Through the MOOCing Glass: Professors’ Perspectives on the Future of MOOCs in Higher Education†
Abstract
This chapter introduces literature that predicts the future of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in higher education and argues that it is critical to understand faculty views of the future for this instructional form; it presents the results of a qualitative study investigating the views of faculty who have taught a MOOC.
Introduction
As the articles in this special issue of New Directions for Institutional Research indicate, interest in massive open online courses (MOOCs) is continuing to grow. As we step forward into a future of MOOCs in higher education, will we find new mythical, magical creations on the other side, or will we awake to find that we have fantasticated the every-day tools around us? Will we find a bit of both? In this chapter, I explore the future of massive open online courses.
According to Wexler (2015b), the number of MOOCs in 2011 was under 10, and there are currently close to 4,000. According to a report by Shah (2014), at the time of the report, there were between 16 and 18 million students connecting to MOOCs. In a recent survey of Coursera students (Zhenghao et al., 2015), researchers found that students who took MOOCs indicated “educational benefits” and “career benefits” as motivators. In an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, one of the authors of the Coursera study, Gayle Christensen, stated that it was exciting to find that students reported “career and educational benefits in high numbers” (Wexler, 2015a). The study included responses from about 52,000 participants from the United States and other countries. Numerous MOOC students take courses from other providers such as edX and independent outlets associated with universities, and several other institutions are considering what MOOCs could mean for their institutional outreach. The survey of Coursera students reflects those students’ current motivations for taking MOOCs, but the work also raises questions about how students, and instructors, will continue to use MOOCs. With what seems to be continual growth, the question of the future of MOOCs has continued to intrigue educators and scholars alike. Although students’ uses for MOOCs are important for understanding the present and future for these courses, it is also necessary to understand faculty members’ perspectives on MOOCs as well. According to Hollands and Tirthali (2014), some of the current goals for MOOCs include the following: “extending reach and access, building and maintaining brand, improving economics: reducing costs or increasing revenues, improving educational outcomes, innovation in teaching and learning, and research on teaching and learning.” Although understanding the current goals of MOOCs is quite important, it is also valuable to understand how professors view the future of massive open online courses. What are faculty members’ ideas about the future uses for MOOCs? Because MOOCs are still such a relatively new aspect of higher education, it may be difficult to consider the future of these types of courses. On the other hand, as more and more institutions grapple with decisions regarding MOOC development, understanding the possibilities for MOOCs will be essential. Therefore, in this chapter, I will present data that indicate professors’ perspectives on the future of MOOCs in higher education.
Research Review
In Haavind and Sistek-Chandler's (2015) work on MOOC instructors’ roles, they discussed a number of future issues that were important to instructors: challenges related to providing nonautomated feedback to such a large number of students, concerns about security issues for students and for faculty members, and the various ways teaching a MOOC raises questions related to teaching face-to-face courses and teaching more traditional online courses. The future of MOOCs is discussed in several other works as well, and these texts indicate that the future of these large open-access courses rests in multiple areas: globalization/access, precollege and continuing education students, and certification/professional development.
Globalization/Access
There are numerous texts that emphasize the globalization possibilities that MOOCs hold and how globalization could provide higher education access for people around the world. For example, Clarke (2013) highlighted MOOCs’ potential for globalizing higher education and noted the current popularity of MOOCs in developing countries. Munoz, Redecker, Vuorikari, and Punie (2013) discussed the future of European open-access courses. They also mentioned the idea of “glocalisation,” which they described as “the global educational services that are adapted to local needs and requirements” (Munoz, Redecker, Vourikari, & Punie, 2013, p. 184). Dasarathy, Sullivan, Schmidt, Fisher, and Porter (2014) discussed locally cotaught classes and SPOCs (small private online classes), ideas that are similar to the Munoz et al. (2013) glocalisation. The future of MOOCs could include removing the “M” (massive) and the “O” (open) and replacing them with the more manageable “small” and “private.” There is a concern, however, that non-Western MOOCs are being excluded from conversations about MOOCs and other open-access courses. Altbach (2014) discussed how many of the courses and materials for MOOCs are the endeavors of Western countries, and although non-Western countries are developing MOOCs as well, those non-Western courses may still use only Western course materials. Marshall (2014) also provided a similar caveat, warning that globalization could potentially veer into homogenization.
However, there are other researchers who are discussing MOOC development in different areas of the world. For example, Macleod, Haywood, Woodgate, and Alkhatnai (2015) focused on the globalization possibilities for MOOCs, but they chose to note non-English-speaking MOOC platforms such as Rwaq in Saudi Arabia. Presumably, as MOOCs continue to grow, they will grow in a number of countries in a variety of languages. Macleod et al. (2015), like Clarke (2013), saw MOOCs as an opportunity for higher education expansion to areas where higher education access is more difficult. As this expansion occurs, MOOC instructors, developers, and students should keep the caveats of Altbach (2014) and Marshall (2014) in mind with regard to ensuring that these open-access courses are truly open in terms of experience, language, ability, and culture. It seems that even though the future of MOOCs has the patina of globalization, the potential for hegemony lies beneath the surface.
Precollege, Continuing Education, and Competency-Based Learning
Postsecondary institutions across the United States provide early/precollege opportunities for high school students and continuing education courses for anyone in the community, and MOOCs could hold future possibilities for students in these and other categories. For example, Macleod et al. (2015) noted the increasing number of students under 18 who enroll in MOOCs. Although that number was not very large for their current round of MOOC offerings, they addressed the possibility of the growth in the precollege audience (Macleod et al. 2015). Just as pre-college students could possibly earn credits through MOOCs, continuing-education students could engage in MOOCs for non-credit-bearing learning opportunities. Munoz et al. (2013) mentioned that Europe's aging population may require more adult learning opportunities, and MOOCs or other open-access courses could provide those opportunities.
Competency-based education with MOOCs could be a future possibility as well. Dasarathy et al. (2014) mentioned competency-based learning through MOOCs. Also, in a commentary piece for The Chronicle of Higher Education, Arthur Levine (2015) discussed MOOCs, along with apprenticeships, as an educational option that focuses on student learning. If interest in competency-based education continues to grow in higher education, the future of MOOCs could lie with providing competency-based educational opportunities.
Just as there were caveats associated with MOOCs and globalization, researchers have discussed possible concerns related to MOOCs and student learning. Marshall (2014) takes issue with some institutions’ motivations for offering MOOCs because an overwhelming concern for the generation of funds could lead to harmful compromises related to students’ experiences and learning. These concerns are relevant for both credit-bearing and non-credit-bearing courses. However, compromising students’ learning for other aims could potentially be the case for a number of face-to-face classes and programs as well.
Certification/Professional Development
The idea of using MOOCs for professional development and credentialing is not new, but some researchers assert that the areas of professional development and credentialing could play a more significant role for MOOCs of the future (Wexler, 2015). Macleod et al. (2015) also discussed the possibilities for MOOCs in career development or certification. Munoz et al. (2013) mentioned the potential open-access courses hold for those interested in career/professional development, particularly in light of the economic challenges in some areas of the world. Dasarathy et al. (2014) noted potential professional development opportunities through MOOCs. They also discussed MOOCs as spaces where institutions can collaborate, which could also result in professional development or certification opportunities. For example, K–12 teachers could connect with colleges and universities through MOOCs for professional development or recertification.
Milheim (2013) noted the potential credentialing prospects for MOOCs as well, but he also discussed the possible issues with credentialing. For example, he stated that only a percentage of people may want to take advantage of MOOC credentials, so that could limit the revenue-generating opportunities based on a credentialing model.
Methodology
Theoretical Framework
Because phenomenography emphasizes the variation of lived experience, with particular focus on both the expressing and constructing of that experience, the theoretical framework for the study is social constructivism. Although Marton (1981) did not completely agree with some aspects of Piaget's assertions, Marton appreciated the parts of Piaget's work that “focus[ed] on the perceived world” rather than the perceiver alone (p. 195). With social constructivism's focus on individual meaning making (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013), the theory complements the tenets of phenomenographic research.
