Internet Learning Volume 4 Number 2 - Fall 2015
The Tangible and Intangible Benefits of Offering Massive
Open Online Courses: Faculty Perspectives
Credence Baker,A Fred Nafukho,B Karen McCaleb,C Melissa Becker,D
and Michelle JohnsonE
The primary purpose of this study was to establish perceptions of faculty
members regarding the benefits of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)
in higher education. In addition, the study sought to determine what the
challenges of offering MOOCs were and what accounted for the low completion
rates of MOOCs. Data were collected using an online survey from 1,057 faculty
members in a major university system based in the southern United States.
Of the 1,057 target faculty population who completed the online survey,
939 responses were viable, and only 396 of the faculty respondents provided
answers to the open-ended question regarding the benefits of MOOCs. Overall,
the researchers analyzed 396 faculty responses using the Atlas Ti qualitative
program. Open-ended coding was conducted to determine what key concepts
faculty provided in their responses to describe the benefits of MOOCs. Axial
codes were developed to group primary codes into broader concepts which
enabled the researchers to create themes based on the axial codes. The responses
provide rich and robust descriptions about the benefits and drawbacks of
MOOCs. The paper presents the results of the open-ended question.
Keywords: MOOCs, massive open online courses, higher education, online
education, distance learning
A
Dr. Credence Baker is an assistant professor and assistant graduate dean at Tarleton State University.
Fredrick Muyia Nafukho serves as Professor and Department Head in the Department of Educational
Administration and Human Resource Development, College of Education and Human Development at Texas
A&M University. Dr. Nafukho earned his Ph.D. in Human Resource & Leadership Development from Louisiana State University, M.Ed in Economics of Education and B.Ed in Business Studies and Economics from
Kenyatta University, Kenya. He attended Harvard’s Management Development Program (MDP) offered by
Harvard Institutes for Higher Education. He joined the Department of Educational Administration and Human Resource Development at Texas A&M University as an Associate Professor in August 2007. Dr. Nafukho
has received numerous awards in recognition of his scholarship including: the Fulbright Scholarship in 1996,
Distinguished International Scholar Award, Louisiana State University in 1997, Arkansas Business Teacher Educator of the Year Award in 2004, Cutting Edge Award for the Outstanding Papers, Academy of Human Resource Development (with his student Dr. Carroll C. Graham) in 2005 and Outstanding New Faculty
Award, CEHD at Texas A&M University in 2008. Dr. Nafukho’ s research foci is on adult learning, emotional
intelligence and leadership development, organizational learning, performance improvement, evaluation in
organizations, and investment in human capital development.
B
52
The Tangible and Intangible Benefits of Offering Massive Open Online Courses: Faculty Perspectives
communicate with an unlimited number of
people through personal cell phones. As a
result of the technological impact on society,
our higher education delivery system has
also morphed. An increasing number of
universities and campuses are offering
distance education courses as a result of this
shift. According to the National Governor’s
Association, “the number of students taking
an online course has nearly quadrupled over
the past decade, with nearly one-third of
all postsecondary students in the nation –
including many working adults – currently
taking at least one course online” (NGA,
2013, p.1). This information is corroborated
by the Sloan Foundation’s 2010 Survey of
Online Learning assertion that more than
30% of all students take at least one online
course during their college career (Hachey,
Wladis, & Conway, 2012). Although the
term “distance education” has historically
meant “correspondence course”, today that
definition is more inclusive.
Distance Education (DE) has been
implemented in the United States for
several decades. The evolution of DE has
typically been classified by the technology
as well as the pedagogical approach utilized.
Anderson and Dron (2012) summarized the
three generations of the technology used as:
1) postal correspondence; 2) mass media of
television, radio and film production; and
3) interactive technologies. Although the
generations are each unique, they overlap
and intertwine.
No matter the learning modality or
grade level, a common challenge for teachers
is student engagement (Jensen, 2005).
Educators today must create instructional
Introduction
T
he need to transform the way
university leaders think and run
their institutions, especially in this
technology-driven learning environment,
has become more pronounced in the 21st
century than ever before (Clark, 1998;
Nafukho & Wawire, 2004; Ziderman
& Albrecht, 1995). On the significant
role of technology in higher education,
Miller (2014, p. 1) noted, “Most students
graduating from college in the present era
will experience at least some part of their
education via technology, whether as an
enhancement to the traditional, face-to-face
approach, fully online or some mix of the
two.” The academic institution has changed
and evolved based on its consumer needs as
well as the available societal resources. One
such resource which has altered common
educational practice has been the rapid surge
of technology. A new challenge for academia
is determining the technology tools best
suited to provide strong pedagogical
practices to a technology-savvy population.
As new technologies emerge, and student
needs shift, universities search for ways to
support student learning and growth. In
addition, university leaders and professors
are challenged to develop entrepreneurial
ways of delivering educational products
and services to their students (Nafukho &
Muyia, 2014).
Today, technology is commonplace.
First-year college freshmen have lived with
cell phone technology, Internet, and social
media. Students can watch movies, listen
to music, conduct banking business, and
C
Dr. Karen McCaleb is an associate professor and associate dean of the College of Education at Texas A&M
Corpus Christi.
D
Dr. Melissa Becker is an associate professor of education at Tarleton State University.
E
Michelle Johnson is a doctoral student in the College of Education at Texas A&M University.
53
Internet Learning
discussion boards, blogs, wikis, collaborative
documents/presentations, and social media
groups. When carefully scaffolded by the
instructor, these activities can allow for rich
communication and collaboration, as well
as creativity to build upon ideas and projects
using the vast resources of the Internet.
Moreover, the Internet allows students to
connect with experts in the field, and bring
in perspectives from outside of the online
classroom.
Finally, online instructors can
call upon imagery, audio, video, music,
and interactive elements to enhance the
design of an online course, and express
creativity in the design of instruction for
online students. In terms of pedagogical
strategies for engaging online students,
the online learning environment allows
instructors to establish course goals
and relevance and clearly communicate
expectations before the course begins, and
at each assessment benchmark during the
semester. Because of the ‘backwards design’
of an online course, and the necessity to
view it through the learner’s lens, an online
instructor can set online students up for
success through organization and good
design. Communication can be enhanced
in an online course through behaviors
congruent with immediacy and presence,
both of which have been shown to enhance
student engagement (Richardson & Swan,
2003; Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004).
Online instructors can use asynchronous
tools like email and discussion boards,
and synchronous tools like chat, Skype
or Google Hangouts to connect with and
support students. Finally, online learning
environments allow for multiple forms
of formative and summative assessment.
Online instructors can provide timely
feedback in written/text form, as well in
audio/video format.
opportunities by utilizing technology to
empower learners to solve problems, access
information, and create relationships
outside the classroom using the digital
tools (November, 2010). In the online
environment, this challenge is exacerbated
by several factors, including the lack of faceto-face contact, a hindered ability to share
emotions like enthusiasm, encouragement
or concern, learner/instructor isolation, and
the unrealistic expectations of students that
online coursework is easier and requires
less time (Cull, Reed, & Kirk, 2010). These
challenges are likely further compounded in
a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC),
where the sheer number of students lessen
the ability of the instructor to engage
individual students, and can manifest
into high withdraw/dropout rates in
MOOCs, as reported by Koutropoulos
and Hougue (2012). Jordan (2013) found
that the average MOOC course is found
to enroll around 43,000 students, 6.5% of
whom complete the course. Despite these
challenges, the online learning environment
has unique components for fostering
student engagement and learning, including
flexibility, interactivity, and creativity for
online instructors to generate a variety of
learning experiences that are both structural
and pedagogical in nature.
The flexibility of learning anytime/
anywhere can empower students to take
charge of their own learning, and focus
on important intellectual tasks at optimal
times. Flexibility of learning has been cited
as a major factor in the sustained growth of
online courses over ten years from less than 2
million in the early 2000s to 6.7 million in the
fall of 2011 as reported in Changing Course:
Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in
the United States (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
Additionally, online courses afford a unique
platform for interactivity, collaboration,
and community building using tools like
54
The Tangible and Intangible Benefits of Offering Massive Open Online Courses: Faculty Perspectives
and used the postal service as its technological
means of exchanging communication and
between instructor and student. In this
course delivery system, one instructor could
instruct and communicate with one student
or several students in different locations. This
instructional method utilized a cognitive/
behaviorist approach in which the focus is
on the individual learner. No longer was it
imperative for students to travel to a campus
to receive instruction. Through this type of
distance education, students in more rural
areas or who faced other barriers in accessing
a college campus were able to pursue higher
education. Obvious limitations to this
method of instructional delivery include
the time students and faculty had to wait
between correspondences, and the lack of
interactivity between students.
As technology advanced, so did the
ways in which it was utilized by institutions
of higher education. The second generation
of technology development utilized a social
constructivist pedagogical approach. In
this delivery system, student-to-student
and student-to-instructor communication
opportunities
were
expanded
and
emphasized. Through technology, such as
email and the World Wide Web, the course
environment became more interactive
and dynamic. Unlike the first generation
of technology use in higher education
which primarily provided instructional
information in an isolated situation, this
generation attempts to provide students an
online class environment in which they can
build a virtual classroom community.
The third generation, utilizing
a connectivist approach, is even more
entrenched in social networks. This informal
learning approach, relies on the interactions
between students as they use technology
tools such tweets, blogs, and social media.
Unlike the first generation, this educational
experience relies on students working
Purpose of the Study
Although
delivering
learning
content online is associated with numerous
advantages, Massive Open Online Courses
with thousands of students enrolled
have faced scepticism; especially from
faculty members based in major research
universities. When it comes to learning,
both high-tech (online learning) and hightouch (face-to-face learning) issues become
important, especially to faculty members
involved in the design and delivery of faceto-face, blended and online learning. In
terms of engaging students in the learning
process, it has been established that utilizing
a mix of face-to-face and online instruction
promotes optimal learning (Bonk, 2002).
While MOOCs are now becoming a reality
in higher education, limited studies have
been conducted, especially among faculty
members regarding their perceptions on
the learning effectiveness of MOOCs. The
primary purpose of this study was to establish
perceptions of faculty regarding the benefits
of MOOCs in a major southern university
system in the United States.
Conceptual Framework
A
nderson and Dron (2012) have
offered a broader view of distance
education by classifying the three
generations by the type of pedagogical
approach employed. The three theoretical
frameworks
are
termed:
cognitive/
behaviorist, social constructivist, and
connectivist. The following synopsis of the
three pedagogical frameworks provide a
broad overview of this distance education
technology development.
The first phase, or generation of
technology adoption in course delivery was
that of postal correspondence. This concept
was popular during much of the 20th century
55
Internet Learning
in shaping the future of higher education,
envisioning a future where MOOCs offer full
degrees as ‘bricks and mortar’ institutions
decline. According to the Oxford Dictionary
(2013), the term MOOC is defined as “a
course of study made available over the
Internet without charge to a very large
number of people.” The courses are typically
free, but historically institutions have not
allowed participants to receive actual course
credit. However, as MOOCs have become
more mainstream, universities are beginning
to explore ways to reverse this trend. For
example, Arizona State University (ASU), the
largest public university in the United States,
recently launched it’s Global Freshman
Academy in partnership with MOOC
provider edX, allowing anyone to take an
entire first year of college online via MOOCs
for free ASU transcript credit. MIT recently
announced its intent to allow students to
obtain one of its master’s degrees by doing
half of the coursework via MOOCs. A 2015
U.S. and World News Report lists similar
MOOC-for-credit initiatives at institutions
like Georgia Institute of Technology and The
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign.
