As part of our assignment for LRNT526: Inquiry into Contemporary Issues in Learning Technologies, we were asked to conduct a critical inquiry on a delivery technology and learning event. Our team for this activity (Team Brilliant) includes Ashley Breton, Emma Keating, Alison Kendrick, and Karen McMurray.
Our team selected Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) as our technology to explore, research, and present. Collectively, we are auditing “The Science of Wellbeing” (TSW), a free Yale course taught by Dr. Laurie Santos offered through Coursera. We chose Coursera because it is the largest MOOC provider — with over 100 million students worldwide (Shah, 2021) — TSW being one of the most popular within the Coursera MOOC lineup (Foster, 2020).
Our initial research relied on blogs, online newspapers, reports, and peer-reviewed articles to immerse ourselves in the current conversation surrounding MOOCs: their use, history, and potential drawbacks. Since their inception, MOOCs have provided greater access to online learning to a greater number of people, at a much lower cost than traditional education (Bates, 2014).
The MOOC phenomenon started out in 2008 as a single course on learning theory called “Connectivism and Connective Knowledge” offered at the University of Manitoba, where fee-paying university students and non-fee paying online students from the general public studied together on a voluntary basis (Watters, n.d.). At this time, a MOOC (referred to as a cMOOC: Connectivist MOOC) was an open-access interactive course available on the Web to anyone, anywhere, at no cost (Bates, 2014). Hallmarks of this technology platform included features, such as, flexible and collaborative learning and open licensing of content to promote the reuse and remixing of resources (Massive Open Online Course, 2022).
Fast forward to the present day, MOOCs, now dubbed xMOOCs, are a very different model from their origins. Most notably, they are no longer free, as a service layer was added to support learners, are no longer very interactive, as they follow a more traditional university lecture model, and are no longer open, as content cannot be repurposed or reused without permission (Bates, 2014). In addition, MOOCs today rely on computer automation and new software to accommodate higher numbers of synchronous participants (Murphy et al., 2014). Moreover, most present-day MOOCs are offered by a handful of well-known providers, namely Coursera, Udemy, EdX, and Udacity.
The current debate around the impact of MOOCs is divided. Ed-tech hype in the early 2010s claimed MOOCs were a “disruptive” technology or were regarded as game-changers that would essentially replace higher education (Christensen, 2010 as cited in Bates, 2014). Sebastian Thrun, former Stanford professor and founder of MOOC provider Udacity, claimed that “in 50 years, there would only be 10 universities, and Udacity would be one of them” (Bonk et al., 2017, p. xiii). The New York Times even went so far as dubbing 2012 “The Year of the MOOC” (Pappano, 2012).
The benefits of MOOCs are undeniable. MOOCs fill a gap for learners who lack the time and money to physically attend a course offering high-quality content. However, others have been more skeptical and point to their failure to live up to their promise of providing knowledge to every citizen in the world (Marshall, 2014). Bates (2016) points out that MOOCs are not “disruptive” at all, but merely an adaptation of 15 years worth of well-established pedagogical approaches in online learning.
Unfortunately, despite the seemingly unlimited access to free information offered by MOOC providers, most students drop out of their online courses before completion. According to Murphy et al. (2014), some MOOCs have less than a 10% completion rate, with one of the most common reasons for dropping out being a lack of live teacher-student engagement. The question then follows, are MOOCs indeed living up to their hype? Are they changing the game of online learning? George Siemens, Canada’s MOOC pioneer, says no. He suggests MOOC advocates responsible for driving the hype were never really interested in fulfilling the original MOOC vision of universal education for all, but were more interested in marketing MOOCs as a new technology product to capitalize on (Tamburri, 2014), which, at least in part, could explain their many shortcomings.
Our critical inquiry will examine MOOCs through a systematic review of “The Science of Wellbeing” (TSW), using personal observations from our learning event and evidence from peer-reviewed research to determine the strengths and weaknesses of this technology. Using knowledge gained from both research and experience, we will endeavor to answer the following questions:
- How do MOOCs expand the democratization of education, and how do they detract from it?
- In terms of course design, what barriers do culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students face when engaging with this technology? How is space created for those outside the anglosphere?