Methods
In “phenomenography,” we suggest, we would deal with both the conceptual and the experiential, as well with what is thought of as that which is lived. We would also deal with what is culturally learned and with what are individually developed ways of relating ourselves to the world around us. (p. 181)
Phenomenography also espouses a limit on the various facets of reality that people experience in relation to a particular phenomenon. For example, Marton (1981) says, “we have repeatedly found that phenomena, aspects of reality, are experienced (or conceptualized) in a relatively limited number of qualitatively different ways” (p. 181). Therefore, in the following section, I present the variations of participants’ experiences, and in the Discussion section of the chapter, I highlight the areas where participants’ responses aligned with extant literature on the future of MOOCs and the areas where participants’ responses differed from those found in the literature.
Participants
The study included eight participants, two females and six males, from universities across the country. After obtaining IRB approval, I perused a number of Websites for MOOC platforms and contacted professors who were affiliated with 4-yr U.S. institutions and offering a MOOC through any of the available platforms. The participants were not selected based on platform or course type, although I attempted to select professors from a variety of disciplines. The criteria were simple: professors at 4-yr institutions who were currently teaching or had taught a MOOC. A chart detailing the participants and the respective areas where their courses were or would have been taught is listed in Table 6.1.
| Participants | College Where Course Was/Would Be Offered |
|---|---|
| Participant 1 | College of Business |
| Participant 2 | College of Arts and Sciences |
| Participant 3 | College of Arts and Sciences |
| Participant 4 | College of Arts and Sciences |
| Participant 5 | College of Engineering |
| Participant 6 | College of Engineering |
| Participant 7 | College of Arts and Sciences |
| Participant 8 | College of Engineering |
The stipulation of where a course would have been taught is an important one because some participants offered MOOCs through their institutions and some offered their courses through connections outside of their institutions. Therefore, the courses are labeled under the colleges/schools where their courses were taught or where those courses would have been taught if they had been a part of the universities’ course offerings.
Data Collection and Confidentiality
The interviews were conducted face-to-face or via Adobe Connect and lasted 30 min to an hour. The face-to-face interviews were recorded on a digital, handheld audio recording device, and the virtual interviews were recorded with audio only through the recording function in Adobe Connect. I transcribed the data and did not disclose participants’ names, course titles, programs, universities, or MOOC platforms in the transcriptions. For further confidentiality, I deleted the audio files on the handheld audio recording device and the audio files/links in Adobe Connect. Participants were not provided pseudonyms for this study because the genders, or assumed genders, based on names and coupled with details about a course could lead to harmful ramifications for some participants. Giving participants names that make gender more difficult to trace could be unintentionally misleading. Therefore, participants will be referred to as Participant 1, etcetera.
Data Reliability and Analysis
Once the data were transcribed, I submitted the transcriptions to participants for their approval. Some participants had additional concerns about confidentiality, so I redacted additional portions of the transcribed texts and sent the revised documents back to them for approval. Once the data were approved by participants, I analyzed and coded the data according to some of the phenomenographic guidelines provided by Akerlind (2005), who stated that verbatim interview transcripts for phenomenographic works should be approached with openness and contextual emphasis in relation to the other transcripts. Koole (2014), using Akerlind, also employed the various steps of phenomenographic data analysis in a study on identity and online learners. Furthermore, as explained in Marton (1986), I read the transcripts, highlighted quotes that answered the research question, more closely examined the meaning in the quotes to look for “structurally significant differences that clarify” (p. 34) participants’ contributions and to form “pools of meanings” across interview data, connected the various quotes based on their similarities, and formed the thematic categories based on the meanings derived from the quotes. The phenomenographic analysis process also involves “continual sorting and re-sorting of data” the “test[ing], adjust[ing], retest[ing], and adjust[ing] again of the definitions for categories against the data” (Marton, 1986, p. 43).
Results
Participants in the study highlighted several areas for the future of MOOCs: connections to face-to-face classrooms, improving student engagement and learning, leveraging expertise, providing access, and providing other educational opportunities.
Connections to Face-to-Face Classrooms
I mean, we've known on some level how to teach face-to-face courses for years. Even if we don't know the learning effectiveness, we know how we've done it. We don't know as much about how to teach these open courses.
People are generally excited about MOOCs, but I think there's this sense that MOOCs and all the derivatives will really make resident instruction much, much better as well. And so I think that will probably be a huge benefit as well to students on a campus in the long run.
We won't have to spend so much time on just lecturing. We could just say, ok—just like we do today, read this chapter in a book—we can say, ok, take these first two sections in the MOOC, and then when you come to class, we can actually do hands on stuff.