The first cMOOC was offered in
2008, by the University of Manitoba in
Canada. The course, Connectivism and
Connective Knowledge, registered twenty-five
paying students seeking course credit as well
as 2,300 other students, from the public, who
enrolled at no cost. Daniel (2012), a wellknown scholar of MOOCs, observed that
Stanford University offered a free MOOCs
course on Artificial Intelligence, which
enrolled 160,000 students. The success of
this MOOC course motivated Sebastian
Thrun, the professor at Stanford University
who developed the course to establish a
MOOC private start-up company called
Udacity which has played an important role
of promoting the development of MOOCs
in other universities (Meyer, 2012). Yuan
together to help each other as individuals,
and as teams, to learn and use a personal
learning network (PLN). The constructivist
approach has been utilized in the design and
delivery of xMOOCs and cMOOCs. The
xMOOCs refer to instructor-guided lessons
which include discussion forums, videos,
and encourage discussion among learners.
cMOOCs, on the other hand, are based on
connectivism where learners engage in selfpaced learning as they navigate the course,
build a web of connections among fellow
learners and create meaning by setting
their own learning goals and choosing how
to engage in the learning process. Through
active engagement and active learning
communities, the learners in cMOOCs learn
and create knowledge together (Scholz,
2013).
Literature Review
A
s evident from the technology
evolution in higher education,
course delivery systems must adapt
to society’s needs and student preferences.
Institutions of higher education have
evolved from postal correspondence to
providing an online learning experience
that parallels the design of an on-campus
class. However, as a result of the increasing
possibilities of technology infusion in
education, academia is now challenging the
concept of the traditional online class design
by offering courses in a very nontraditional
manner. The development of Massive Open
Online Courses is rooted within the ideals of
openness in education, knowledge should be
shared freely, and the desire to learn should
be met without demographic, economic, and
geographical constraints (Yuan & Powell,
2013). This idealized view of MOOCs posits
that benefits of online learning can be offered
on a massive scale. Leckart (2012) heralded
[the advent of MOOCs] as a significant event
56
The Tangible and Intangible Benefits of Offering Massive Open Online Courses: Faculty Perspectives
with regard to the design and successful
delivery of MOOCs.
and Powell (2013) stated that presentday MOOCs are generating considerable
media attention and significant interest
from higher education institutions as well
as venture capitalists who see a lucrative
business opportunity. MOOCs can be seen
as an extension of existing online learning
approaches, in terms of open access to courses
and scalability, but also offer an opportunity
to think afresh about new business learning
models that include elements of open
education. Since the first MOOC course was
offered in 2008, over ten MOOC companies
have been established in partnership with
world-renowned universities including:
Class 2 Go, Cousera, Cousesites, edX,
Google Course Builder, Instructure Canvas,
Khan Academy, NOVOEd, OpenMOOC,
Udacity and Udemy, with many others in
development.
Other lenses through which to view
MOOCs include the political sector, where
government leaders see the potential to
address the problem of higher education
budget constraints and lower the cost of
degree courses by enabling inexpensive, lowrisk experiments in different forms of higher
education provision (Carey, 2013). The
private business sector envisions MOOCs as
a way to enter the higher education market by
providing a MOOC platform and developing
partnerships with existing institutions and
to explore new delivery models in higher
education (Yuan & Powell, 2013). Advocates
see MOOCs as a disruptive innovation that
will transform higher education. To these
varied lenses, MOOCs provide a powerful
tool to make fundamental changes in
the organization and delivery of higher
education over the next decade (Shirky,
2012). Most of the writings on MOOCs have
been presented in mainstream newspapers
and refereed academic journals. There exists
a gap in the literature on faculty perspectives
of MOOCs, hence the need to involve faculty
Research Questions
To achieve the purpose of the study,
the following research questions guided the
study:
1. What are faculty perceptions regarding
the benefits of Massive Open Online
Courses in higher education?
2. What are the challenges of offering
MOOCs in your institution?
3. What accounts for the low completion
rates of MOOCs?
In order to achieve the purpose of this
study and answer the research questions, a
cross-sectional survey was utilized to collect
and analyze data from the study respondents.
This being an exploratory descriptive study, a
cross-sectional survey design was employed
to enable the researchers to capture faculty
perceptions regarding the benefits of
MOOCs. Thus, a self-perception survey was
selected as the instrument to collect data
since self-reporting has been found to be the
most direct and common way to establish
study participant perceptions (Anderson
& Kanuka, 1997). Dillman (2000) also
observed that self-reports serve the interest
of study participants who, in this case, were
faculty who were typically teaching using
face-to-face, online or blended methods. In
their teaching role, faculty members serve
as experts who direct the learning process,
and are critical in encouraging students
to learn for a lifetime through continuing
professional education. Hence the need
to determine their perception of MOOCs
which are mainly taken by learners who
already have first degrees and are interested
in continuing professional education (Cull,
Reed, & Kirk, 2010).
57
Internet Learning
have been used to measure perceptions
regarding MOOCs. The researchers of this
study obtained permission from the Babson
Survey Research Group, a renowned
research team in the area of online learning,
to use some of the questionnaire items from
what was originally known as the Sloan
Online Survey, through a partnership with
the Sloan Consortium and Pearson. The
other items of the instrument were adapted
from Anderson and Kanuka’s (1997) work
and were modified to meet the needs of
this study. In addition, items were obtained
from Ke’s (2011) study. Only the results for
the open-ended section of the instrument
are reported in this study.
Target Population and Sample
The target population for the study
was comprised of 7,000 faculty members
employed by a major university system
based in the southern portion of the United
States. Of the 7,000 targeted population
of faculty, 1,057 (15.1%) of system faculty
completed the online survey, and of those
who completed the survey 939 (88.8%) of
the responses were complete and usable.
The researchers of this study, however
report the results pertaining to the openended responses which sought answers
to the three research questions. Only
396 of the faculty respondents provided
answers to the open-ended questions
regarding their perceptions of the benefits
of MOOCs, challenges facing MOOCs and
why there were low completion rates in
MOOCs. Overall, the researchers analyzed
396 faculty responses using the Atlas Ti
qualitative program. The sample included
46% females and 54% males. Eighty-two
percent of the respondents identified
themselves as Caucasian, 8% Hispanic, 2%
African American, 1% Asian, 1% American
Indian, and 6% who identified as “other”.
Sixty-seven percent of the sample indicated
they were tenured or tenure track faculty,
while 33% said they were non-tenure track.
Open-ended coding was conducted
to determine what key concepts faculty
provided in their responses to describe
the benefits and drawbacks of MOOCs,
challenges of MOOCs and reasons for the
low completion rates in MOOCs courses.
Axial codes were developed to group
primary codes into broader concepts which
enabled the researchers to create themes
based on the axial codes.
Instrumentation
Data Collection Procedures
Prior to data collection and to
protect human subjects in the study, the
approval to conduct this study was obtained
from the Institutional Review Boards
(IRBs) of the three institutions where the
researchers are employed. Once the IRB
permissions were granted, the researchers
worked with a main contact person in the
university system of over ten institutions to
coordinate the data collection process. Data
delimiters were identified by the researchers
to ensure confidentiality of data. From a list
provided by the university contact, survey
invitations were distributed via e-mail. In
the invitation, a unique link was provided
and directed the participants to the study.
The electronic survey was created in such a
way that participants could only complete
the survey one time.
Data Analysis
To analyze the qualitative data
collected through open-ended questions
from the 396 faculty members who
provided rich and detailed explanations
The electronic survey was comprised
of several validated instrument items which
58
The Tangible and Intangible Benefits of Offering Massive Open Online Courses: Faculty Perspectives
a MOOC is unique to the individual, the
benefits offered by MOOCs are extended to
all students.
Access to education. Among these
benefits are a large number of individuals
having access to education, one participant
stated that by offering MOOCs institutions
provide “accessibility to [educational courses]
to a diverse and wide-ranging student body”.
While another participant noted, MOOCs
provide “accessibility to students who
could benefit from foundational courses
without incurring an additional financial
burden.” One respondent also reported that
traditional education is available to “only
the “elite” or upper middle class or students
willing to “mortgage their future with
financial aid” can afford higher education
with the traditional four years of face-toface campus attendance”.
Flexibility in education. MOOCs
offer students convenience and flexibility in
attending college courses. One participant
noted students are able to enroll in courses
which are “better fitting in their schedules
because they render time of day for
coursework irrelevant”. Meaning, students
are able to attend classes and complete
course work without feeling the constraints
of working, family obligations, or having to
travel long distances.
Self-paced learning with no grade
pressure.
Participants stated students
benefit greatly from the self-paced learning
environment offered by MOOCs. This
environment, as noted by one participant,
offers “bite-sized, self-paced instruction
with experts”. While another participant
stated, MOOCs are “self-paced, capitalize
on developing and sharing knowledge,
skills, and abilities to many [students] by
leveraging the expertise of the few”.
Students are able to learn from the
experts at their own pace without feeling
the pressure to make good grades. One
on the benefits of MOOCs, the researchers
transcribed the survey responses into a
readable format with the Atlas Ti qualitative
program. The researchers conducted open
coding to determine what key concepts
faculty members discussed to describe
their MOOCs experience or inexperience.
Next, axial codes were developed to group
primary codes into broader concepts.
Themes emerged based on these axial codes.
The researchers discussed findings and
verified the coding and themes to develop a
working knowledge of the study participants’
experience or inexperience with MOOCs.
Results
S
urvey participants were asked the
open ended question, “What are the
benefits of offering MOOCs?” The
qualitative data from this section of the
survey was unitized and then coded, thus
revealing five major categories along with
some subcategories on who benefits from
institutions offering MOOCs. In addition
to discussing the benefits, participants also
discussed some of the drawbacks of offering
MOOCs although they were not asked to
provide information on drawbacks. This
was an unexpected finding as participants
were specifically asked about the benefits.
This section of the paper discusses the
student benefits, institution or program
benefits, and the reported drawbacks of
offering MOOCs.
Student Benefits
According to Newman (2013),
individuals may be motivated to enroll in
adult education courses to gain control of
their lives, learn to reason freely, nurture their
consciousness, participate in a civil society,
or learn how to better assert themselves in
their world. While the motive to enroll in
59
Internet Learning
improved through the use of MOOCs. By
offering a course online, instructors are
challenged to be creative in designing and
delivering instruction. As one participant
noted, “when creatively and thoughtfully
produced, the MOOC provides greater
attention to the visual presentation needed
to capture interest and enhance learning”
for the students. The ability of instructors to
create interactive, engaging online MOOCs
also “promulgates best practices” as noted
by one participant.
Professional
development
for
professors and teachers. As instructors
seek to provide the highest quality of
content for their courses to students,
MOOCs also provide opportunities
for faculty professional development.
Participants noted MOOCs are a means
to offer professional development to
faculty teaching at smaller institutions
who may experience limitations on travel
or availability of funding. One participant
stated “professional continuing education
MOOCs provide opportunities to people
in smaller communities who may not have
access to F2F CE opportunities”. Thus,
faculty members gain access to professional
development opportunities that are flexible
in location and scheduling.
participant noted MOOCs as “giving a safe
environment for testing technical skills
without a grade being on the line”. Thus,
students are able to learn without the added
stress of making a good grade which may
affect their ability to learn. The benefits
MOOCs offer students are enhanced by the
many benefits institutions and programs
gain from offering MOOCs.
Institution and Program Benefits
Institutions and programs benefits
greatly from the marketing aspect related
to offering MOOCs. One participant stated
“if well-designed and conducted, a MOOC
can raise the visibility of the institution
and of the instructor”. Thus, having welldesigned and conducted courses generates
publicity and increases the visibility of the
institution or program on the national level.
Participants also noted if institutions are
highly visible, they then have the ability to
broaden their recruiting to reach a wide
diversity of students.
Reaching a wide audience. MOOCs
provide institutions and programs the
opportunity to reach students who may be
dispersed across the country by offering
flexibility in location. One participant stated
institutions are “reaching geographically
remote and economically disadvantaged
curious learners”. Students are not required
to be geographically housed in the same
location as the institution or program they
attend. Meaning, institutions and programs
are able to electronically reach new, larger
student populations without being limited by
physical space and by removing the barrier
that distance can create. The ability to reach
a wider audience challenges institutions or
programs to improve course quality and
provide professional development.
Improving course quality. Participants
noted that the quality of courses can be
Multiple Benefits from Offering MOOCs
MOOCs help students and
instructors overcome the barriers of distance
and high costs as well as the time constraints
associated with the traditional college and
professional development courses.
By
providing a flexible learning and teaching
alternative, institutions and programs are
better able to market themselves, serve
geographically remote and financially
disadvantaged populations, and promote
best teaching practices without having to
increase the physical size of their campuses.
60
The Tangible and Intangible Benefits of Offering Massive Open Online Courses: Faculty Perspectives
motivation by students may provide insight
into the mixed results universities may
receive on student success. As one faculty
participant explained, “universities across
the country are having mixed results. They
will not necessarily be “better” or “worse”,
but like any course, it will depend on the
structure of the course and learning styles of
the participants”.
Yet, the lack of motivation on the
instructor’s behalf to create an engaging
MOOC course design may be explained
by an instructor’s previous experience
with and preference for another online
course program. One participant explained
preference for another online program in
the following response:
Overall, the participants stated MOOCs
offer a wide variety of benefits. However,
even without prompting on the survey, some
participants noted drawbacks of MOOCs.
The Drawbacks of offering MOOCs
One of the major of concerns for any
institution offering courses, face-to-face or
online, are completion rates. Participants
in this study noted that for MOOCs,
specifically, the completion rate is roughly
5% due to many students enrolling in a
course and then dropping out. This low
completion rate may seemingly reflect that
MOOCs, as noted by participants, offer a
very low level of educational benefits or may
be seen as a supplement to teaching and
not the primary means of delivering course
content.
Faculty who participated in this
study suggested that MOOCs “online
offering effectiveness is limited to teaching
definitions and for reinforcement practice”
as there are some courses that simply and
logically cannot be taught online. Reflecting
this sentiment, one participant stated, “A
simple example is swimming. Few people
will learn how to swim by taking an online
course” and suggested that this example
can be extrapolated to many other fields of
study.
According to participants, these
drawbacks and limitations also impact how
students perceive MOOCs. Because of the
lack of pressure to achieve high grades (a
cited benefit by some participants), students
may view MOOCs as optional entertainment
rather than an academically rigorous course.
However, another participant suggested that
the limitations of MOOCs may relate to the
student’s motivation. This participant noted
“if the user [student] is not motivated (i.e.,
use of the MOOC format is coerced), then
the benefits of MOOCs are zilch”. The lack of
I teach many online courses and
have since 2001 and I have been
closely following the professional
development issue. MOOCs are useful
if offered entirely freely online, but as a
replacement for actual courses (online,
with regular caps of 25-30, or face-toface) they are worse than useless as
current studies are showing. However,
I strongly support [online program].
Instructors who have spent several
years teaching may have experience with
other online course programs and find those
may yield more success for students than
MOOCs.
Whether the drawbacks of MOOCs
are related to the lack of motivation from
the student, instructor, or the university
which provides little or no support, MOOCs
present real challenges for teaching students
online. As institutions and instructors work
to overcome the challenges of offering
MOOCs, one participant reminds the
researchers in this study that first, everyone
must be able to define and understand
MOOCs. While question branching logic
61
Internet Learning
was used in the survey to ascertain whether interaction between instructor and student
participants were aware of MOOCs, this and the relationships/networks built in
traditional face-to-face classrooms provide
participant stated,
educational benefits and life-skills that
You have a flaw in your survey. In the cannot be obtained in an online classroom”.
While, other participants expressed
introduction, you discuss MOOCs
under the assumption that the the concern that colleagues may be unwilling
people you desire to respond to this to learn or mistrust new technology. The
survey will understand the meaning. unwillingness to learn or the mistrust of
Unfortunately, at [university], we do this “new” technology, as one participant
not use this term; therefore, we do not stated is “the challenge [of] determining the
understand the meaning (definition) content that can be delivered successfully…”
of the term. You need to ensure you or may be related the time management
provide all appropriate information to required to successfully teach a MOOCs
ensure respondent understanding… course. One participant stated MOOCs are
do not assume they will know. In time-consuming and faculty are not trained
summary, if institutions, instructors to be web designers. Finally, participants
or students are unaware of MOOCs; discussed concerns about many faculty “are
they will never be able to fully obtain simply overloaded and will not have time
the benefits which come from offering to dedicate to a MOOC.” or with the large
number of students who may enroll in these
MOOCs.
courses.
The Challenges of Offering MOOCs
Lack of Resources and Institutional
When asked specifically about the Leadership Support
challenges of offering MOOCs at their
Participants are also concerned
institutions, participants discussed the
issues or concerns pertaining to faculty, with the perceived lack or limited number
institutional leadership and resources, of resources available to offer MOOCs
academics, and students. This section of in the forms of technology, IT support,
the findings will focus on the perceived and the possible lack of funding due to
the high cost of MOOCs. The perceived
challenges of offering MOOCs.
limitation of technology at their institutions
was also discussed in relation to the lack
Faculty Issues and Concerns
of institutional leadership support. A
Participants expressed concerns participant noted the “leadership of all
with faculty’s acceptance of, skill in levels seems stuck in the past regarding
developing, and time management of teaching and learning with technology”.
MOOCs. Participants also discussed the However the lack of leadership support
class size and teaching load associated for one participant was not the issue, the
with facilitating MOOCs. However, the participant stated “the Provost is pushing
majority of participants discussed the loss for more online education, but the quality
of traditional class face-to-face interaction is poor and the interest from faculty is very
as their biggest concern. One participant low”.
expressed the following, “the real-life
62
The Tangible and Intangible Benefits of Offering Massive Open Online Courses: Faculty Perspectives
a greater likelihood to start and complete
a fitness class do so when they have to be
accountable to someone. If you can drop
out and no one knows; well no shame
in that. There is peer pressure in a class
not in a MOOC”. Some participants also
discussed the perceived lack of dedication
and self-discipline students possess to
complete these time intensive courses.
However, one participant noted, “I don't
see the completion rate as a problem for
MOOCs...students sign up on a whim and
change their mind before the class starts, the
course sounds interesting but after the first
few minutes/days, they find it boring or too
difficult or sloppily designed or they don't
"connect" with someone via the class and
are less motivated to come back, etc. There
are things an instructor/institution can do
to retain some of those students, but unless
the low retention rate leads to excess costs, I
can't see how it matters”.
No matter whether or not the low
completion rates are due to individual
student characteristics, some participants
felt MOOCs themselves are the reason.
Participants noted that the overall
structure of MOOCs may contribute to low
completion rates. The MOOC being offered
could have a large class size, boring format,
and no real educational value. The course
may also be too demanding or difficult, time
consuming, or lack the personal attention
a student desires from the instructor. One
participant noted “I think completion rates
of MOOCs will remain low because many
of the courses are difficult and don't count
toward a degree”. By examining faculty
perspectives on MOOCs, the findings
revealed the need to involve faculty in the
design, delivery of, and decisions to offer
MOOCs. In doing so, institutions may be
able to increase the benefits for all, remove
some of the challenges, and increase
completion rates.
Academic Concerns
The lack of support from institutional
leaders may be attributed to the same
concerns faculty have with accreditation
issues. Participants expressed that MOOCs
may be better suited for professional
development and not courses that require
students to receive course credit or must
meet the requirements for institutions to
maintain their accreditation status. One
participant summed up the concerns of
the major challenges by stating “almost
everything – accreditation, acceptance
by disciplines, assessment, institutional
support, [and] instructional support”.
Lastly
when
discussing
the
challenges, participants expressed concerns
related to the student who may enroll in
MOOCs. Participants frequently mentioned
the high dropout rates and most often the
low completion rates. The concerns over
students are repeated findings discussed
on the benefits and are also found in the
responses to the question about the reasons
for low completion rates.
Reasons for Low Completion Rates
O
verwhelming participants considered the reason for the low
completion rates in MOOCs as
the lack of motivation, accountability,
dedication, and self-discipline of students.
A student’s lack of motivation to complete
MOOCs, as one participant stated, “…may
be explained by the fact that people receive
no tangible consequences (i.e., rewards,
punishment, etc.) for dropping out of a
MOOC”. Thus, one participant drew the
conclusion that the lack of motivation may
be linked to accountability as some students
know when [they] walk away there is little
accountability to finish, saying “the student
is anonymous in a MOOC. Those who have
63
Internet Learning
perspectives from their peers. Kahu (2014)
noted that when students become vested in
this manner, they exponentially improve
their understanding of the content being
learned.
Flexibility of class time was another
benefit faculty members emphasized.
MOOCs allow the students to participate
in learning experiences at the time of day
they learn best, therefore they begin the
course automatically self-regulating their
learning experiences. As with other online
course environments, time management
and organizational abilities are required for
successful participation in a MOOC. As
students determine when they participate
in the MOOC, these skills will continually
improve the students’ optimal learning
threshold. Jensen’s (2005) work supports
these noted benefits of class time flexibility.
The self-paced, no grade-pressure
nature of a MOOC may be especially
appealing for many students, as noted by
faculty members in this study. Unlike a
traditional online course, these courses
may be offered at no financial expense to
the student. Another unique feature of
the MOOC, its ‘openness,’ allows students
different types of learning opportunities.