- How do we improve MOOC completion rates by increasing student participation and motivation?
- How are MOOCs suited for corporate training? Can MOOCs for corporate training be the disrupters of MOOCs for higher education?
We invite our colleagues to share experiences, understanding, and opinions on MOOCs. What is wrong or right with them? Are they or are they not living up to their promise of universal education?
References
Bates, T. (2014, October 12). What is a MOOC [Blog]? Tony Bates. Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/12/what-is-a-mooc/
Bates, T. (2016, July 20). Online learning for beginners:3. ‘Aren’t MOOCs online learning [Blog]? Tony Bates. Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2016/07/20/online-learning-for-beginners-3-arent-moocs-online-learning/
Bonk, C., Lee, M., Reeves, T., & Reynolds, R. (2017). The role of MOOCs and the future of education. In MOOCs and open education around the world. The University of California. Retrieved from https://ca1lib.org/book/5285135/7f6abe
Foster, L. (2020, October 13) These are the most popular online courses on Coursera. World Economic Forum Jobs Reset Summit.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/2019-most-popular-moocs-coursera/
Maggioncalda, J. (2020). Coursera impact report. Coursera. Retrieved from https://about.coursera.org/press/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Coursera-Impact-Report-2020.pdf
Marshall, S. (2014). Exploring the ethical implications of MOOCs. Distance Education. DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2014.917706.
Massive Open Online Course (2022, April 15). Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course
Murphy, J., Williams, A., & Lennox, A. (2014). MOOCs in VET and higher education. 22nd National Vocational Education and Training Research Conference ‘No Frills’: refereed papers. Australian College of Applied
Education. 76-82. https://www.ncver.edu.au/__data/assets/file/0025/16765/22nd-no-frills-2728.pdf#page=78
Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html
Shah, D. (2021, December 14). Year of MOOC-based degrees: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2021. ClassCentral. Retrieved from https://www.classcentral.com/report/moocs-stats-and-trends-2021/
Tamburri, R. (2014, February 12). An interview with Canadian MOOC pioneer George Siemens. University Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/an-interview-with-canadian-mooc-pioneer-george-siemens/
Watters, A. (n.d.). MOOCS: The what, the how, and the why. E-learning Matters. Retrieved from https://www.e-learningmatters.com/moocs-the-what-the-how-and-the-why/
Hello Team Brilliant, from the perspective of someone who has never experienced a MOOC, I want to ask if MOOCs incorporate a reflective piece in the learning. Over the past few courses, we learned a lot about how reflection may promote deeper learning in students. I wonder if any of your readings will compare courses with and without reflective activities, and whether or not the reflective piece has any impact on student engagement and motivation? Would the prompts for self-reflection drive MOOC completion rates in any way? Looking forward to seeing what you find!
Hi Jolee! Thank you for your comment. The Coursera MOOC, which our team is currently evaluating (The Science of Well-being), requires numerous reflections. The entire course is embedded with small reflective activities called “rewirements”, which attempt to change the “bad” habits of course participants. Your suggestion to compare Coursera courses with and without reflective activities would be interesting. I would also be curious to know whether or not reflective features impact student engagement and motivation. I suspect they would.
According to (Conole, 2013), when engaging with a technology-driven learning environment (such as a MOOC), effective learning should: (1) encourage reflection, (2) enable dialogues, (3) foster collaboration, (4) apply theory to practice, (5) create a community of peers, (6) enable creativity, and (7) motivate the learners. Shah et al. (2022) point out that MOOCs without these design components encourage more passive learners, low degrees of belonging, lack of engagement, and limited interactivity with course content and peers, which are likely to result in low completion rates.
References:
Conole, G. (2013). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: Strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista De Educación a Distancia, 39, 1–17.https://revistas.um.es/red/article/view/234221
Shah, V., Murthy, S., & Warriem, J. (2022). Learner-centric MOOC model: A pedagogical design model towards active learner participation and higher completion rates. Education and Technology Research and Development, 70, 263–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10081-4
Team 2,
You’ve captured the key history and components of MOOCs very ably in this summary, uncovered good literature and raised important questions. I look forward to see what turns up in your explorations, particularly in the context of the questions you’ve raised.