Macro-Level Learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs):

Macro-Level Learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Strategies and Predictions for the Future Elspeth McKay RMIT University, Australia John Lenarcic RMIT University, Australia

A volume in the Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series

Detailed Table of Contents

Foreword.............................................................................................................................................. xvi Preface................................................................................................................................................xviii Acknowledgment............................................................................................................................... xxvi Section 1 Policy Issues in MOOCs Design Chapter 1 Mining a MOOC: What Our MOOC Taught Us about Professional Learning, Teaching, and Assessment............................................................................................................................................... 1 Sandra Milligan, University of Melbourne, Australia Patrick Griffin, University of Melbourne, Australia In July 2014, a massive open online course (MOOC) entitled The Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (ATC21S) was offered within the University of Melbourne’s programme. Designed as a research engagement and dissemination initiative, the ATC21S MOOC enrolled 18,000 education practitioners, predominantly interested in teaching and assessment of complex 21st century skills. This chapter describes the experience of developing and teaching in the MOOC, and of learning through it. The authors suggest areas for ongoing research, and highlight areas in which MOOCs may stimulate broader change. This chapter commences the dialogue for the opening book section – policy issues in MOOCs Design, and responds to the topic of ‘emerging technology and change management issues for eLearning in the MOOCS environment.’ Chapter 2 Quality Assurance for Massive Open Access Online Courses: Building on the Old to Create Something New...................................................................................................................................... 25 Justin Walls, University of Tasmania, Australia Jo-Anne Kelder, University of Tasmania, Australia Carolyn King, University of Tasmania, Australia Sara Booth, University of Tasmania, Australia David Sadler, University of Tasmania, Australia Institutional quality assurance frameworks enable systematic reporting of traditional higher education courses against agreed standards. However, their ability to adequately evaluate quality of a MOOC has not been explored in depth. This chapter, Quality Assurance for Massive Open access Online Courses – building on the old to create something new, explores the added learning and teaching dimensions that

MOOCs offer and the limitations of existing frameworks. Many components of a MOOC are similar to traditional courses and, thus, aspects of quality assurance frameworks directly apply, however they fail to connect with the global, unrestricted reach of an open learning and teaching platform. The chapter uses the University of Tasmania’s first MOOC, Understanding Dementia, as a case. MOOC-specific quality assurance dimensions are presented in an expanded framework, to which the Understanding Dementia MOOC is mapped, to demonstrate its usefulness to a sector grappling with this new learning and teaching modality. This chapter continues the commentary on – Policy issues in MOOCs Design, through the topic of ‘quality issues critical comparison – contrasting old with new.’ Chapter 3 Professional Learning through MOOCs? A Trans-Disciplinary Framework for Building Knowledge, Inquiry, and Expertise........................................................................................................ 48 Jason M. Lodge, University of Melbourne, Australia Melinda J. Lewis, The University of Sydney, Australia This chapter will locate debates around MOOCs within a discussion on the purposes of higher education for professional learning and trends for trans-disciplinary approaches in designs for networked learning. The authors revisit the meaning of a ‘higher’ education in contemporary tertiary contexts and within professional learning degrees and also examine the types of expertise required when designing for and facilitating learning in a MOOC open-style environment. In response to these aims, they offer a transdisciplinary framework (Wadsworth, 2010) drawn from complex systems thinking in health, community and human services, to assist our enquiry into educational innovation. The authors suggest that a more nuanced understanding of the types of expertise required by those involved in macro-level learning occurring in MOOCs will lead towards a greater role in creating the next generation of multi-professional experts. They draw from the learning sciences, epistemologies on ways of being and becoming, and innovations with educational technologies. Chapter 4 MOOCs and the Art Studio: A Catalyst for Innovation and Change in eLearning Development and Studio Pedagogies........................................................................................................................... 61 Howard Errey, RMIT University, Australia Megan J McPherson, Monash University, Australia The challenges of MOOCs are currently a significant issue for universities. New contexts of openness, massiveness and collaboration on the Web are challenging traditional forms of university education delivery. These challenges are catalysts for change both generally and in studio pedagogies in particular. This chapter focus on how disruption caused to traditional art studio teaching models occur through intersection with MOOC activity. The provision of studio arts subjects by MOOC providers is also shown to be innovative for MOOC design and delivery. The authors show these challenges by drawing on their participation in two arts based MOOCs, The Art of Photography and Practice Based Research in the Arts. The MOOC pedagogies of openness, massiveness and collaboration, provide opportunities inherent in studio-based arts delivery which contemporary MOOC platforms rarely achieve. The authors draw into question potential frameworks for evaluating choosing and designing contemporary MOOC activity. This chapter falls within the ‘policy issues in MOOCs design’ with specific relevance for the topic of ‘technology and change management for the MOOCs environment’.

Section 2 Social Networking and Collaborative Learning Chapter 5 Internationalising Social Work Education Using Massive Open Online Courses................................. 75 Linette Hawkins, RMIT University, Australia Jennifer Martin, RMIT University, Australia Elspeth McKay, RMIT University, Australia Supriya Patanayak, Centurion University, Odisha, India & RMIT University, Australia Internationalising the curriculum is a priority of universities worldwide and increasingly a focus of social work education. Social workers espouse principles of global justice and community development yet social work in Australia remains locally focused. A review of international and local trends in the literature on ePedagogy and social work education within the context of internationalising the social work curriculum highlights current trends and practices in blended delivery and future opportunities provided by massive open online courses (MOOCs). Consideration of a case study of educational practices in the design and delivery of a community work course in blended delivery mode in Australia and India and via MOOC offering reveals that contemporary educational technologies can facilitate quality learning and teaching experiences. It is argued that increased flexibility in course offerings provides students with greater choice to engage in a range of quality educational experiences that are locally and globally contextualized. This chapter is well placed for the discussion on social networking and collaborative learning MOOCs – building MOOCs communities. Section 3 ePedagogy and Interactive MOOCs Chapter 6 Learning Theories: ePedagogical Strategies for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in Higher Education................................................................................................................................... 92 Eileen O’Donnell, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Seamus Lawless, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Mary Sharp, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Liam O’Donnell, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland This chapter reviews various learning theories about e-pedagogical strategies for the effective use of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in higher education. E-pedagogical strategies refer to the various teaching methods or approaches used by educators when encouraging students to engage with online learning. An up-to-date broad knowledge of learning theories is required by educators to inform and inspire their teaching approaches. Before developing lesson plans, educators should have a clear idea of the learning outcomes which they hope the learners will achieve by engaging with the lessons, be they delivered on or off line. By knowing the desired learning outcomes in advance of developing the lesson plans, educators have the opportunity to consider various learning theories, teaching methods, and pedagogical strategies to select the most appropriate one(s) to use when creating course content for MOOCs. The chapter continues the discussion on ‘ePedagogy and interactive MOOCs’ from the perspective of addressing the topic of ‘ePedagogy and students’ use of HCI (integrating interactivity into asynchronous MOOCs.’

