Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

MOOCocracy: the learning culture of massive open online courses

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are often examined and evaluated in terms of institutional cost, instructor prestige, number of students enrolled, and completion rates. MOOCs, which are connecting thousands of adult learners from diverse backgrounds, have yet to be viewed from a learning culture perspective. This research used virtual ethnographic methods to investigate the adult learner experience in a MOOC learning culture. Specifically, authors observed and interviewed twelve adult learners from countries around the world to gain a richer understanding of their online experiences and interactions within a MOOC focused on the social justice topic of human trafficking. Results showed that while a MOOC learning culture has some similarities to traditional distance education environments, it is indeed complex due to the large global scale. Based on the six themes that emerged from the data, the authors present the concept of MOOCocracy—a social learning democracy, as a description of the MOOC learning culture. Implications for MOOC instructional design are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianco, M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2002). Exploring qualitative methodologies in online learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(3), 251–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, C. (Ed.). (2010). Social learning systems and communities of practice. London, UK: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2.

  • Boellstorff, T., Nardi, B., Pearce, C., & Taylor, T. L. (2012). Ethnography of virtual worlds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremer, C., & Weiss, D. (2013). How to analyze participation in a (C) MOOC. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), Proceedings of Edulearn13 (pp. 992–1002).

  • Clarà, M., & Barberà, E. (2013). Learning online: massive open online courses (MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34(1), 129–136. doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.770428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredette, M. (2013). MOOC over: how to convert a classroom course into a MOOC. Campus Technology Magazine, 26(12), 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidman, L. W., & Friedman, H. H. (2013). Using social media technologies to enhance online learning. Journal of Educators Online, 10(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: a retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 5–9. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greener, S. L. (2010). Plasticity: the online learning environment’s potential to support varied learning styles and approaches. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(4), 254–262. doi:10.1108/10650741011073798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147–166. doi:10.1080/08923649709526970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. doi:10.1080/08923649709526970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, W. W. (2013). Consumerism and consumer complexity: implications for university teaching and teaching evaluation. Nurse Education Today, 33(7), 720–723. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heaslip, G., Donovan, P., & Cullen, J. G. (2014). Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 11–24. doi:10.1177/1469787413514648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, A. D., Reich, J., Nesterko, S. O., Seaton, D. T., Mullaney, T., Waldo, J., & Chuang, I. (2014). HarvardX and MITx: The first year of open online courses, Fall 2012–Summer 2013 (HarvardX and MITX Working Paper No. 1). http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2381263.

  • Jenkins, R. (2013). Who is driving the online locomotive? The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Who-Is-Driving-the-Online/140505/.

  • Li, L., & Pitts, J. P. (2009). Does it really matter? Using virtual office hours to enhance student-faculty interaction. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 175–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Distance Learning, 14(3), 202–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, M. M. (2013). The inside story: Campus decision making in the wake of the latest MOOC tsunami. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2). http://www.jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/lombardi_0613.htm.

  • Macleod, H., Haywood, J., Woodgate, A., & Alkhatnai, M. (2015). Emerging patterns in MOOCs: learners, course designs and directions. TechTrends, 59(1), 56–63. doi:10.1007/s11528-01400821-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture: the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathiasen, H. (2015). Digital voting systems and communication in classroom lectures. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2015(1), 1–8. doi:10.5334/jime.ah.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAndrew, P. P., & Scanion, E. (2013). Open learning at a distance: lessons for struggling MOOCs. Science, 342(6165), 1450–1451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesterko, S. O., Seaton, D. T., Kashin, K., Han, Q., Reich, J., Waldo, J., & Ho, A. D. (2014). Education levels composition. HarvardX Insights. http://www.harvardx.harvard.edu/harvardx-insights/education-levels-composition.

  • Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times, 2(12). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html.

  • Preisman, K. A. (2014). Teaching presence in online education: from the instructor’s point of view. Online Learning, 10(3), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichard, C. (2013). MOOCs face challenges in teaching humanities. The Stanford Daily. http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/06/04/moocs-face-challenges-in-teaching-humanities/.

  • Reigeluth, C. M., Watson, W. R., & Watson, S. L. (2012). Personalized integrated educational systems: Technology for the information-age paradigm of education in higher education. In S. P. Ferris (Ed.), Teaching and learning with the net generation (pp. 41–60). Hershey: IGI Global. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61350-347-8.ch003.

  • Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. http://www.eurodl.org/?p=archives&year=2012&halfyear=2&article=516.

  • Scharmer, O. (2015). MOOC 4.0: The next revolution in learning and leadership. Huffington Post Education. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/otto-scharmer/mooc-40-the-next-revoluti_b_7209606.html?utm_campaign=naytev&utm_content=55490346e4b0bbbca9fbc359.

  • Schön, D. (2010). Government as a learning system. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 5–16). Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2_1.

  • Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: a dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seely Brown, J. (2008). Forward: creating a culture of learning. In T. Iiyoshi & M. S. Vijay Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology open content and open knoweldge (pp. xi–xx). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suen, H. K. (2014). Peer assessment for massive open online courses (MOOCs). International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 15(3), 313–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, N., Pei-Luen Rau, P., & Ma, L. (2014). Understanding lurkers in online communities: a literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 110–117. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2012). Global report on trafficking in persons (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.13.IV.1). Vienna. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glotip/Trafficking_in_Persons_2012_web.pdf.

  • Vickers, G. (1978). Some implications of systems thinking. In G. Vickers (Ed.), Responsibility—its sources and limits. Salinas: Intersystems Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W. R., & Watson, S. L. (2014). Redesigning higher education: embracing a new paradigm. Educational Technology, 54(34), 47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51(1), 27–44. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6375-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiaojun, L., & Peng, L. (2010, Aug 24-26). The impact of learning culture on individual innovative behavior. Proceedings of Management and Service Science (MASS), Wuhan.

  • Yang, B. (2003). Identifying valid and reliable measures for dimensions of a learning culture. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 152–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

    Jamie Loizzo

  2. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Peggy A. Ertmer

Authors
  1. Jamie Loizzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peggy A. Ertmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jamie Loizzo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Loizzo, J., Ertmer, P.A. MOOCocracy: the learning culture of massive open online courses. Education Tech Research Dev 64, 1013–1032 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9444-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9444-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation