Research challenges in accessible MOOCs: a systematic literature review 2008–2016

Long Paper

Abstract

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have a prominent role in achieving universal e-education, i.e., education offered via the Internet to diverse learners around the world independently of their motivations, backgrounds, capacities, and limitations. Regrettably, current MOOCs platforms and contents are not accessible enough for all learners. This study presents the results of a systematic literature review on the combined field of accessible MOOCs that covers from the years 2008 to 2016. We followed a four-staged method than included a within-study and between-study literature analysis, and a descriptive synthesis. A total of 40 relevant studies was identified and mapped to eight research dimensions that form a lifecycle: problem characterization; needs identification; use of industry guidelines, specifications and standards; accessibility requirements specification; architectures; design strategies; verification of accessibility requirements compliance; and validation of user needs satisfaction. The results presented in this study give a head start to researchers interested in pursuing the combined field of accessible MOOCs, providers of MOOCs platforms and contents, as well as decision-makers of educational institutions that offer e-education can also benefit.

Keywords

MOOC Massive open online course Accessibility Diverse learners Universal e-education Systematic literature review 

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. World report on disability (2011). http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/. (2017/01/06)
  2. 2.
    Petticrew, M., Roberts, H.: Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kitchenham, B.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. EBSE Technical Report (2007). https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~norsaremah/2007GuidelinesforperformingSLRinSEv2.3.pdf (2017/01/06)
  4. 4.
    Staples, M., Niazi, M.: Experiences using systematic review guidelines. J. Syst. Softw. 80(9), 1425–1437 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Onwuegbuzie, A., Leech, N., Collins, K.: Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. Qual. Rep. 17(56), 1–28 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jalali, S., Wohlin, C.: Systematic literature studies: database searches versus backward snowballing. In: Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 29–38. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Adams, A.A., Williams, S.A.: MOOCs: a systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 14(3), 202–227 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ebben, M., Murphy, J.S.: Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: a review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learn. Med. Technol. 39(3), 328–345 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hew, K.F., Cheung, W.S.: Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): motivations and challenges. Educ. Res. Rev. 12, 45–58 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacoby, J.: The disruptive potential of the massive open online course: a literature review. J. Open Flex. Distance Learn. 18(1), 73–85 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kennedy, J.: Characteristics of massive open online courses (MOOCs): a research review, 2009–2012. J. Interact. Online Learn. 13(1), 1–16 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yousef A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M., Jakobs, H.: The state of MOOCs from 2008 to 2014: a critical analysis and future visions. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Education, pp. 305–327. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Balula, A.: The promotion of digital inclusion through MOOC design and use: a literature review. Indag. Didact. 7(1), 145–164 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chiappe-Laverde, A., Hine, N., Martínez-Silva, J.A.: Literature and practice: a critical review of MOOCs. Comunicar 22(44), 9–17 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    López-Meneses, E., Vázquez-Cano, E., Román, P.: Analysis and implications of the impact of MOOC movement in the scientific community: JCR and Scopus (2010–13). Comunicar 22(44), 73–80 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rolfe, V.: A systematic review of the socio-ethical aspects of Massive Online Open Courses. Eur. J. Open Distance E-learn. 18(1), 52–71 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sangrà, A., González-Sanmamed, M., Anderson, T.: Meta-analysis of the research about MOOC during 2013–2014. Educación XX1 18(2), 1–27 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Williams, S.A.: Elderly learners and massive open online courses: a review. Interact. J. Med. Res. 5(1), 1–11 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ossiannilsson, E., Altinay, F., Altinay, Z.: Analysis of MOOCs practices from the perspective of learner experiences and quality culture. Educ. Med. Int. 52(4), 272–283 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Veletsianos, G., Shepherdson, P.: A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013–2015. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 17(2), 198–221 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zancanaro, A., Domingues, M.: Analysis of the scientific literature on massive open online courses (MOOCs). RIED Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia 20(1), 59–80 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baker, P.M., Bujak, K.R., DeMillo, R.: The evolving university: disruptive change and institutional innovation. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Software Development for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion (DSAI), pp. 330–335 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Luján-Mora, S.: Web accessibility of MOOCs for elderly students. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Luján-Mora, S.: Accessibility considerations of massive online open courses as creditable courses in engineering programs. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI), pp. 5853–5862. International Association of Technology, Education and Development (IATED) (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dias, S.B., Diniz, J.A.: From blended to inclusive learning: accessibility, profiles, openness, and higher education. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 19(18), 2722–2742 (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Luján-Mora, S.: MOOCs gone wild. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED), pp. 1459–1468. International Association of Technology, Education and Development (IATED) (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Calle-Jimenez, T., Sanchez-Gordon, S., Luján-Mora, S.: Web accessibility evaluation of massive open online courses on geographical information systems. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pp. 680–686. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C., Teixeira, A.M.: Accessibility analysis in MOOC platforms. A case study: UNED COMA and UAbiMOOC. In: Proceedings of the V International Conference on Quality and Accessibility of Virtual Learning (CAFVIR), pp. 545–550 (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Luján-Mora, S.: Web accessibility requirements for massive open online courses. In: Proceedings of the V International Conference on Quality and Accessibility of Virtual Learning (CAFVIR), pp. 530–535 (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Al-Mouh, N.A., Al-Khalifa, A.S., Al-Khalifa, H.S.: A first look into MOOCs accessibility: The case of Coursera. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (ICCHP), pp. 145–152. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bohnsack, M., Puhl S.: Accessibility of MOOCs. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (ICCHP), pp. 141–144. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Santos, O.C., Boticario, J.G., Pérez-Marín, D.: Extending web-based educational systems with personalised support through User Centred Designed recommendations along the e-learning life cycle. Sci. Comput. Program. 88(1), 92–109 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C.: Accessibility assessment of MOOC platforms in Spanish: UNED COMA, COLMENIA and Miriada X. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE), pp. 169–172. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pascual, J., Castillo, C., García-Díaz, V., González, R.: Method for analysing the user experience in MOOC platforms. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE), pp. 157–162. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Luján-Mora, S.: Adaptive content presentation extension for open edX. Enhancing MOOCs accessibility for users with disabilities. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (ACHI), pp. 181–183. International Academy, Research, and Industry Association (IARIA) (2015)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rodrigo, C., Iniesto, F.: Holistic vision for creating accessible services based on MOOCs. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Open Education Global Conference (OE Global), pp. 1–5 (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M.: A usability evaluation of a blended MOOC environment: an experimental case study. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. IRRODL 16(2), 69–93 (2015)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Calle-Jimenez, T., Lujan-Mora, S.: Relevance of MOOCs for training of public sector employees: Enrollment, completion and web accessibility challenges. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kelle, S., Henka, A., Zimmermann, G.: A persona-based extension for massive open online courses in accessible design. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE), pp. 3663–3668. Elsevier (2015)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Draffan, E.A., Wald, M., Dickens, K., Zimmermann, G., Kelle, S., Miesenberger, K., Petz, A.: Stepwise approach to accessible MOOC development. In: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on the Advancement of Assistive Technology (AAATE), pp. 227–234 (2015)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C.: Accessible user profile modeling for academic services based on MOOCs. In: Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on Human Computer Interaction (Interacción), pp. 1–2. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Luján-Mora, S.: An ecosystem for corporate training with accessible MOOCs and OERs. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), pp. 123–128. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Luján-Mora, S.: Accessible blended learning for non-native speakers using MOOCs. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Interactive Collaborative and Blended Learning (ICBL), pp. 19–24. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Luján-Mora, S.: How could MOOCs become accessible? The case of edX and the future of inclusive online learning. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 22(1), 55–81 (2016)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Van Rooij, S.W., Zirkle, K.: Balancing pedagogy, student readiness and accessibility: a case study in collaborative online course development. Internet High. Educ. 28(580), 1–7 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Iniesto, F., McAndrew, P., Minocha, S., Coughlan, T.: The current state of accessibility of MOOCs: What are the next steps? In: Proceedings of the 2016 Open Education Global Conference (OE Global), pp. 8–14 (2016)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C.: Can user recommendations be useful for improving MOOCs accessibility? A project for inclusive design and profitable feedback. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Open Education Global Conference (OE Global), pp. 1–7 (2016)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Estevez J., Luján-Mora, S.: Editor for accessible images in e-Learning platforms. In: Proceedings of the 13th Web for All Conference (W4A’16), pp. 1–2. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gupta, P., Fatima, S.: Massive Online Course for Deaf and Dumb People. In: Proceedings of the 21st Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education (WCCCE), pp. 21–24. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sanderson, N.C., Chen, W., Bong, W.K., Kessel S.: The accessibility of MOOC Platforms from Instructors’ Perspective. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (UAHCI), pp. 124–134. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bong, W.K., Chen, W.: How Accessible Are MOOCs to the elderly? In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (ICCHP), pp. 437–444. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Coughlan, T., Rodriguez-Ascaso, A., Iniesto, F., Jelfs, A.: OLA! A scenario-based approach to enhance open learning through accessibility. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (ICCHP), pp. 445–452. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ferati, M., Mripa, N., Bunjaku, R.: Accessibility of MOOCs for Blind People in Developing Non-English Speaking Countries. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE), pp. 519–528. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Fernández, C., Esteban, G., Conde, M.Á., Rodríguez-Lera, F.J.: ICT for older people to learn about ICT: application and evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Learning and Collaboration Technologies (LCT), pp. 292–302. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C.: Strategies for improving the level of accessibility in the design of MOOC-based learning services. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Martín, J.L., Amado-Salvatierra, H.R., Hilera, J.R.: MOOCs for all: evaluating the accessibility of top MOOC platforms. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 32(5–B), 2374–2383 (2016)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rodriguez-Ascaso, A., Boticario, J.G., Finat, C., Petrie, H.: Setting accessibility preferences about learning objects within adaptive elearning systems: user experience and organizational aspects. Expert Systems. pp. 1–12 (2016) (in Press)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Iniesto, F., Rodrigo, C.: A preliminary study for developing accessible MOOC services. J. Access. Des. All 6(2), 126–150 (2016)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ngubane-Mokiwa, S. A.: Accessibility strategies for making MOOCs for people with visual impairments: a universal design for learning (UDL) perspective. In: Proceedings of 8th Pan-Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning (PCF8), pp. 1–12. Commonwealth of Learning (COL) and Open University Malaysia (OUM) (2016)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Osuna, S., Tejera, S.: ECO European project: inclusive education through accessible MOOCs. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM’16), pp. 881–886. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Iniesto, F., McAndrew, P., Minocha, S., Coughlan, T.: Accessibility of MOOCs: understanding the provider perspective. J. Interact. Med. Educ. 2016(1), 20 (2016)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Open Education Consortium. The global network for open education (2016). http://www.oeconsortium.org/about-oec/. (2017/01/06)
  63. 63.
    Open Education Europa. Open education scoreboard: Distribution of MOOCs by country (2016). https://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/. (2017/01/06)
  64. 64.
    Valderrama, J.A.: The new norm UNE 139803:2012. Accessibility assurance in web pages. Spain Association for Quality (2012). http://www.aec.es/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=dfa2b505-0605-49da-8ef4-fc091ef9114f&groupId=10128. (2017/01/06)
  65. 65.
    CORE. CORE rankings (2014). http://www.core.edu.au/conference-portal. (2017/01/06)
  66. 66.
    ISO. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015 Systems and Software Engineering-System Life Cycle Processes (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Informática y Ciencias de la ComputaciónEscuela Politécnica NacionalQuitoEcuador
  2. 2.Department of Software and Computing SystemsUniversity of AlicanteSan Vicente del Raspeig (Alicante)Spain

Personalised recommendations