Students can participate in the full
course for credit, audit the course with
no intention of completing assignments
for credit (Kizilcec, Piech, & Schneider,
2013), or engage in only a targeted area to
gain knowledge about a particular topic
(Mallon, 2013; Wang & Baker, 2014). These
options of enrolling in a MOOC with no
intention of completing the full course for
credit may contribute to the concern of
low MOOC completion rates. The novel
student participation features associated
with MOOCs challenge the traditional
view of course persistence rates, resulting
in completion rate data that may not be an
accurate measure of a course’s effectiveness.
Discussion
T
he researchers of this study
examined the responses of over 390
current faculty members in a wellknown university system regarding their
perceptions of the benefits of MOOCs.
Some respondents also included unsolicited
drawbacks associated with MOOCs. The
study’s results were not only consistent with
the growing literature base, but also offered
insight as to areas of needed professional
development for faculty members and future
research especially by human resource
development scholars and practitioners
engaged in virtual learning research and
training. Through systematic data analysis,
two over-arching perceptions of MOOC
benefits emerged: benefits to students and
benefits to the sponsoring institution and
programs within the institutions.
A rich base of literature exists
outlining the benefits of MOOCs for
students (Rodriguez, 2012; Becker, 2013;
Mallon, 2013). In this study, faculty
members noted students value the
accessibility to high quality resources
and education, otherwise unavailable at
the local university or perhaps in their
entire country. This powerful benefit
was also noted in a study by Tamburri
(2014). The peda-gogical application of
synchronous and asynchronous digital
tools creates a rich personal learning
community for students in institutions of
higher learning. In the case of industry
where HRD practitioners provide training
and continuing professional education,
MOOCs should be of great benefit to
both trainees and trainers. In the case of
cMOOCs, as students connect with other
learners, and engage in learning together,
they become vested in the knowledge
creation process. They work to sustain the
established learning network and gain new
64
The Tangible and Intangible Benefits of Offering Massive Open Online Courses: Faculty Perspectives
faculty members’ perceptions of the overall
purpose, design, adoption, pedagogy, and
implementation of MOOCs. It is anticipated
this paper will be one of a series exploring
the issues of incorporating and offering
MOOCs within an established university
system in a well-known and respected
university in southern United States.
As noted by Clow (2013) MOOCs have
higher dropout rates when compared to
traditional face-to-face courses. Thus, only
about 10% of the learners who enroll in
MOOCs successfully complete the course
(Daniel, 2012; Sandeen, 2013).
The study’s other noted broad
benefit of MOOCs can be defined as the
advantage to the institution or program
offering the MOOC. Due to the nature of a
MOOC, it can reach audiences worldwide.
The MOOC, dependent on its effectiveness,
can popularize both the institution, as well
as the instructor, which may serve as a
recruitment tool for perspective students as
it was the case with San Jose State University
in California (Young, 2013).
In addition to reaching a broad
audience, other institutional benefits
include the direct impact on course
quality as well as professional development
opportunities. As MOOCs are unique in
their structure and purpose, instructors
need to determine which courses should
be offered in a MOOC format, the related
pedagogical issues, and the cognitive
accessibility and instructional design of the
course (Clara & Barbera, 2013).
Within this study, one of the
most poignant comments from faculty
members regarded the lack of familiarity
with MOOCs. Although MOOCs are
well established in many sectors of higher
education (McCully, 2012), it cannot be
presumed that all institutions or faculty
members have experience or knowledge
regarding MOOCs. This leads to questions
of institution adoption and support.
Faculty members clearly need professional
development opportunities to explore the
potential application of MOOCs in their
specific field of study.
Although many of the study’s
findings are corroborated by the literature,
this study raised questions regarding
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing
course: Ten years of tracking online
education in the United States. Babson
Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group
and Quahog Research Group. http://
www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/
changingcourse.pdf.
Anderson, T. & Dron, J. (2012). Learning
technology through three generations of
technology enhanced distance education
pedagogy. Revisia Mexicana de Bachillerato
a Distancia, 1-14. http://www.eurodl.org/
materials/contrib/2012/Anderson_Dron.pdf
Anderson, T., & Kanuka, H. (1997). Online forums: New platforms for professional
development and group collaboration. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(3),
[online]. Available: http://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.
tb00078.x/full.
Becker, B. W. (2013). Connecting MOOCs
and library services. Behavioral & Social
Sciences Librarian, 32(2), 135-138.
Bonk, C. J. (2002). Online training in an online
world. Bloomington, IN: CourseShare.com.
Carey, K., (2013). Obama, Rubio agree on
one thing: Technology could fix the higher
ed mess. Slate Magazine Online, http://www.
65
Internet Learning
slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/13/ Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in
state_of_the_union_moocs_obama_ru- mind (2nd ed). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
bio_agree_on_using_tech_to_fix_higher_ed.
Jordan, K. (2013). Initial trends in
html.
enrollment and completion of massive
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial open online courses. International Review
universities:
Organizational
pathways of Research in Open and Distance Learning
of transformations. Oxford, England: 15(1), 133-160.
Pergamon for the IAU Press: 131-132.
Kahu, E. (n.d). Framing student engagement
Clara, M., & Barbera, E. (2013). Learning in higher education. Studies in Higher
online: Massive Open Online Courses Education, 38(5), 758- 773.
(MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural
psychology. Distance Education, 34(1), 129- Ke, J. (2011). Professional perceptions of
the effectiveness of online versus face-to136.
face continuing professional education
Clow, D. (2013). MOOCs and the funnel courses. Unpublished dissertation, Texas
of participation. In Proceedings of the A&M University. Retrieved from http://
Third International Conference on Learning repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/ETDAnalytics and Knowledge (pp. 185-189). TAMU-2010-08-8518
ACM, New York.
Kizilcec, R.F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E.
Cull, S., Reed, D. & Kirk, K. (2010). Student (2013). Deconstructing disengagement:
motivation and engagement in online courses. Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive
Teaching Geoscience Online - A Workshop open online courses. Paper presented at the
for Digital Faculty. Retrieved at: http://serc. Third International Conference on Learncarleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/online/ ing Analytics and Knowledge, 4-8-2013 (pp.
170-179). ACM.
motivation.html.
Koutropoulos, A., & Hougue, R.J. (2012).
How to succeed in a MOOC - Massive
Open Online Course. Learning Solutions
Magazine, 1(5).
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs:
Musing in a maze of myth, paradox and
possibility. Journal of interactive Media in
education, 2012(3). Retrieved from http://
jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/2012-18/ .
Leckart, S. (2012). The Stanford
Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet education experiment could change higher
surveys: The tailored design method. New education forever. Wired Magazine.
Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/
York: Wiley.
wiredscience/2012/03/ff_aiclass/3/.
Hachey, A.C., Wladis, C.W., & Conway,
K.M. (2012). Is the second time the charm? Mallon, M. (2013). MOOCs. Public Services
Investigating trends in online enrollment, Quarterly, 9(1), 46-53.
retention and success. The Journal of
Meyer, R. (2012). What it’s like to teach a
Educators Online, 9(1).
MOOC and what the heck’s a MOOC?
66
The Tangible and Intangible Benefits of Offering Massive Open Online Courses: Faculty Perspectives
Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic. in relation to students’ perceived learning
com/technology/archive/2012/07/what-its- and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
like-to-teach-a-mooc-and-what-the-hecks- Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
a-mooc/260000/.
Rodriguez, C. (2012). MOOCs and the AIMcCully, G. (2012). "University Unbound" Stanford Like Courses: Two Successful and
Rebounds: Can MOOCs "Educate" as Well Distinct Course Formats for Massive Open
as Train? New England Journal of Higher Online Courses. European Journal of Open,
Distance and E-Learning.
Education.
Miller, M. D. (2014). Minds online: Teaching Sandeen, C. (2013). Assessment’s place in
effectively with technology. Cambridge, the new MOOC world. Research & Practice
in Assessment, 8(1), 5-12.
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Scholz, C. W. (2013). MOOCs and the liberal
arts college. Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 9(2), 249-260.
Nafukho, F. M., & Muyia, M.A. H.
(2014). Entrepreneurial leadership and
transformation of universities in Africa. In
F. M. Nafukho, M.A.H. Muyia & Irby, B.
J. (Eds.). Governance and transformation
of universities in Africa. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Shirky, C. (2012, November 12). Napster,
Udacity, and the academy [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://www.shirky.com/
weblog/2012/11/napster-udacity-and-theacademy/.
Nafukho F. M, & Wawire N. H. W. (2004).
Developing entrepreneurial universities in
Africa. In C. Momanyi, C. & N. H. W. Wawire
(eds.). Disparities in Science, Technology,
Environment, HIV/AIDS and Education
(pp. 196-203). Nairobi: Association of Third
World Studies.
Tamburri, R. (2014). An interview
with Canadian MOOC pioneer George
Siemens. Retrieved from: http://www.
universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/
an-interview-with-canadian-mooc-pio
neer-george-siemens/.
Newman, M. (2013). Credit where credit is
due in non-credit adult education. Concept, Wang, Y. & Baker, R. (2014). MOOC learner
motivation and course completion rates.
4(2), 1-20.
MOOC Research Initiative - Final Report.
November, A. (2010). Empowering students Retrieved from http://www.moocresearch.
with technology (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/MRIReport-WangBaker-June-2014.pdf
CA: Corwin.
Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M.
(2004). A meta-analytical review of the
relationship between teacher immediacy
and student learning. Communication
Monographs, 71(2), 184-207.
Oxford Dictionaries (2014). Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from http://
www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/
english/MOOC?q=mooc.
Richardson, J. & Swan, K. (2003).
Examining social presence in online courses
67
Internet Learning
Young, J. R. (2013). Learning from business.
Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/
Learning-From-Big-Business/138811/.
Yuan, L., Powell, S., & Cetis, J. (2013).
MOOCs and open education: Implications
for higher education. Cetis White Paper.
Ziderman, A., & Albrecht, D. (1995)
Financing universities in developing
countries. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer
Press.
Definition of Terms
Massively Open Online Course (MOOC) – a course of study made freely available online
to a large number of people.
Cognitive/behavioral learning theory – describes the role of cognition in determining and
predicting the behavioral pattern of an individual. In other words, the way
individuals think of themselves, their environment, and the future all impact the
behavior they display.
Social constructivist learning theory – focuses on an individual’s learning that takes place
because of their interactions in a group.
Connectivist learning theory – the view that learning can reside outside of ourselves, is
focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that en
able us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing.
Personal Learning Network (PLN) – an informal learning network that consists of people a
learner interacts with and derives knowledge from.
(video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=11&v=hLLpWqp-owo)
xMOOC -- xMOOC -- A more traditionally organized post-secondary online course
utilizing more familiar higher education teaching methods such as pre-recorded
lectures, texts and quizzes, usually sponsored by universities or commercial entities
and which may offer certificates and/or course credits.
cMOOC -- In a cMOOC environment the participants in the course act as both teachers
and students, sharing information and engaging in a joint teaching and learning
experience through intense interaction facilitated by technology.
Question branching logic – a survey research technique that displays only questions that
are relevant to the participant based on previous answers.
68