Earlier in the interview, Participant 7 discussed MOOCs as textbooks, and the aforementioned comment is consistent with that idea.
Improving Student Engagement and Learning
The key advantage, I guess, too, for me is that it wasn't so much about me. In that it once more allowed me to use my space in what I feel is a more communally responsible way than the classroom generally allows itself to be, so I guess that's how—what was most valuable for me there—was that it decentered the professor in a lot of ways.
I think as an educational institution, these courses are enormously valuable just as a research resource. And I think, you know, whatever anyone thinks about online, as an institution, I find it really dangerous not to engage in that, even if you think whatever you use would be on MOOCs in particular—I mean, the data that is being generated by these courses is just a treasure trove of data that can help you understand learning processes much better. I'm not saying that this should be the only source, but [it] is certainly a huge source of data.
As Participant 7 indicated, MOOCs are brimming with data. The data collected in these courses could provide numerous opportunities to understand more about the way students learn in large online courses. There is also the added possibility of learning more about students’ motivation and engagement.
If you expand my discussion of understanding what student difficulties are, generally expand that into we have the ability to do new pedagogy research on data sets of a size that used to only be available to the College Board when they ran the SATs, that's a sort of general big opportunity.
… if we discover a particular type of analysis that, for example helps you figure out which question[s] on an exam were the most difficult or most predictive of success in the course—we can now essentially bake that into the software that many other instructors are using. So if you're doing educational research, there's a new vehicle for getting the results of your research into the tool that people are going to use.
Participant 8 also talked about the assessment possibilities for MOOCs: “So, I think this idea of creating new ways to assess student work products, give them feedback, and analyze student work patterns and behavior, that's really what the exciting legacy of all this is gonna be.”
In addition to the potential benefits of more targeted software that could, in turn, improve students’ learning, and assessment techniques that could better measure that learning, the participant indicates the impact research can have on practice.
Leveraging Expertise
… [W]e've got the intellectual and academic resources that are unrivaled in the world. So, that's good PR, and it's worthwhile PR. One of the things I think [the course] will do is it will attract people who are interested in those programs to us.
If that is how they want to present [the institution] to the world, I totally get that. I'm actually very proud of the fact that they consider my work product to be of high enough quality to be deserving of that kind of attention.
Another advantage is you can bring expertise to a place that didn't have it. Like, you know, the stuff that I'm teaching is something maybe only 50 people in the world could really put this together, and so we benefit students that wouldn't otherwise have access to an expert in this particular field, so that's really nice too.
In addition to emphasizing MOOCs as an outlet for sharing expertise, part of Participant 5's response addresses another area for the future of MOOCs—access.
Providing Access
I think that MOOCs make it much easier for women to get access, women everywhere to get access to this kind of knowledge. So I think that for me the biggest category of benefit for MOOCs, again, just has to do with, in a small way, changing that imbalance.
Whereas when you look at the Internet class, there's so much more diversity and so many dimensions. And there're so many people for whom having to be in a classroom … is not physically possible. So, we have people from other majors, people who are experimenting seeing if [the discipline] is something they are interested in. We have people who really know [the discipline] is what they're interested in they're just trying to get their fingernails over the sills so they can crawl into the room. So I'm really seeing the benefit there.
Participant 6 expressed concerns about moving forward with MOOCs, but was quite optimistic about Internet-based courses and the access they can provide to different students in different areas. It is also important to note that the future of MOOCs and other open-access courses could lie in making educational experiences more accessible for people across the United States and around the world.
Providing Other Educational Opportunities
… [W]hen you think about the future—where do we go from here—for me, the key point about online learning is the engagement aspect, as I mentioned. I think there we are really just in the early days. At the moment, the way we do this is through a forum, and I don't think at all that this will be the future. And so I'm hoping that more tools will be developed that use already existing technology like social media or video chat or what have you to really make this a more engaging experience.
