![\"ice](\"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/199\/2022\/05\/Iceberg-MOOC-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Co-written by Ashley Breton, Emma Keating<\/a><\/span>, Alison Kendrick<\/span><\/a>, and Karen McMurray<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n The iceberg analogy has long been used to illustrate that what we can see at the surface is not always what it seems. The same can be said about Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which Bates (2015) calls \u201c\u2026the most disruptive of all technologically-based innovations in higher education, and as a result\u2026 the most controversial\u201d (p. 166). While this statement may seem presumptuous, the early promise of MOOCs led Sebastian Thrun, the founder of Udacity, to famously claim that by 2022, there would only be 10 institutions globally offering higher education (Weller, 2020). While that has obviously not come to fruition, the emergence of MOOCs remains a significant contribution to the educational technology landscape.<\/p>\n A Bit about MOOCs<\/strong> Strengths and Weaknesses<\/strong> Critical Research Process<\/strong> We then engaged in some initial research on MOOCs to become familiar with the current literature, but we agreed that research alone could only teach us so much; we wanted to experience the technology first-hand. We decided to enroll and participate in a MOOC in the hopes that we could make connections to our research. We selected \u201cThe Science of Well-Being\u201d, a course developed by Yale University and offered through Coursera, the largest MOOC provider with over 97 million students (Coursera, SEC 2021 Annual Report). \u201cThe Science of Well-Being\u201d was one of Coursera\u2019s most popular courses during the COVID-19 pandemic, and is adapted from the \u201cPsychology and the Good Life\u201d taught by Yale University professor Dr. Laurie Santos, who also teaches \u201cThe Science of Well-Being\u201d. The course is made up of a series of videos, readings, and a quiz per week for 10 weeks. It also has discussion forums for each week\u2019s topic, as well as, ones to ask the professor questions and to give course feedback. A course certificate is available for students who earn a passing grade on each quiz.<\/p>\n Our experience with \u201cThe Science of Well-Being\u201d and our initial research began to reveal some interesting elements of MOOCs throughout their history, including how MOOCs have evolved in their design. According to Bates (2014), cMOOCs were the first version of MOOCs and are based on connectivist pedagogy associated with a community of practice and are co-created by participants through the exchange of prior knowledge and experiences. Later, xMOOCs emerged, which are now the most common type of MOOC. xMOOCs are based on behaviourist pedagogy and follow the traditional university lecture-based model. Typically, they are developed by institutions and licensed to MOOC providers, but they are becoming increasingly supported by corporations. For example, \u201cAT&T provided $2 million to Georgia Institute of Technology to fund a MOOC master\u2019s degree in computer science\u201d (Schatsky, 2015, Chapter 4).<\/p>\n The tension to reach profit goals within \u201cThe Science of Well-Being\u201d became evident as we progressed through the course. We also took note of the didactic nature of the course, which was exacerbated by the lack of connection points beyond teacher-to-student communication. While there was little connectivism in the course itself, the look of connectivism was seemingly staged with a student audience during the lectures.<\/p>\n Much like the analogy of the iceberg, some of the ways we understood MOOCs before embarking on this journey were above the surface, but our research and experiences have revealed aspects of MOOCs that are below the surface. These aspects have helped us narrow and shape our individual critical issues.<\/p>\n Critical Issues<\/strong> Conclusion<\/strong> 5 Key References<\/strong> 2. \u200b\u200bHodges, C. B. (2008). Self-efficacy in the context of online learning environments: A review of the literature and directions for research. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(3\u20104), 7-25. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/piq.20001<\/a><\/p>\n 3. Littlejohn, A. & Hood, N. (2018) Reconceptualising learning in the digital age: The [Un] democratizing Potential of MOOCs. Springer<\/em>.
A MOOC is a free distance learning program that is designed for the participation of large numbers of geographically dispersed learners via the web (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2016). As stated by Bates (2015), \u201cthe term MOOCs was used for the first time in 2008 for a course offered by the Extension Division of the University of Manitoba\u201d (p. 168). The course, Connectivism and Connective Knowledge, was designed by George Siemens, Stephen Downes, and Dave Cormier and had 2200 students enrolled in its free online version. Later in 2011, Stanford University professors Sebastian Thrun and Peter Norvig developed the MOOC, The Introduction to AI, which had 160,000 enrollments. By 2021, MOOCs had reached 220 million learners through providers such as Coursera, edX, and Udacity (Shah, 2021).<\/p>\n
Some of the strengths of MOOCs include: how they deliver high-quality content from elite universities, they are accessible which allows them to be shared globally, and they force institutions to re-evaluate their attitudes to online learning (Bates, 2015). Some of the weaknesses of MOOCs include: low participation rates, with less than 10% of MOOCs being completed (Murphy et al, 2014), cultural imperialism, where \u2154 of MOOCs are developed in English-speaking countries (Trucano, 2013 as cited in Montbello, 2019, p. 219), and copyright restrictions (Bates, 2015).<\/p>\n
Our team chose to explore MOOCs as our technology based on their accessibility and our overall familiarity with MOOCs. Early on, we had discussions about each of our previous experiences with MOOCs, which ranged from one team member having engaged with a MOOC platform without knowing what a MOOC was, to one team member who is currently enrolled in one. While each of our experiences left us with a basic understanding of MOOCs, we felt it was somewhat of a superficial understanding and wanted to expand our knowledge on the deeper implications of MOOCs.<\/p>\n
Based on our research, we have chosen to examine the following critical issues in relation to MOOCs:
Ashley – The impact of universal design on MOOC learning environments and inclusivity
Emma – The factors that affect MOOC completion rates, and how to increase student participation and motivation
Karen – How MOOCs contribute to or detract from the democratization of education, focusing on openness.
Alison – The relationship between MOOCs and corporate training<\/p>\n
As our team continues to comb through the literature about MOOCs and our critical issues, we have developed research questions to help guide us, and have documented our personal observations and learning experiences. As we continue this journey, we endeavour to align our experiences with MOOCs and \u201cThe Science of Well-Being\u201d to the current literature with the intention of making meaningful connections to our critical issues.<\/p>\n
1. Dodson, M. N., Kitburi, K., & Berge, Z. L. (2015). Possibilities for MOOCs in corporate training and development. Performance Improvement, 54<\/em>(10), 14\u201321. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/pfi.21532<\/a><\/p>\n
https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/978-981-10-8893-3.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/199\/2022\/05\/Infographic-Ideas--300x209.jpg\")
\r\n\tCo-written by Ashley Breton, Emma Keating, Alison Kendrick, and Karen McMurray.\r\n\r\n\tThe iceberg analogy has long been used to illustrate that what we can see at the surface is not always what it seems. The same can be said about Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which Bates (2015) calls \u201c\u2026the most disruptive of all technologically-based innovations in higher education, and as a result\u2026 the most controversial\u201d (p. 166). While this statement may seem presumptuous, the early promise of MOOCs led Sebastian Thrun, the founder of Udacity, to famously claim that by 2022, there would only be 10 institutions globally offering higher education (Weller, 2020). While that has obviously not come to fruition, the emergence of MOOCs remains a significant contribution to the educational technology landscape.\r\n\r\nA Bit about MOOCs<\/strong>\r\n\tA MOOC is a free distance learning program that is designed for the participation of large numbers of geographically dispersed learners via the web (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2016). As stated by Bates (2015), \u201cthe term MOOCs was used for the first time in 2008 for a course offered by the Extension Division of the University of Manitoba\u201d (p. 168). The course, Connectivism and Connective Knowledge, was designed by George Siemens, Stephen Downes, and Dave Cormier and had 2200 students enrolled in its free online version. Later in 2011, Stanford University professors Sebastian Thrun and Peter Norvig developed the MOOC, The Introduction to AI, which had 160,000 enrollments. By 2021, MOOCs had reached 220 million learners through providers such as Coursera, edX, and Udacity (Shah, 2021).