Chapter 7 Beyond the Phenomenon: Assessment in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)......................... 119 Amit Chauhan, The Florida State University, USA MOOC course offerings and enrollments continue to show an upward spiral with an increasing focus on completion rates. The completion rates of below 10 percent in MOOCs pose a serious challenge in designing effective pedagogical techniques and evolving assessment criterion for such a large population of learners. With more institutions jumping on the bandwagon to offer MOOCs, is completion rate the sole criterion to measure performance and learning outcomes in a MOOC? Learner interaction is central to knowledge creation and a key component of measuring learning outcomes in a MOOC. What are the alternate assessment techniques to measure performance and learning outcomes in a MOOC? MOOCs provide tremendous opportunity to explore emerging technologies to achieve learning outcomes. This chapter looks beyond the popularity of MOOCs by focusing on the assessment trends and analyzing their sustainability in the context of the MOOC phenomenon. The chapter continues the discussion on ‘ePedagogy and interactive MOOCs’ relating to ‘performance measurement issues.’ Section 4 Rich Internet Applications and Educational Practice of MOOCs Chapter 8 What is Best for the Learner? Are MOOCs the Answer?.................................................................... 142 Carole A. Bagley, The Technology Group, Inc, USA & University of St. Thomas, USA Janet Weisenford, ICF International, USA Massive Open Online Courses or MOOCs are increasing in use by universities, corporations and other organizations. The quality of instruction and learning is an ongoing topic of debate as to whether MOOCs are effective for learning. What is best for the learner is determined by multiple factors. This chapter looks at what is best for the learner and whether MOOCs are the answer. The authors examine each of the factors that impact what is best for the learner. Each of the factors (accessibility, cost to the learner, quality of instructional design, learner performance, and acquiring on-line collaboration methods and resources) are described and are followed by a discussion of the issues, controversies and problems associated with each factor. This chapter takes up the discussion on the book section ‘RIA and education practice of MOOCs,’ with the particular focus on the topic of ‘educational training design.’ Chapter 9 Deceptive Promises: The Meaning of MOOCs-Hype for Higher Education...................................... 158 Stefan Popenici, The University of Melbourne, Australia Since 2011, massive open online courses (MOOCs) fired the imagination of the general public as well as the academics, university administrators and investors alike. This chapter is an analysis of the main promises and expectations associated with MOOCs in higher education. This analysis is largely informed by a literature review of new extensive research reports, press releases, media articles, scholarly blogs and academic papers. Considering costs and benefits, ethical aspects and the impact on the landscape of higher education, the author explores whether MOOCs stay consistent with their initial promises and rhetoric. This chapter continues the discussion on the book section ‘RIA and education practice of MOOCs,’ with the particular focus on the topic of ‘educational training design.’

Chapter 10 Redefining the Classroom: Integration of Open and Classroom Learning in Higher Education........ 169 Shikha Gupta, University of Delhi, India Sheetal Taneja, Dayal Singh College, University of Delhi, India Naveen Kumar, University of Delhi, India The printing technology revolutionized the dissemination of knowledge at a pace never conceived of earlier. In recent times, radio and television brought education within the reach of masses. More recently, the multimedia technology, and Internet have revolutionized the delivery of education. Top universities of the world have collaborated to develop massive open online courses (MOOCs) that are made available to public either free of charge or at a nominal cost. Mainly supported by start-ups such as Coursera, Udacity, and EdX, MOOCs are mostly created by universities in United States and Europe. This essay reviews the impact of these changes on higher education using available reports, articles, and meta-analyses. Although there is no conclusive evidence of the impact of MOOCs, there is a strong possibility of MOOCs leaving a lasting mark on the traditional higher education system. This chapter falls within the book section ‘RIA and education practice of MOOCs,’ aligning to the discussion on the topic of ‘educational training design.’ Chapter 11 MOOCs: Evolution and Revolution..................................................................................................... 184 Kenneth Ronkowitz, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA Lynnette Condro Ronkowitz, Ronkowitz LLC., USA This chapter introduces the evolution of the MOOC, using narratives that are documented by research generated from the educational community. It concentrates on the history and progression of distance learning and its movement toward online education. The authors’ perspectives focus on their own anecdotal evolution, from traditional classroom teaching, infusing distance and online learning, to designing and teaching in a MOOC setting. In examining whether the MOOC is more of an evolution or a revolution in learning, they explore questions that have emerged about MOOCs including what distinguishes this model from other online offerings, characteristics of learners who succeed in this environment, and debates regarding best practices. Critical reaction and responses by proponents of this learning format are presented and acknowledged. The research, perspectives and debates clearly impact what the future of the MOOC appears to offer. This continues the discussion within the book section ‘RIA and education practice of MOOCs,’ aligning to the discussion on the topic of ‘educational training design.’ Chapter 12 The Evolution of Online Learning and Related Tools and Techniques toward MOOCs..................... 213 Drew Parker, Simon Fraser University, Canada Kamal Masri, Simon Fraser University, Canada The latest development in the online learning environment, Massive Open Online Courses, dubbed ‘MOOC,’ has garnered considerable attention both within and without the academy. This chapter discusses tools and technologies that can support the development of a MOOC, and concludes with commentary about the potential for such a development to continue into mainstream postsecondary education. This chapter delivers a small yet meaningful contribution to the discussion within the book section ‘RIA and education practice of MOOCs,’ aligning to the discussion on the topic of ‘educational training design.’

Chapter 13 MOOCs in Initial Teacher Training: Perspectives and Learning-Teaching Needs.............................. 223 Calos Monge López, University of Alcalá, Spain Patricia Gomez Hernández, University of Alcalá, Spain David Montalvo Saborido, University of Alcalá, Spain The main aim of this research is to understand future teachers’ attitudes, knowledge and needs about Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). These courses may be a supplementary resource in higher education that can fill fields of knowledge which the curriculum could not encompass. In addition, this type of course can contribute significantly to both initial and continuing teacher training. For this reason, understanding students’ perspectives on MOOCs is essential. For this reason a questionnaire was administered to students of the Bachelor in Teaching of Childhood Education, Bachelor in Teaching of Primary Education and Master in Training Teachers of Secondary Education (n=145). The results indicate that a large part of the sample confirm not that they do not know anything about MOOCs. The chapter concludes that universities need to train future teachers in MOOC culture. Keeping the focus on the book section “RIA and education practice of MOOCs”, this chapter provides a valuable research insight into the topic of “educational training design.” Chapter 14 Challenges about MOOCs in Teacher Training: Differences between On-Site and Open University Students................................................................................................................................................ 251 Patricia Gómez Hernández, University of Alcalá, Spain Carlos Monge López, University of Alcalá, Spain Alba García Barrera, Madrid Open University, Spain MOOCs seem to be a good way to deliver training to a large number of teachers and to facilitate their professional development in those areas whose skills are scarce, requires an update or needs further deepening. In this chapter a test is carried out to make an approach to the current state of affairs, taking sample students from an on-site university and an open university. This study also allows investigating if there may be differences between both groups. Using case studies, a questionnaire was administered to 37 pre-service teachers, showing a relative great knowledge about MOOCs by participants. In conclusion, the studied universities must design, develop and divulgate these courses as a pedagogical resource for initial and continuous teacher training. This chapter completes the book section with discussion on research involving ‘RIA and education practice of MOOCs’, as such it provides a fitting commentary for the topic of ‘educational training design’. Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 272 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 297 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 305

297

About the Contributors

Elspeth McKay is co-editor of this book with her colleague John Lenarcic. Elspeth is an Associate Professor of Information Systems at the RMIT University, School of Business IT and Logistics, Melbourne, Australia. She is passionate about designing effective eLearning resources for the education sector and industry training/reskilling programmes, including: conducting investigations on how individuals interpret text and graphics within Web-mediated instructional environments. She has designed many eLearning tools implemented through rich Internet applications. Over the last decade, Dr. McKay has published extensively in the research fields of HCI and educational technology. In recognition of her contribution to the professional practice of IS research, she was elected as a Fellow of the Australian Computer Society (FACS). John Lenarcic is a physicist and applied mathematician by training, an IT academic by fortunate accident and an armchair philosopher by conscious choice. His research interests include the philosophy of information systems, human-computer interaction and the cyber-anthropology of social networking. Dr Lenarcic is a frequent media commentator on issues dealing with social and ethical aspects of information technology with a particular emphasis on social media. He is also a frequent contributor to The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-lenarcic-1559. *** Carole A. Bagley has 25+ years in the instructional technology and learning field as President and Team Leader of The Technology Group, Inc. and Distinguished Service Professor for the University of St Thomas, St. Paul, MN USA. Dr. Bagley has made significant contributions to the field by providing e-Learning strategic planning, advising, training and curriculum design, workshops, seminars, publications, and keynote presentations within the US and internationally for the business and educational community. Dr. Bagley has advised several international law firms, corporations and US govt. agencies in the telecommunications, medical, banking and technology sectors as they engaged in and built their e-Learning offerings and several school districts in building communities of learners who integrate technology into their restructured classrooms. Dr. Bagley has been the recipient of numerous honors including: Outstanding International ISPI member, Outstanding Computer Based Education Professional for ASTD, Digital Learning Forum (DLF): Founder, Who’s Who Among America’s Teachers.