Discussion
Although phenomenography explores the variations of human experience, the guidelines for the approach indicate that the variations are finite. In the case of the current study on the future of MOOCs, those limited experiences could be across the study itself or across studies or works on the same topic. Because conversations about the future of MOOCs are still quite nascent, and studies on the future of MOOCs much more so, discussing themes from the current study in the context of themes from other texts (see Table 6.2) could provide a broader picture of the variations of experiences related to the future of MOOCs in higher education.
| Themes from Current Study | Themes from Extant Literature |
|---|---|
| Connections to face-to-face classrooms | Globalization/access |
| Improving student engagement and learning | Precollege and continuing education students |
| Leveraging expertise | Certification/professional development |
| Providing access | Feedback to students |
| Providing other educational opportunities | Security issues |
| Face-to-face and online teaching roles |
There are areas of overlap between the themes in the current study and themes from the extant literature, and the themes “Providing access” and “Providing other educational opportunities” from the current study could be connected to the themes “Globalization/access,” “Pre-college and continuing education students,” and “Certification/professional development” noted in the extant literature. The theme “Improving student engagement and learning” could be connected to “Face-to-face and online teaching roles” and “Feedback to students” themes in the literature.
Overlap with Providing Access
Participants in the current study discussed the future of MOOCs for educational access in the United States and in other areas as well. For example, Participant 2 talked about the global possibilities MOOCs could provide, particularly for women in areas that limit their participation in higher education, and Participants 5 and 6 highlighted access opportunities as well, Participant 6 more specifically for people who may not have access to classes because of the days/times when those classes are offered. These ideas are similar to those expressed by Clarke (2013), Munoz et al. (2013), and Dasarathy et al. (2014). Clarke's (2013) thoughts on MOOCs helping to bring educational connections to people in developing countries is similar to Participant 2's views, in that they are both addressing MOOCs from a local connections perspective. The Munoz et al. (2013) glocalisation and the Dasarathy et al. (2014) SPOCs are not too far off from thoughts that Participants 5 and 6 shared. Participant 5 noted how MOOCs could be used to provide expertise to areas that do not have access to such expertise, and that idea marries well with the Munoz et al. notion of glocalisation. The Dasarathy et al. (2014) concept of SPOCs has much in common with Participant 6's perceptions of possibilities for open-access courses. Participant 6 expressed excitement over the future of Internet-based courses and what it could mean for student access, but also expressed concern about open-access courses. Although Participant 6 did not say so outright, one could presume that the concern about massive open online courses, for Participant 6 anyway, is the “massive” part. However, the “open” aspect of the MOOC could be concerning for Participant 6 as well. The Dasarathy et al. (2014) perspectives complement those of Participant 6, in that they address both the “massive” and “open” parts of MOOCs and discuss the possibility of “small” and “private” online courses.
Overlap with Providing Other Educational Opportunities
The expansion of educational possibilities for MOOCs was important to several participants in the current study as well as a main topic in the literature on the future of MOOCs in higher education. As evidenced by participants’ comments from the Providing Other Educational Opportunities theme, these “other” opportunities included thoughts on ways MOOCs or open-access courses could be employed beyond their current uses. Contributions from the larger body of literature also noted future ways MOOCs could be leveraged, and those ideas are consistent with some of those highlighted in the current study. For example, Participant 6 stated that MOOCs could potentially expand early college opportunities for high school students. Macleod (2015) also talked about pre/early college options that MOOCs could facilitate. These early college opportunities could work for both online and face-to-face early college programs. Online programs could incorporate MOOCs or open-access courses into their existing structures, and face-to-face programs could have a few open-access courses interspersed among their regular course offerings. Participants in the current study did not discuss continuing education opportunities, although that could very well be a future use for MOOCs, as noted in the literature.
Participant 5's mentioning of nanodegrees is similar to Levine's (2015) idea of apprenticeships and competency-based education through MOOCs. Just as Participant 5 stated that nanodegrees could provide opportunities for students to learn particular skills, the competency-based educational opportunities that Levine mentioned seemed to make a similar case. The notion of nanodegrees and competency-based MOOCs provides a segue into another growing area for MOOCs: credentialing. Credentialing is a more recent facet of MOOCs (Shah, 2014), and there are several courses that provide a credential, such as course credit instead of the previous not-for-credit model for MOOCs. The idea of gaining a credential from a MOOC is predicted to be an important part of the future of these courses (Shah, 2014; Wexler, 2015a). The question of whether people will have the ability to earn degrees or certificates via MOOCs still looms as well. For example, there are currently platforms available to allow people to keep track of the MOOCs they take for professional development, curiosity, or professional enrichment, and a few of these same platforms will suggest courses to users based on their interests or previous courses. Some of the platforms include Class Central and Degreed. In fact, Degreed markets itself as a mechanism for tracking all types of learning, including reading books and attending conferences (Degreed, 2015).