\r\nStrengths and Weaknesses\r\n\tSome of the strengths of MOOCs include: how they deliver high-quality content from elite universities, they are accessible which allows them to be shared globally, and they force institutions to re-evaluate their attitudes to online learning (Bates, 2015). Some of the weaknesses of MOOCs include: low participation rates, with less than 10% of MOOCs being completed (Murphy et al, 2014), cultural imperialism, where \u2154 of MOOCs are developed in English-speaking countries (Trucano, 2013 as cited in Montbello, 2019, p. 219), and copyright restrictions (Bates, 2015).\r\n\r\nCritical Research Process<\/strong>\r\nOur team chose to explore MOOCs as our technology based on their accessibility and our overall familiarity with MOOCs. Early on, we had discussions about each of our previous experiences with MOOCs, which ranged from one team member having engaged with a MOOC platform without knowing what a MOOC was, to one team member who is currently enrolled in one. While each of our experiences left us with a basic understanding of MOOCs, we felt it was somewhat of a superficial understanding and wanted to expand our knowledge on the deeper implications of MOOCs.\r\n\r\n\tWe then engaged in some initial research on MOOCs to become familiar with the current literature, but we agreed that research alone could only teach us so much; we wanted to experience the technology first-hand. We decided to enroll and participate in a MOOC in the hopes that we could make connections to our research. We selected \u201cThe Science of Well-Being\u201d, a course developed by Yale University and offered through Coursera, the largest MOOC provider with over 97 million students (Coursera, SEC 2021 Annual Report). \u201cThe Science of Well-Being\u201d was one of Coursera\u2019s most popular courses during the COVID-19 pandemic, and is adapted from the \u201cPsychology and the Good Life\u201d taught by Yale University professor Dr. Laurie Santo, who also teaches \u201cThe Science of Well-Being\u201d. The course is made up of a series of videos, readings, and a quiz per week for 10 weeks. It also has discussion forums for each week\u2019s topic, as well as, ones to ask the professor questions and to give course feedback. A course certificate is available for students who earn a passing grade on each quiz. \r\n\r\n\tOur experience with \u201cThe Science of Well-Being\u201d and our initial research began to reveal some interesting elements of MOOCs throughout their history, including how MOOCs have evolved in their design. According to Bates (2014), cMOOCs were the first version of MOOCs and are based on connectivist pedagogy associated with a community of practice and are co-created by participants through the exchange of prior knowledge and experiences. Later, xMOOCs emerged, which are now the most common type of MOOC. xMOOCs are based on behaviourist pedagogy and follow the traditional university lecture-based model. Typically, they are developed by institutions and licensed to MOOC providers, but they are becoming increasingly supported by corporations. For example, \u201cAT&T provided $2 million to Georgia Institute of Technology to fund a MOOC master\u2019s degree in computer science\u201d (Schatsky, 2015, Chapter 4).\r\n\r\n\tThe tension to reach profit goals within \u201cThe Science of Well-Being\u201d became evident as we progressed through the course. We also took note of the didactic nature of the course, which was exacerbated by the lack of connection points beyond teacher-to-student communication. While there was little connectivism in the course itself, the look of connectivism was seemingly staged with a student audience during the lectures.\r\nMuch like the analogy of the iceberg, some of the ways we understood MOOCs before embarking on this journey were above the surface, but our research and experiences have revealed aspects of MOOCs that are below the surface. These aspects have helped us narrow and shape our individual critical issues.\r\n\r\nCritical Issues<\/strong>\r\n\tBased on our research, we have chosen to examine the following critical issues in relation to MOOCs:\r\nAshley - The impact of universal design on MOOC learning environments and inclusivity\r\nEmma - The factors that affect MOOC completion rates, and how to increase student participation and motivation\r\nKaren - How MOOCs contribute to or detract from the democratization of education, focusing on openness. \r\nAlison - The relationship between MOOCs and corporate training\r\n\r\nConclusion<\/strong>\r\n\tAs our team continues to comb through the literature about MOOCs and our critical issues, we have developed research questions to help guide us, and have documented our personal observations and learning experiences. As we continue this journey, we endeavour to align our experiences with MOOCs and \u201cThe Science of Well-Being\u201d to the current literature with the intention of making meaningful connections to our critical issues.