A Review of Massively Open Online Courses (MOOC) Scholarly Discourse Since 2015

Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is a phrase used to describe fully online learning experiences that are open access, and available for learners throughout the world. Over the past decade, the evolution of discourse surrounding MOOCs has been quite interesting. Despite the ebbs and flows of excitement about MOOC discourse, MOOCs are still a relatively new phenomenon, when compared to more traditional instructional methods, and other forms of online/blended instruction. MOOCs once appeared poised to radically transform the higher education landscape. During the late 2000s and early 2010s, much media attention, and excitement, surrounding the potential for MOOCs to make education, and information, more accessible to more people around the world. For example, an often cited article from The New York Times even went so far as to label the year 2012 as “The Year of the MOOC” (Pappano, 2012). MOOCs represent a still relatively recent development in course delivery format (and an associated way of thinking about teaching and learning), and the technology used to deliver MOOCs is constantly evolving.   Since the early MOOC offerings appeared in the late 2000s and early 2010s, however, MOOCs may not appear to have offered the immediate transformative effect many predicted. Though once hailed by various outlets as a radical technology and instructional approach, with the potential to transform higher education, more recently the mainstream attention and “hype” accompanying MOOCs in the earlier half of the decade has tempered a bit. That does not mean, however, that MOOCs have not already substantially influenced teaching and learning, particular within the context of higher education. Even though MOOCs might not have radically shifted teaching and learning in higher education, the potential applications for MOOCs have continued to evolve in a variety of ways. Such changes in the discourse surrounding MOOCs may reflect Rogers’ (1995) notion of diffusion of innovations. As Rogers explains, “diffusion is a special type of communication, in which the messages are about a new idea” (p. 6). He adds that diffusion is “a kind of social change, defined as the process by which alteration occurs in the structure and function of a social system” (p. 6, emphasis in original). MOOCs represent a potential change within the system of higher education and, in line with Roger’s diffusion of innovations model, the uncertainty surrounding MOOCs likely influenced the tone and tenor of the MOOC discourse, especially in the early years following development and execution of the MOOC concept.    Not only have MOOCs generated a substantial amount of mainstream media and researcher interest in a relatively short time but the applications have concurrently continued to evolve as well. However, the evolution of MOOCs is not without its critics. One potentially large change since the term “MOOC” was coined is the opportunity for some users to pay for MOOC content, in some cases for professional development purposes. Rather than serving solely as a source of free information and knowledge, many MOOCs now offer various opportunities for participants to pay for premium content and/or receive a certification or “badge” (Daniel, Cano, & Cervera, 2015). Such evolution reflects a potential pathway geared more toward micro-credentialing and professional development than open access learning.   Additional critiques that arose somewhat early in the MOOC evolution were research suggesting that MOOCs lack quality instructional design principles (Margaryan, Bianco, & Littlejohn, 2015) and that MOOCs appear to have high dropout rates (Hew & Cheung, 2014). However, it is challenging to discuss MOOCs as a one-dimensional course-learning format when the potential applications for massive online learning opportunities has evolved over time. For example, though MOOCs might continue to have high attrition rates, questions such as “are similar issues observed with users paying for the service?” may arise. If the attrition issue primarily revolves around the cost-benefit of time spent versus potential payoff, we might expect that more people would finish the course when paying for it. Thus as MOOCs are still relatively new instructional approaches, it may be beneficial to examine issues explored through current MOOC discourse, as seen through the lens of scholarship.   Thus, the current period offers an opportunity to reflect and assess where MOOC scholarship has been, and how the MOOC discourse has evolved over the past few years. More specifically then, this review of cited MOOC papers seeks to address how the scholarly discussion on MOOCs has evolved since 2015. The different avenues explored through previous MOOC scholarship can perhaps offer us some glimpses at future avenues for research, teaching, and learning involving MOOCs. To that end, the outcome sought through this session is better understanding how scholarly discourse on MOOCs has evolved since 2015, rather than any conclusions drawn about MOOCs themselves.   This session provides insight from a review on MOOC research discourse since 2015 by examining cited MOOC scholarly papers. Google Scholar was chosen as the database with which to conduct searches for cited MOOC papers because search results in Google Scholar also provide a metric of citation counts. In considering critiques on Google Scholar, a comparative review by Harzing and Alakangas (2016) found that Google Scholar appears as a suitable choice for finding relevant scholarship, and may even offer more “comprehensive coverage” than the Web of Science or Scopus databases (p. 801). The search results offered by Google Scholar include cited papers, such as conference proceedings and book chapters, which might not be as readily available in other search engines and databases that focus more exclusively on periodicals. In order to address this review’s objective, papers needed to have a publication date later than 2015 to be included. Given the focus on scholarly MOOC discussion, papers needed to have multiple citations to be included in this review. It was thought that higher citation numbers, given the relatively short period examined, would provide evidence that the paper had contributed to the on-going scholarly discussion on MOOCs. It was felt that more than five citations for a paper within the relatively short time period identified would indicate a potentially meaningful contribution to the scholarly conversation during this time. This session will provide preliminary findings from this review of cited MOOC papers, including topics of interest such as student attrition and persistence, access, instructional design and course quality, and issues relating to ethics and data privacy.   References Daniel, J., Cano, E. V., & Cervera, M. G. (2015). The future of MOOCs: Adaptive learning or business model. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 12, 64-73. doi:10.7238/rusc.v12i1.2475  Harzing, A-W. & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison, Scientometrics, 106, 787-804. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9 Hew, K. F. & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45-58. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001 Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14, 202-227. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455 Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005 Pappano, L. (2012, November 2). The year of the MOOC: Massive Open Online Courses are multiplying at a rapid pace. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-onli... Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed). New York: The Free Press