Alba García Barrera received a PhD in Education from Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM). She received a University Master Degree in Quality and Improvement of Education (specialist in Quality in Programs about Attention to Diversity and Quality in Higher Education Programs) and a University Master Degree in Information and Communication Technologies in Education and Training. She is a University Expert in Early Childhood. She was professor at the Faculty of Education of International University of La Rioja (UNIR). Currently, she is professor at the Faculty of Health Sciences and Education of Open University of Madrid (UDIMA). She is a Researcher in GICE (Research Group about Educational Change for Social Justice, UAM) and PEI-TIC (Innovative Educational Practices based on ICTs, UDIMA) and a Winner of one Educational Research Grants of UNIR. Her aim research lines are: attention to diversity, pedagogical innovation and educational technology. Sara Booth has a background in learning and teaching, originally based in the Faculty of Education, at the University of Tasmania. Her role, as Head, Student Evaluation, Review and Reporting Unit (SERRU), encompasses establishing strategic relationships with a range of stakeholders (internally, nationally and internationally) to build strategic research partnerships for the University in academic quality. Her expertise is in academic quality assurance, benchmarking, standards and higher education policy. She provides policy advice and support to the Senior Executive and University committees on range of institutional strategic priorities. Amit Chauhan is a PhD candidate at the Florida State University, USA. His dissertation research investigates learner characteristics including motivation and interaction in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Amit’s research interests include the design and development, use and application of instructional design and emerging technologies for learning, assessment and evaluation. These include but are not limited to the latest trends in social media, e-learning platforms, authoring tools; LMSs, LCMSs, and learning analytics. Amit is a graduate in Instructional Technology from the University of Bridgeport, USA. He has worked extensively with computer applications, tools and technology to deliver training and learning solutions for Fortune 100 companies. Howard Errey is a psychologist specializing with the human side computers and technology. Since starting as a psychologist in 2000 he has always been involved with assisting people with or through technology. This has included the establishment of online counselling systems in education, projects to engage young people through technology and project management of funding for inclusive eLearning projects for disadvantaged groups. He has worked as a consultant for online innovations projects in education both for eWorks and the Australian Flexible Learning Framework. Recent learning design consultancy clients include Box Hill Institute, Open Universities Australia for the free online offering www.open2study.com. He currently works as an educational technologist RMIT University. Patrick Griffin holds the Chair of Education (Assessment) at the University of Melbourne and is the Director of the Assessment Research Centre. He has published widely on assessment and evaluation, including competency, language proficiency, industrial literacy, school literacy, numeracy, portfolio assessment, online assessment and calibration. He lead the Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills Project (ATC21S™) which formed the basis of Melbourne University’s first MOOC targeting professional learning of teachers. He has published widely on assessment topics such as the development

298


and calibration of instruments to measure collaborative problem solving and other 21st century skills as well as literacy, numeracy and problem solving proficiency, through online interactive assessment. He is a fellow of the International Academy of Education, the Australian College of Education and the Australian College of Education Leadership. He has been a consultant to the World Bank, Australian Aid and UNESCO for almost 20 years. Shikha Gupta earned her Bachelor of Science in Statistics from University of Delhi in 1994. She received her Master of Computer Applications in 1997 from University of Delhi. She is currently an Assistant Professor with S.S. College of Business Studies, University of Delhi, Delhi, India. She is currently pursuing her Ph.D. degree in the area of social network analysis under supervision of Dr. Naveen Kumar, Department of Computer Science, University of Delhi. Linette Hawkins is the Coordinator of the international partnership between RMIT University social work and Centurion University in India. She promoted the “flexible delivery” mode for human service programs in the 1980s and is co-editor of Information communication technologies for human services education and delivery: Concepts and cases, IGI Global, New York, 2010 (with J. Martin). Patricia Gómez Hernández is PhD candidate in Communication, Education and Society. She collaborates with Department of Educational Sciences (area of Educational Psychology) of University of Alcalá and member of Research Group “Aprendiz.es” of the same institution. Her main lines of research are educational innovation and e-learning. Now, she is developing a research project about the influence of teachers’ epistemological conceptions in the introductions of Information and Communication Technologies into classrooms. Jo-Anne Kelder is employed as Lecturer, Learning and Teaching Quality in the Quality Evaluation Learning and Teaching unit, Faculty of Health at the University of Tasmania. Her role is to design, lead and evaluate initiatives to embed scholarship into the teaching and learning teaching practice of academics. She is a member of curriculum design teams for several undergraduate courses in the Schools of Medicine and Health Sciences, with particular responsibility for ensuring evaluation design is integrated with the curriculum design to ensure quality assurance reporting and scholarship for units and courses. Current research projects include investigating the design and implementation of the Bachelor Dementia Care, Understanding Dementia MOOC, Global Perspectives Program and Living and Working with Cultural Diversity Breadth Unit. Carolyn King co-ordinated the development of the Understanding Dementia Massive Open Online Course. She is a Lecturer and Academic Lead of the Digital Innovation Team in the School of Medicine at the University of Tasmania. Dr King has a PhD in Neuroscience and her research interests include the biology of dementia, therapeutic environmental design, as well as open and online education. Naveen Kumar is an associate professor with department of computer science, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India. He is Ph.D. from I.I.T., Delhi with dissertation topic as “Invariance in Computer Vision”. He has supervised many Ph.D. students in wide areas such as multiobjective optimization, association rule mining, clustering, hypermedia systems. His current areas of interest include social network analytics, CUDA and image processing. 299


Séamus Lawless is an Assistant Professor in the discipline of Intelligent Systems in the School of Computer Science and Statistics in Trinity College Dublin. Séamus’ research has a strong user focus and all of his work aims to improve the experiences of users when interacting with content and information systems. Séamus’ research interests are in the areas of information retrieval, information management and digital humanities with a particular focus on adaptivity and personalisation. The common focus of this research is Digital Content Management and the Application of Technology to Support Enhanced, Personalised Access to Knowledge. Séamus is involved in the co-ordination and planning of research direction at all levels in CNGL, an SFI-funded Centre for Science, Engineering and Technology (CSET). This includes leading the research agenda of the Search and Discovery and Digital Content Management tracks, with teams of over 17 researchers. Séamus was the primary author of the CULTURA EU FP7 proposal for a Strategic Targeted Research Projects (STREP) which achieved an assessment of 14.5 out of 15. This project was TCD SCSS’ first EU Co-ordinator grant. The grant was worth €2.9 million in EU Contribution with €900,000 in funding for TCD. Melinda Lewis is involved in higher educational research as a Doctoral Candidate at the University of Sydney, as a Consultant and formerly a Quality Advisor. Her personal research includes close-up research on academic practices in health disciplines, including theoretical work on professional learning and the use of data and metrics in contemporary universities. In her recent doctoral work she has taken a critical look at everyday practices designed to link teaching and research, analysing the repertoire of capital by individual academics and how their social strategies are mediated in practice. She has presented on academic identity using the embedded metaphor of skin to denote the layering of teaching and research work and a movement analogy, oscillation, to denote switching that creates dualisms between teaching and research. Other outcomes reside in the wider significance of a digital habitus (inhabitation), or an eHabitus to assist integrate research and teaching. Jason Lodge, PhD is a psychological scientist and Research Fellow in the Science of Learning Research Centre and the Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne. Jason’s research concentrates on the application of the learning sciences to higher education. Specifically, he is interested in the cognitive and emotional factors that influence learning and behaviour and how research findings from the learning sciences can be better used to enhance instructional design, teaching practice and education policy. Jason is also interested in the ways technology is influencing learning, particularly in terms of the impact of technology on the development of professional ways of being, metacognition, critical thinking and expertise. Carlos Monge López is PhD candidate in Educational Planning and Innovation. He is Predoctoral Fellow at Department of Educational Sciences (area of Didactic and Scholar Organization) of University of Alcalá and member of Research Group “Educational Inclusion and Improvement: Living Together and Cooperative Learning” in the same institution. His main lines of research are educational innovation and teacher training. Now, he is developing a teaching innovation project about “Teaching in educational inclusion and living together improvement”, whose result is a MOOC around this topic.