\r\n\r\n5 Key References<\/strong>\r\n1. Dodson, M. N., Kitburi, K., & Berge, Z. L. (2015). Possibilities for MOOCs in corporate training and development. Performance Improvement, 54<\/em>(10), 14\u201321. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/pfi.21532\r\n2. \u200b\u200bHodges, C. B. (2008). Self-efficacy in the context of online learning environments: A review of the literature and directions for research. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(3\u20104), 7-25. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/piq.20001 \r\n3. Littlejohn, A. & Hood, N. (2018) Reconceptualising learning in the digital age: The [Un] democratizing Potential of MOOCs. Springer<\/em>. \r\nhttps:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/978-981-10-8893-3.pdf\r\n4. Murphy, J., Williams, A., & Lennox, A. (2014). MOOCs in VET and higher education. 22nd National Vocational Education and Training Research Conference \u2018No Frills\u2019: refereed papers. Australian College of Applied Education<\/em>. 76-82.\r\nhttps:\/\/www.ncver.edu.au\/__data\/assets\/file\/0025\/16765\/22nd-no-frills-2728.pdf#page=78\r\n5. Tehari, M., H\u00f6lzle, K., & Meinel, C. (2019). Towards culturally inclusive MOOCs: A design-based approach. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education <\/em>(CSEDU), 597-604. DOI: 10.5220\/0007715805970604\r\n\r\nReferences <\/em>\r\nBates, T. (October 13, 2014). Comparing xMOOCs and cMOOCs: philosophy and practice. Online Learning and Distance Education Resources. Moderated by Tony Bates, Research Associate, Contact North. \r\nhttps:\/\/www.tonybates.ca\/2014\/10\/13\/comparing-xmoocs-and-cmoocs-philosophy-and-practice\/\r\n\r\nBates, T. (2015). Chapter 5 MOOCs. In Teaching in a Digital Age. Pressbooks. Retrieved from https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/teachinginadigitalagev2\/part\/chapter-7-moocs\/\r\n\r\nCoursera 2021 Annual Report 10-K (n.d.). US Securities & Exchange Commission https:\/\/sec.report\/Document\/0000950170-22-002807\/#item1_business\r\n\r\nKaplan, A. & Haenlein, M. (2016). Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster, Business Horizons<\/em>, 59<\/em>(4), 441-450. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.bushor.2016.03.008\r\n\r\nMontebello, M. (2019). The development of massive scale learning and its implications for the digital learner. In Handbook of Research on Digital Learning<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/books.google.ca\/books?id=XVSzDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=MOOC+and+cultural+imperialism&source=bl&ots=IW44zcsOA2&sig=ACfU3U3qS8nGSdIOdPzWWkWWtAOS9Ke6bQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipmcTi3cj3AhUipIkEHWVVCBMQ6AF6BAgsEAM#v=onepage&q=MOOC%20and%20cultural%20imperialism&f=false\r\n\r\nMurphy, J., Williams, A., & Lennox, A. (2014). MOOCs in VET and higher education. 22nd National Vocational Education and Training Research Conference \u2018No Frills\u2019: refereed papers. Australian College of Applied Education<\/em>. 76-82.\r\nhttps:\/\/www.ncver.edu.au\/__data\/assets\/file\/0025\/16765\/22nd-no-frills-2728.pdf#page=78\r\n\r\nSchatsky, D. (2015). Signals for strategists: Sensing emerging trends in business and technology. RosettaBooks<\/em>. Retrieved May 9, 2022, from https:\/\/royalroads.skillport.com\/skillportfe\/main.action?path=summary\/BOOKS\/112116#summary\/BOOKS\/RW$65649:_ss_book:112116\r\n\r\nShah, D. (2021, December 28). A decade of MOOCs: A review of stats and trends for large-scale online courses in 2021 - Edsurge News. EdSurge. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.edsurge.com\/news\/2021-12-28-a-decade-of-moocs-a-review-of-stats-and-trends for-large-scale-online-courses-in-2021 \r\n\r\nWeller, M. (2020). Chapter 19: 2012 Massive Open Online Courses. 25 Years of Ed Tech<\/em>. Athabasca University Press. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.15215\/aupress\/9781771993050.01\r\n\r\n","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lrnt526"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1135","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/199"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1135"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1135\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1145,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1135\/revisions\/1145"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0205\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}