature 2015, 503, 342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ferguson, R.; Sharples, M.; Beale, R. MOOCs 2030: A Future for Massive Online Learning. In MOOCs and Open Education around the World; Bonk, C., Miyoung Lee, M., Reeves, T., Reynolds, T., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2015; pp. 315–326. [Google Scholar]
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).