300


Jennifer Martin is Associate Professor of Social Work at RMIT University. She is co-editor of Information communication technologies for human services education and delivery: Concepts and cases, IGI Global, New York, 2010 (with L. Hawkins); and Cross Cultural Social Work: Local and global, Palgrave, Melbourne, 2014 (with H.K. Ling, and R.Ow). Kamal Masri is a lecturer with the Beedie School of Business at Simon Fraser University. He is an accomplished instructor, having won the TD Canada Trust Distinguished Teaching Award (2009). Dr. Masri spent 15 years developing information systems with a company he co-founded. These systems include custom-built solutions for a variety of industries, including professional sports (National Hockey League and National Basketball Association), entertainment event services, health care, transportation, and manufacturing. His academic research has involved advancing business system analysis and design techniques by improving communication processes during the development stage. He has most recently been involved with investigating amateur draft decision making by NHL teams. His current focus is on situated learning: advancing business teaching (and learning) from the classroom to a practical environment. Megan J. McPherson is a practicing artist, educational researcher and has taught in the university art studio for 15 years. Megan is a PhD scholar in the Faculty of Education, Monash University where she is conducting an interdisciplinary research study of the role of the crit in studio pedagogies. She is interested in emerging research design and methodologies, feminist critical theory and professional practice in the arts and education. Her research work in the university has included a number of studies that have investigated peer learning and peer assessment in the creative industries, elearning approaches in the university studio, and professional development for teaching in new generation learning spaces. Megan is currently working on a number of research projects that are investigating academic identities and practices through and with artifacts and texts. Sandra Milligan is currently Convenor of a University of Melbourne MOOC targeting professional learning and research engagement of teachers, and is researching new approaches to assessment and certification in MOOCs, working under the auspices of the Learning Analytics Research Group, the Science of Learning Research Centre and the Assessment Research Centre at the University. She is also a publisher, has started-up and taken to market three of her own technology companies, worked at senior executive level in large multi-national companies and in government, and served as director for a range of organisations, including large and small, for profit and not-for-profit, Australian and multinational, commercial and government. Together with Dean Ashenden she founded the Australian Good Universities Guides and her current research interests focus on opportunities for using new approaches to learning in digital, highly-scaled environments.

301


Eileen O’Donnell was conferred by Dublin City University with an Honours (2.1) BSc in Information Technology and a First Class MSc in Information Systems for Managers. While lecturing on the Post Graduate Diploma in Business Information Systems in the Dublin Institute of Technology a research interest in Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) commenced. This interest evolved into the pursuit of a PhD through research conducted with the Knowledge and Data Engineering Group, School of Computer Science & Statistics, College of Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Research interests include: cloud computing, virtualisation, green computing, learning theories, the use of ICT in higher education, instructional design, e-learning, technology enhanced learning, personalised e-learning, adaptive simulations, authoring tools for adaptive learning experiences, user profiling, and human computer interaction. Liam O’Donnell worked for ten years in the computing industry before commencing employment as a lecturer in the College of Business, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland. Liam has lectured in Information Systems for the past twenty years. He also has responsibility for the management of the computer network for the College of Business. Liam received his BSc in Computer Applications from Dublin City University and his MSc in Computing from Sligo Institute of Technology. Liam’s research interests include: cloud computing, virtualisation, computer networks, Perl and Java programming, fuzzy logic, expert systems, genetic algorithms, instructional design, personalised e-learning, and technology enhanced learning. Drew Parker is an Associate Professor of Information Systems at the Beedie School of Business at Simon Fraser University. Dr. Parker holds two TD Canada Trust Excellence in Teaching awards (2002, 2010) and has a particular interest in online learning. His specialization and research interest include strategic adoption of information technology, theory development in human-computer interaction; multimedia and web-based virtual meetings, with a particular emphasis on group performance and learning environments, computer and communications technology, business applications on the internet; internet policy issues, telecommunications and networking and its impact on business. Supriya Pattanayak is on the Board of Governors of the Centurion University of Technology and Management, India and Adjunct Professor of Social Work at RMIT University. She supports the international partnership with RMIT University and is a keen advocate of ‘flexible delivery’ at the Centurion University. In her role as State Representative (Odisha), Department for International Development India (British High Commission), she works collaboratively with various development partners in pursuance of harmonization of development efforts and achievement of MDGs. Stefan Popenici is an academic with extensive international experience in teaching, research and academic development with universities in Europe, North America, South East Asia, New Zealand and Australia. Stefan is currently working at The University of Melbourne, as Senior Lecturer in Higher Education at Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education. He is also Associate Director of the Imaginative Education Research Group at Simon Fraser University, Canada. Dr Popenici was senior advisor of the Minister of Education in Romania on educational reform and academic research, senior consultant of the President of De La Salle University Philippines on scholarship and research, and expert consultant for international institutions in education (e.g. Fulbright Commission, Council of Europe). For his work and strategic leadership in education the President of Romania awarded Stefan the National Order “Merit of Education” in rank of Knight. 302


Kenneth Ronkowitz was the Manager of Instructional Technology at New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) where he directed the design of academic and corporate partner online training. He has taught in MOOC environments since 2011 and taught “Academia and the MOOC” offered through the Canvas Network in 2013. Ken teaches online and face-to-face in undergraduate and graduate programs at NJIT and Montclair State University. He is currently developing an online professional learning environment for New Jersey teachers in math and language arts. His undergraduate work was in English education with an M.A. in communications. Lynnette Condro Ronkowitz is a principal in Ronkowitz LLC, developing professional learning for K-20 education and industry. She has designed as well as taught in a national grant initiative for online post-secondary health information technology. In 2013, she designed the meta-MOOC “Academia and the MOOC” offered through the Canvas Network. She is currently designing courseware for a new graduate program in instructional design, evaluation and assessment. Lynnette holds a B.A. with three teaching certificates and an M.A. in Urban Education. She has more than thirty years of experience in teaching and began incorporating online learning in 1994. Her special interest is aligning current events and cinema with textbooks in order to enhance second language learning. David Montalvo Saborido is PhD in Educational Psychology at Complutense University of Madrid. He is Associated Professor in Department of Educational Sciences (area of Didactic and Scholar Organization) of University of Alcalá and member of Research Group “Educational Inclusion and Improvement: Living Together and Cooperative Learning” in the same institution. His main lines of research are educational innovation, lifelong learning and teacher training. Now, he is developing a teaching innovation project about “Teaching in educational inclusion and living together improvement”, whose result is a MOOC around this topic. David Sadler is Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Students and Education) at the University of Tasmania. Professor Sadler joined the University of Tasmania in January 2011 from the UK where he was one of the Directors of the Higher Education Academy (HEA). The HEA has responsibility to develop excellence in learning and teaching and works to achieve the best student experience. David had responsibility for the UK subject centre network. He led many initiatives in the areas of student engagement; education for sustainable development; open education resources (OERs); technology enhanced learning and increased social inclusion in Higher Education. These remain his passions and inform his approach to a studentcentred focus to learning and teaching at the University of Tasmania. David is a former Dean of Social Sciences and Director of the UK Subject Centre for Sociology, Anthropology and Politics (CSAP). He is a UK National Teaching Fellow in recognition of his work on innovative role-play teaching techniques in the social sciences and held two Jean Monnet awards for his teaching. Mary Sharp is an Assistant Professor in the School of Computer Science & Statistics, Trinity College Dublin lecturing on undergraduate and graduate programmes. She is the Chair of the School’s Ethics Committee and Erasmus co-ordinator for the school. She is involved at EU level evaluating projects. Mary’s research interests include: the evaluation of e-learning systems, medical informatics, security, safety, data protection and ethics in Information Technology.