Overlap with Improving Student Engagement and Learning
The Haavind and Sistek-Chandler (2015) study discussed the way MOOCs have changed the feedback students receive from instructors and the interactions between students and professors in the online environment. Some of the participants shared that they could not provide as much feedback to students as they would have liked. They also mentioned the massive amounts of student data they had to manage. In the current study, however, Participants 4 and 8 offered what could be viewed as additional commentary on the large amounts of student data generated in MOOCs. For example, Participant 4 highlighted the communal aspects of the course and the “de-centering” of the professor. Although there are times when the professor as the content expert will need to provide a response to students, there may be other times when the students can provide responses to each other as engaged members of the community. Participant 8's point about software to aid in creating better questions could be helpful in terms of student feedback as well. Just as these software programs could be beneficial in face-to-face and more traditional online courses, they could be helpful in providing feedback to students in other MOOCs as well.
Haavind and Sistek-Chandler (2015) also addressed the challenges related to professor/student interaction in MOOCs, which could be viewed as another important aspect of student engagement and learning—professors engaging with students is a way to understand what/how students are learning. However, as Participants 4 and 8 noted, there are other ways for students to learn, and there may be new developments in how that learning is assessed. While the professor would still be responsible for ensuring that the discussion board/forum and interactions are correct and on task, which is no small feat, there could possibly be ways for the learning community and software developments to shift what it means to engage in and assess interaction and learning.
Because the area of MOOCs is still growing, along with the empirical data related to these and other open-access courses, the current list of themes on the future of MOOCs in the extant literature is a dynamic one. For the current contributions, however, there were several similarities between the experiences expressed in those texts and the ones shared by participants in the current study.
Conclusion
This chapter explored the variations of participants’ perspectives on the future of MOOCs in higher education, and the themes in the current work matched several themes in the body of literature related to the future of MOOCs. Future studies could phenomenographically explore professors’ perspectives on the future of MOOCs again as the literature on MOOCs continues to grow. Institutional researchers have an opportunity to add to the conversation on MOOCs by collecting and sharing data related to MOOCs on their campuses. They could investigate the current climate related to students’ experiences with MOOCs or explore the current perception of MOOCs, which would be helpful for future MOOC development on their campuses. The data would also be useful in helping campuses develop an idea of the types of MOOCs that their students would take. MOOCs have the potential to shift various facets of college and university campuses, and offices of institutional research could be instrumental in helping their institutions navigate the new territory related to MOOCs. For example, departments that are trying to understand how MOOCs would impact undergraduate and graduate students in their area could look to their offices of institutional research for data to help them in their decision making. Offices of institutional research could provide data related to enrollment to help campuses that are considering MOOCs understand what impact the courses would have on their current population of students. For campuses who choose to adopt MOOCs, offices of institutional research could help the campuses make sense of the plethora of data they will get related to students’ enrollment in MOOCs.
As instructors continue developing and teaching MOOCs, and as platforms continue providing MOOCs, the caveats of Altbach (2014), Marshall (2014) and others should be considered. The assumption of accessibility could lead to the exclusion of various types of voices, ideas, and abilities if instructors, researchers, developers, and administrators do not stop to ask about “access to what” or “access for whom.” There is also the added concern some have, as Marshall (2014) expressed, that some people may compromise students’ learning in an effort to provide open-access courses. As noted earlier in the work, however, learning could be compromised in face-to-face courses as well, so the pedagogical implications for any course should always be considered. As noted in the current study, MOOCs have the potential to teach those in or interested in higher education about student learning, the online student experience, and the online teaching experience. Current uses of MOOCs could be an opportunity for all those involved in the development and delivery of these and other open-access courses to learn more about the future of higher education in an online environment. Although perspectives on MOOCs are mixed, the lessons learned from them, both good and bad, could be used for the overall improvement of the teaching and learning environment in higher education.
Note
Biography
Stephanie J. Blackmon, Ph.D., assistant professor at the College of William & Mary