303


Sheetal Taneja earned her Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Computer Science from University of Delhi in 2011. She received her Master of Science in Computer Science in 2013 from University of Delhi. She is currently an Assistant Professor with Dyal Singh College, University of Delhi, Delhi, India. Justin Walls is currently Head of the School of Medicine and associate Dean Learning and Teaching for the Faculty of Health at the University of Tasmania. He has a research and learning and teaching background in systems physiology. He has gained postgraduate qualifications in medical education from the University of Dundee. As Head of School he leads a multi-disciplinary grouping of medicine, paramedicine, pharmacy and psychology and manages campuses both in Tasmania and Sydney. He has been recognised by the OLT for both his teaching excellence and contribution to curriculum design and higher education standards setting. He currently contributes to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority through an expert group to the Nursing Board and as deputy chair of the Chinese Medicine accreditation committee. Janet Weisenford has over 25 years of experience in advanced learning technologies. She served as the first Director of the Joint Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Co-Laboratory, leading efforts to prototype e-learning including the development of the first course to use the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM). While employed by the U.S. Navy, Ms. Weisenford led interdisciplinary teams to develop, evaluate, and implement new learning solutions, including the use of gaming for training as well as the research regarding the design of an authoring tool for tailored instruction. Since joining ICF in 2008, Ms. Weisenford has continued her work in advanced learning technologies including the use of new technologies for learning such as virtual worlds. Ms. Weisenford has received numerous awards for her work including two Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Awards, the National Center for Simulation Visionary Award and the Women Who Mean Business Award.

304

158

Chapter 9

Deceptive Promises: The Meaning of MOOCsHype for Higher Education Stefan Popenici The University of Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT Since 2011, massive open online courses (MOOCs) fired the imagination of the general public as well as the academics, university administrators and investors alike. This chapter is an analysis of the main promises and expectations associated with MOOCs in higher education. This analysis is largely informed by a literature review of new extensive research reports, press releases, media articles, scholarly blogs and academic papers. Considering costs and benefits, ethical aspects and the impact on the landscape of higher education, the author explores whether MOOCs stay consistent with their initial promises and rhetoric. This chapter continues the discussion on the book section ‘RIA and education practice of MOOCs,’ with the particular focus on the topic of ‘educational training design.’

INTRODUCTION In the general enthusiasm for a set of generous promises, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) were often presented as the ultimate solution for most important problems facing higher education across the world: opening access to quality higher education to all, creating ‘global student bodies’ for universities, which believed in “the hope of perhaps, eventually, making money doing so” (Lewin, 2012). Enthusiasm was general – and groupthink so tempting – that many universities across the world adopted them as a panacea for ‘21st century learning’ (and all

other problems) without hesitation or critical reflection. Academics and university leaders may be reluctant to adopt a solution that was based on no research data or empirical support discovered the power of groupthink and personal costs associated with it. A well-known example was that of the President of University of Virginia in the United States, who was dismissed for not being fast enough in adopting MOOCs. The Chronicle of Higher Education observed in September 2012 that “The University of Virginia board’s decision to dismiss Teresa A. Sullivan as president in June illustrated the pressure on universities to strike MOOC deals quickly to keep up with

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8324-2.ch009

Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Deceptive Promises

peer institutions” (Azevedo, 2012). In general, the ubiquitous prediction was that MOOCs will completely change the game in higher education.

THE MOOC FERVOUR: GENEROUS IDEALS AND PROSAIC REALITIES Since the acronym became popular in 2011, MOOCs were predominantly described through the extensive use of strong metaphors that seem to be more suitable to express the amplitude of the change they bring to higher education. We find Massive Open Online Courses expressed in terms associated with natural disasters, from ‘tsunami’ to an ‘avalanche’ or ‘earthquake.’ Proponents of MOOCs promised that this particular solution will completely reshape the landscape of higher education across the world. MOOCs are – commentators said - a ‘tsunami of change’ that “is coming, whether you like it or not” (McKenna, 2012). The year of 2012 was marked by the firm prediction of a historic transformation through the MOOC, promoted with compulsive passion as the solution for all problems faced by higher education. The promise was unprecedented: underprivileged students from all parts of the world have the possibility for the first time in history to get access to higher education and study at some of the most respectable – and expensive – universities of the world, as gates of knowledge finally stay unguarded for the first time in history. The New York Times published at the end of 2012 an article creatively titled ‘Year of the MOOC’ (Papanno, 2012), and David Brooks and Thomas Friedman wrote enthusiastic op-eds about the MOOC ‘revolution,’ the ‘tsunami’ that will undoubtedly transform all universities (Brooks, 2012; Friedman, 2013). The Economist – along with other financial publications that seem to discover suddenly an in-depth expertise in pedagogy and higher education – followed the same line, with articles with titles such as “Free education - Learning new

lessons. Online courses are transforming higher education, creating new opportunities for the best and huge problems for the rest” (The Economist, 2012). This op-ed offers a perfect sample of the type of thinking fuelling the general excitement: MOOCs are more than good university lectures available online. The real innovation comes from integrating academics talking with interactive coursework, such as automated tests, quizzes and even games. Real-life lectures have no pause, rewind (or fast-forward) buttons [...] MOOCs enrich education for rich-world students, especially the cash-strapped, and those dissatisfied with what their own colleges are offering. But for others, especially in poor countries, online education opens the door to yearned-for opportunities. (The Economist, 2012) The solution to deliver good quality higher learning to all galvanized the imagination of academics and venture capitalists. The narrative was generous and inspiring; it said that the door to what Time magazine called ‘High-End Learning on the Cheap’ (Ripley, 2012) was discovered. New start-ups and investors were there to fight to open it for the benefit of the poor around the world. Silicon Valley venture capitalists have seen the potential of MOOCs and Thomas Friedman argued in 2012 that “nothing has more potential to lift more people out of poverty” than Silicon Valley solutions. His prediction was that MOOCs will “unlock a billion more brains to solve the world’s biggest problems” (Friedman, 2013). In ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’, an outstandingly well-documented book written by the French economist Thomas Piketty, inequality is exposed as the main risk for the future of world economies and societies. Piketty finds that inequality is threatening democratic societies and “the values of social justice on which they are based” (Piketty, 2014, p. 571). The unusual fact that this book on economy with 685 pages became an international best seller reveals also

159

Deceptive Promises

that rising inequality is a concerning development for the world. In a speech delivered at Stanford University at the end of February 2014, Christine Lagarde, the Managing Director of The International Monetary Fund, observed that: … income inequality is on the rise across the world – starkly so. According to Oxfam, almost half the world’s wealth is owned by one percent of the population and, stunningly, the bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world […] If not managed carefully, rising inequality and economic exclusion can have pernicious effects. It can undermine economic, social—and perhaps even political—stability. It can tear the very fabric that holds society together” (Lagarde, 2014). It is important to remember in this context that San Francisco is one of the most unequal cities in the US, and that reports and analysts commonly identify the source of inequality in the social and economic model followed by Silicon Valley (Berube, 2014). The model of MOOCs was adopted and marketed by Silicon Valley ventures as the new model suitable to save higher education from obsolescence and solve problems such as inequality. The fact is that the Silicon Valley solution is not working at home, and American politicians make public calls to find answers (Reilly, 2014). A set of important questions should be raised about any set of solutions coming from the same place where education for all or homelessness stays unaddressed. The Guardian (Blasi, 2014) reports that in Palo Alto ‘92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Silicon Valley stands now as a symbol for inequality and greed, with social problems on the rise. In this context, it seems legitimate to explore the promise of a solution for inequality from this space with reserved scepticism. Another luring promise of MOOCs was that ‘the Internet revolution’ comes with a silver bullet for budgets in higher education. Many universi-

160

ties found this promise as a competition to adopt as fast as possible this solution to solve financial pressures impacting their budgets. Again, mass media was fuelling this competition to invest in MOOCs: in ‘changing the economics of education,’ The Wall Street Journal presented MOOCs as a possible solution for universities to make ‘numbers add up’ (Hennessy & Khan, 2012). The Australian Financial Review also states with unabated confidence that ‘free online courses will change universities’ and this is why “top universities worldwide rush to put free courses online, setting up so-called massive open online courses or MOOCs” (Dodd, 2012). From Silicon Valley the perspective was – not surprisingly – identical, claiming that “massive open online courses are revolutionizing higher education” and that “MOOCs provide something for everyone” (Woodard, 2012).

MOOCs and the Call for Evidence The dramatic increase of excitement for MOOCs (Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013, p. 204) and their widespread adoption was marked for years by a surprisingly rare call for evidence. This is unusual in the sector of higher education, which is shaped to a great extent by the culture of academic rigor, academic scepticism and the call for data and evidence-based criteria (Klein, 2000). However, recent research starts to fill the gap and provides relevant data for comprehensive analysis on sustainability and results of MOOCs (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014, pp. 74-89). The first problem encountered by most passionate supporters of MOOCs is that the evidence debunks most initial promises that were at the core of the general enthusiasm. Prominent voices also questioned the feasibility of MOOCs for higher education, and even some of the most enthusiastic supporters reflect that “we’re moving from the hype to the implementation” (Lewin, 2013). In an interview for the Fast Company Magazine, Sebastian Thrun, a computer scientist who started

Deceptive Promises

the hype on MOOCs and established Udacity, the company that started the MOOC trend, expressed his disappointment with this solution: We were on the front pages of newspapers and magazines, and at the same time, I was realizing, we don’t educate people as others wished, or as I wished. We have a lousy product […] I’d aspired to give people a profound education – to teach them something substantial. But the data was at odds with this idea” (Chafkin, 2013). The fact that data was ‘at odds’ with the idea that MOOCs represent an effective solution for higher education also became visible to some university leaders. An example is John Hennessy, the President of Stanford University, who observed in the first months of 2014 that “Two words are wrong in ‘MOOC’: massive and open”; they are too large to successfully engage and motivate most students and present insurmountable challenges in maintaining academic rigor (Hill & Waters, 2014). MOOCs are associated with some important benefits for lifelong learning, with their power to use technology to link academic life with the public debate and by offering the chance to access freely knowledge and academic courses in all parts of the world. But it becomes clear that universities reached in 2014 a point where it is important to draw the line and seriously analyse the evidence on MOOCs, evaluate their costs, benefits and risks and their long-term feasibility.

Assumptions about MOOCs: The Target Audience, Marketing, and Greed As noted above, we have now new data and solid research on MOOCs. Another recent example is coming from The University of Pennsylvania, where a study on a million users through sixteen Coursera courses. Results reveal that most students lost interest in its MOOCs within two weeks and less than 10 percent complete the course. In addi-

tion, they find that a massive 83 percent of students enrolled in massive open online courses already have a two- or four-year diploma or degree. The chance to have them enrolled in mainstream (or paid) degrees is called into question even more, as results show that 69 percent of MOOC students are already employed (Perna et al., 2013, pp. 18-32). In a similar research, Christensen et al. explore characteristics of MOOC students and reach the conclusion that the majority is represented by highly educated, employed, mostly male from developed countries, driven towards MOOCs by curiosity, ‘just for fun’ or aiming to advance their current careers. The most underrepresented category is that of youth without access to higher education in developing countries, the group that was at the core of the narrative of MOOC revolution (Christensen et al., 2013, pp. 4-5). This new data bring into light the argument that spending important resources and costs associated with the course design, research time, teaching time, course administration and IT infrastructure for free courses should not be a priority for investment for universities under any form of financial stress. Simply assuming that new students will enrol in regular courses in universities generous to provide free online courses is placed in opposition with data revealing the low interest of the majority of MOOC early adopters, as graduates with jobs. Commenting on another massive 211 page report on MOOCs, Fiona Hollands of Columbia University’s Teachers College notes that “The people who have taken up these opportunities are not the needy of the world. [MOOCs] are not democratizing education. They are making courses widely available, but the wrong crowd is showing up” (Porter, 2014). In ‘MOOCs: Expectations and Reality’, an extensive report of 211 pages published in May 2014, researchers from Columbia University observe that ‘there has been little evidence collected that would allow an assessment of whether MOOCs do indeed provide a cost-effective mechanism for producing desirable educational outcomes at

161

Deceptive Promises

scale” (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014, p. 7). Exploring the MOOCs, authors’ documents common trend marked by significant investments and an unclear and unexplored impact on innovation in teaching and learning or on the improvement of educational outcomes. Authors reach the conclusion that it is certainly debatable at this point that MOOCs will survive in their current forms in the future. A result of this new set of research and data is a shift in attitudes within higher education regarding MOOCs. In an extensive survey of campus leaders conducted by The Chronicle of Higher Education in January 2014 findings also reveal that: … an overwhelming majority of presidents – three quarters at private institutions and even more at public campuses – think that hybrid courses that contain both face-to-face and online components will have a positive impact on higher education. They are more skeptical, however, about massive open online courses (MOOCs), at least in their current form. Half of the presidents surveyed suspect that MOOCs will have a negative impact on higher education” (Selingo, 2014, p. 5). These findings also point towards another widespread confusion between MOOCs and online education. While online education represents an important pedagogical solution embraced by most universities for decades for their enrolled students, MOOCs are a specific platform designed to offer ‘open’ courses for prospective students. There are many other differences, but the most important aspect here is that many administrators in higher education start to realise that “charity starts at home”: quality of online education for your own students is a hard enough task to deal with. Spending considerable amounts of money and teaching time for those who are already educated, employed and unmotivated to pay course fees for new credentials is simply an unaffordable luxury for universities. As a tool for marketing university’s courses, the investment into a MOOC looks too disproportion-

162

ate when we consider that the potential number of student enrolments driven by these massive open online platforms is extremely small. Data reflects that MOOCs attract mostly employed graduates with little intention to enrol in new credit programs. Moreover, smaller universities already know that the most prestigious and renowned universities have the potential to secure massive participation in their open online courses. Even enthusiastic supporters of MOOCs noticed this, observing that “[MOOCs] …are transforming higher education, creating new opportunities for the best and huge problems for the rest” (The Economist, 2012). The Economist observed in 2012 that only a few major players manage to attract thousands of students in their massive open online courses, while the majority of medium and small universities just fall short of their enrolment targets. The hope that an average university can be as visible and attractive as any other Ivy League institution just because it is delivering open online courses was just another unrealistic assumption. As reflected by a recent analysis published by The European Universities Association, the business model of MOOCs are still unclear, but there is a already a body of data relevant to reflect on what a MOOC may cost. As the production and maintenance costs for MOOCs are covered by universities, “for an institution, the first question should be whether it can afford one or several MOOCs. In this regard the institution has to consider the costs for development, but also for delivery, and maintenance” (Gaebel, 2014, p. 18). Some institutions of higher education already discovered that significant investments in massive open online courses fail to balance costs with benefits. Free offerings may be a luxury for some of the most important players on the market, but the majority of universities placed under increasing financial strains a MOOC may be just a costly and ill-considered decision.

Deceptive Promises

From Clicks, Back to Bricks Another general assumption translated into a widely accepted prediction was that in the ‘avalanche that is coming’ those Doric columns on campuses are only good to be sold to real estate investors. Technology – was said – is making the university campus obsolete. For example, Jim Barber, the former Vice-Chancellor of The University of New England predicted with certainty in ‘The end of university campus life’ that: MOOCs merely confirm what we’ve known for years – that the most basic currency of universities, information, is now more or less valueless, so universities might as well give it away [....] Universities are no longer the only, or even the best, aggregators of information anymore. That role was usurped by the internet years ago. (Barber, 2013). It is interesting to observe that the University of New England recently announced the end of its MOOCs because the effort to provide free courses was just too expensive. The university’s new Vice-Chancellor, Annabelle Duncan, said that this useful ‘experiment’ does not work for a small university. However, we have reasons of concern when a leader of a university presents publicly institutional strategies based on fads and assumptions that ignore the fact that higher learning involves much more than ‘aggregating information.’ This type of arguments also reveals a limited view of students, as simple recipients of information, especially in a moment when building abilities to find, select, critically analyse data and create new information is what stays now as one of the most important sets of tasks for universities. Higher learning is much more than a simple aggregation of information and in this sense a good university is surprisingly more complex than Internet. Universities serve the vast purpose of rendering civilisation and strengthening human condition

through teaching and research. In effect, higher learning is not a simple ‘aggregator’ of information, but a complex process where students are exposed to new information and ideas able to inspire, inform, provoke, challenge and disrupt stereotypes and old paradigms in order to create new and useful knowledge. The ultimate goal of higher learning is an educated mind, and this is not simply a repository of data and information, but a complex mind that is capable to build on emergent ideas and capacities for innovation and progress, in line with core values of humanity and civilisation. The university is using learning not as an aggregator and provider of data, but to shape new people capable to think for knowledge advancement and to bring their contribution to the wellbeing of their families, communities and societies. Academic research creates new possibilities and impacts on an ongoing cycle of teaching and learning to build the intellectual profile of students. As Drew Faust has said, in her installation address at Harvard University: A university is not about results in the next quarter; it is not even about who a student has become by graduation. It is about learning that molds a lifetime, learning that transmits the heritage of millennia; learning that shapes the future. (Faust, 2007). Nevertheless, thinking that the campus is obsolete and useless will stay as a massive and costly mistake for institutions of higher education that were lured by the MOOC-mania to disregard the importance of the physical campus. It should not escape them that some of the most important MOOC providers – which used to stand as a solid argument against the physical campus – are now building their own brick and mortar campuses. In ‘Online students can’t help being sociable,’ an article published in April 2014 by the BBC News Business, we read:

163

Deceptive Promises

Instead of demolishing the dusty old classrooms, the online university revolution is responsible for opening some new ones. Coursera, a major California-based provider of online courses, is creating an international network of ‘learning hubs,’ where students can follow these virtual courses in real-life, bricks and mortar settings. (Coughlan, 2014). The so-called ‘year of the MOOC’ can stay in the history of higher education as the moment when most policy makers and academics completely ignored a vast volume of educational research documenting that ‘there is an irresistible social side to learning’. It should not be a surprise that Silicon Valley venture capitalists discovered only now the important social side of learning and its relevance for the specific type of endeavours involved in higher education. But it is startling to see that some university leaders find that brick-andmortar campuses are obsolete because students use Internet. The point where campus administrators and academics alike abandon decades of research in learning and teaching, pedagogy and the culture of education just to prove the adherence and adoption of the culture of technologists is a sobering moment. This reckless shift impacts on the sustainability of higher learning in particular and of higher education by and large. As new technologies became part of everyday learning experiences in higher education, the value of the physical campus was enhanced, as a privileged space for meaningful personal interactions for learning. In this new context universities have to find new ways to use their spaces to enhance learning and nurture creativity and innovation. It is also important for institutions of higher education to explore if MOOCs do not involve a shift of focus and resources from their online education and learning management systems. In other words, MOOCs may be interesting and convenient for many, but universities – placed under significant financial pressures in a general climate of uncertainty – must see if these initiatives do

164

not hinder their business models and quality of their hybrid courses. As the President of Stanford University suggested, the problem induced by ‘massive’ and ‘open’ (as ‘free’) directly impacts on funding and investments required to make small and personalised online courses designed for enrolled students engaging and innovative, aligned to new technological solutions widely used by learners. Some universities may soon realise that outdated learning management systems and online solutions for ‘traditional’ students work as a much more efficient marketing tool against them than all assumed benefits associated with the use of MOOCs. Training for academic staff in the use of new technologies to facilitate and enhance learning is another important area for investment. Quality assurance and excellence in online education for students at home is the most important investment for universities, which need to reassess the list of priorities in the light of new data. This is in essence why it is important to consider all investments involved by the urge to join the MOOC-hype with great care.

CONCLUSION The MOOC promise was that they are the technological solution to ‘lift people out of poverty’ through quality education. New research constantly dispels the myth that MOOCs open the door for the poor and disadvantaged and their promise of equity of access to higher education. Research data reveals not only that the vast majority of students taking MOOCs are already highly educated, but also that two-thirds of MOOC students live in OECD countries, the club of leading industrialized nations (Perna et al, 2013, p. 30). This aspect is especially relevant if we take into consideration that the total population of OECD countries accounts for just 18 percent of the world population. MOOCs not only fail to democratise higher education, but increase the gap by giving

Deceptive Promises

free courses to the (relative) rich of the world, leaving the poor stay poor. Unfortunately, we have to consider also what Sebastian Thrun - the first MOOC-star with a worldwide coverage – concluded on the overall quality of MOOCs as a solution for higher education: ‘a lousy product’. It becomes clear that MOOCs have their advantages for corporate professional development and certain forms of vocational education. Nevertheless, the promise and MOOC rhetoric for higher education is not supported by results and research data. Some institutions adopted this, as the promise of MOOCs was also – much more discretely – associated with the idea that these technological solutions will solve budget problems for universities by cutting costs with teaching. In a MOOC, a single lecturer can record one course that will be repeatedly viewed by thousands or hundreds of thousands of students. The impact of budget cutbacks for higher education, the aftermath on universities of their binge spending common for the last decades and the perspective of inflated profits was luring many administrators and politicians to embrace MOOCs without reserve or serious consideration. In following a ‘greed is good’ philosophy, some universities spending for MOOCs that “…could cost as much as $750,000+ to $1.2 million” (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014) found that the investment return never came. The business model of MOOCs remains unclear and most solutions change in fact the very nature of massive open online courses as they were defined and gained popularity. In conclusion, we can see that as free higher education courses online for the masses, MOOCs fail to deliver on their promise. The silver bullet for higher education is a genuine focus on the quality of teaching and learning, personalised education, and student engagement. This is what can make a university a sustainable and successful institution. The future of universities cannot be changed by a set of gadgets or technological tools, but by a new vision able to create a new context where new technologies can be used to enhance

pedagogical solutions suitable to address needs and challenges of the 21st century.

REFERENCES Azevedo, A. (2012, September 26). In colleges’ rush to try MOOC’s, Faculty are not always in the conversation. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved June 4, 2014, from http://chronicle.com/ article/In-Colleges-Rush-to-Try/134692/ Barber, J. (2013, October 16). The end of university campus life. ABC Radio National Australia. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from http://www.abc.net.au/ radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/5012262 Berube, A. (2014). All cities are not created unequal. Retrieved May 16, 2014, from http:// www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/02/ cities-unequal-berube Blasi, G. (2014, April 15). The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars – because it hurts their ‘quality of life’. The Guardian. Retrieved April 28, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/15/ban-sleeping-in-cars-homelesssilicon-valley Brooks, D. (2012, May 3). The campus tsunami. The New York Times. Retrieved May 30, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/opinion/brooks-the-campus-tsunami.html Chafkin, M. (2013, December). Udacity’s Sebastian Thrun, Godfather of free online education, changes eourse. The Fast Company Magazine. Retrieved May 30, 2014, from http://www.fastcompany.com/3021473/udacity-sebastian-thrunuphill-climb Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B., Bennett, A., Woods, D., & Emanuel, E. J. (2013). The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why? Social Science Research Network. Retrieved May 30, 2014 from10.2139/ ssrn.2350964

165

Deceptive Promises

Coughlan, S. (2014, April 8). Online students can’t help being sociable. BBC News Business. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from http://www.bbc. com/news/business-26925463 Dodd, T. (2012, September 24). Free online courses will change universities. The Australian Financial Review. Retrieved May 2, 2014, from http://www. afr.com/p/national/education/free_online_courses_will_change_7ngMdHAbNt5JXJFgLqR79O Economist (2012, December 22). Free education - Learning new lessons. Online courses are transforming higher education, creating new opportunities for the best and huge problems for the rest. Retrieved May 28, 2014, from http://www. economist.com/news/international/21568738-online-courses-are-transforming-higher-educationcreating-new-opportunities-best Faust, D. (2007). Installation address: Unleashing our most ambitious imaginings. Harvard University Website, Office of the President. Retrieved June 6, 2014, from http://www.harvard.edu/president/ speech/2007/installation-address-unleashing-ourmost-ambitious-imaginings Friedman, T. L. (2013 January 27). Revolution hits the universities. The New York Times. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from http://www.nytimes. com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/friedmanrevolution-hits-the-universities.html Gaebel, M. (2014). MOOCs: Massive open online courses, 2014. Retrieved May 25, 2014, from The European University Association http://www. eua.be/libraries/publication/moocs_update_january_2014.sflb.ashx Hennessy, J., & Khan, S. (2012, June 4). Changing the economics of education. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from http:// online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527 02303640104577440513369994278

166

Hill, A., & Waters, R. (2014, February 2). Online ‘MOOC’ courses are too big to work, says Stanford head. The Financial Times. Retrieved June 18, 2014, from http://www.ft.com/intl/ cms/s/0/e711c690-8c2a-11e3-bcf2-00144feab7de.html#axzz2sGaU1wNE Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and Reality. The Center for BenefitCost Studies of Education. NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Klein, P. D. (2000). Contextualism and the real nature of academic skepticism. Philosophical Issues, 10(1), 108–116. doi:10.1111/j.1758-2237.2000. tb00014.x Lagarde, C. (2014, February 25). Innovation, technology and the 21st century globaleEconomy. The International Monetary Fund. Retrieved February 28, 2014, from http://www.imf.org/external/np/ speeches/2014/022514.htm Lewin, T. (2012, November 19). College of future could become one, come all. The New York Times. Retrieved June 8, 2014, from http://www. nytimes.com/2012/11/20/education/collegesturn-to-crowd-sourcing-courses.html Lewin, T. (2013, December 10). After setbacks, online courses are rethought. New York Times. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/11/us/after-setbacks-onlinecourses-are-rethought.html Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 202–227. http://www.irrodl. org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1455 Retrieved May 27, 2014

Deceptive Promises

McKenna, L. (2012, May 11). The big idea that can revolutionize higher education: ‘MOOC’. The Atlantic. Retrieved June 1, 2014, from http:// www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/ the-big-idea-that-can-revolutionize-highereducation-mooc/256926/ Papanno, L. (2012, November 2). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times. Retrieved May 28, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/ education/edlife/massive-open-online-coursesare-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html Perna, L., Ruby, A., Boruch, R., Wang, N., Scull, J., Evans, C., & Ahmad, S. (2013). The life cycle of a million MOOC users. Presented on December 5, 2013 at the MOOC Research Initiative Conference in Texas, USA. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from The University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education http://www.gse.upenn.edu/pdf/ahead/ perna_ruby_boruch_moocs_dec2013.pdf Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Porter, E. (2014, June 17). A smart way to skip college in pursuit of a job. Udacity-AT&T ‘NanoDegree’ offers an entry-level approach to college. The New York Times. Retrieved June 20, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/ business/economy/udacity-att-nanodegree-offersan-entry-level-approach-to-college.html Reilly, M. (2014, April 8). Hillary Clinton confronts silicon valley on income disparity, immigration reform. The Huffington Post. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/hillary-clinton-siliconvalley_n_5114146.html Ripley, A. (2012, October 18). College is dead. Long live college! Time Magazine. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://nation.time.com/2012/10/18/ college-is-dead-long-live-college/print/

Selingo, J. J. (Ed.). (2014). The innovative university: What college presidents think about change in American higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, DC. Woodard, L. L. (2012, November 19). Massive Open Online Courses Revolutionizing Higher Education. Yahoo News. Retrieved June 10, 2014, from http://news.yahoo.com/massiveopen-online-courses-revolutionizing-highereducation-203000235.html

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Campus: The land area and sum of buildings owned and used by an institution of higher education for teaching, learning, research, administration and all other activities related to institutional goals and traditions. Critical Thinking: The individual capacity to question accepted beliefs evaluation, to engage in critical self-reflection and to operate a structured critique for understanding and analysis and a possible reconstruction of knowledge. Equity: A concept defined by fairness and inclusivity; equity is used in this paper with a focus on fairness, which implies that access and success is not determined by social class, gender, political affiliation, nationality, ethnic origin or religion. Higher Education: All institutions of postsecondary education such as universities and colleges, and research institutions placed under the administrative and operational control of colleges and universities. Innovation: Any new product, process, organisational design or structure that records a significant and positive impact on student learning or any other activity of an institution of higher education (such as teaching, organizational structure, business model etc.). MOOCs: Massive Open Online Courses: academic online courses with a design suitable to enroll a large number of students, open and

167

Deceptive Promises

free to all people that are able to connect online, from any country. Research: The systematic process of collecting and analysing information (or data) collected in line with methodologies suitable to maximise reliability and objectivity, developed to expand our understanding of a specific phenomenon or process with which we are concerned or interested. Student Engagement: The overall result of institutional capacities and endeavors to stir and use students’ motivation and efforts to enhance learning and maximise results of all educational experiences.

168

Macro-Level Learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs):

Macro-Level Learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs):

Suggest Documents

1 Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Definition Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) - OpenupEd

Definition Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) - OpenupEd

Massive Open Online Courses

Using MOOCs (Massive Online Open Courses) for ...

Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Investigating Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS) - AIS Electronic ...

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in Medical Education - AAMC

Humanizing Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) In Universiti ...

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) 2014 - University of London ...

Characteristics of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) - Journal of ...

Yellow fever: Massive open online courses (MOOCs)

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and the ...

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) 2014 - University of London ...

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) 2014 - University of London ...

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) - instructional media + magic

Toward Emotionally Accessible Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) - Association of Governing ...

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) - instructional media + magic

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): A Primer for University and ...

Yellow fever: Massive open online courses (MOOCs) in the outbreaks ...

Investigating Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS) - AIS Electronic ...

Continuing Medical Education: MOOCs (Massive Open Online ...