Increasing Educational Value: The Transformation of MOOCs into Open Educational Resources

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10254)


MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) have developed into one of the most prominent instruments of technology-enhanced learning, and their much-praised potential has often been connected to one of their core components: openness. In theory, this feature not only ensures free access to content, but also affects other aspects that enable participants to make the most of their learning experience, like re-using and copying materials or even creating derivative works. In practice, however, most MOOCs do not subscribe to these more advanced principles of openness, especially those provided by for-profit platforms.

In this paper, we would like to discuss one particular strategy to improve the current situation. OER (Open Educational Resources) generally adhere to higher standards regarding the meaning of openness, and we argue that this strong focus on the reusability of learning materials would present a tremendous improvement to the educational value of MOOCs. We conclude that the transformation of MOOCs into OER shows promising potential in the areas of financing, collaboration and usability, with a particular focus on benefits from the students’ perspective.


MOOCs OER Openness Higher education 


  1. 1.
    Rosselle, M., Caron, P.-A., Heutte, J.: A typology and dimensions of a description framework for MOOCs. In: European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit 2014, eMOOCs 2014, pp. 130–139 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McGuire, W., Raaper, R., Nikolova, V.: Three perspectives on hybridising x and c MOOCs to create an online course on digital CVs. Int. Multidiscip. J. 3, 20–33 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M., Jakobs, H.: A review of the state-of-the-art. In: Proceedings of CSEDU 2014, 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, pp. 9–20 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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, 202–227 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zimmermann, C., Lackner, E., Ebner, M.: Facets of openness in MOOCs - a review. In: Beseda, J. (ed.): DisCo 2016. Towards Open Education and Information Society, pp. 193–203. Center for Higher Education Studies, Prague (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    MacKenzie, N., Postgate, R.S., Scupham, J.: Open learning: systems and problems in post-secondary education. Unesco Press, Paris (1975)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stewart, B.: Massiveness + openness = new literacies of participation? J. Online Learn. Teach. 9, 228–238 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Open Definition - Open Definition - Defining Open in Open Data, Open Content and Open Knowledge.
  10. 10.
    Weller, M.: The Battle For Open: How Openness Won and Why It Doesn’t Feel Like Victory. Ubiquity Press, London (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Downes, S.: An introduction to connective knowledge.
  14. 14.
    Rodriguez, O.: The concept of openness behind c and x-MOOCs (massive open online courses). Open Praxis 5, 67–73 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Conole, G.: MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista de Educación a Distancia 39, 1–17 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    What are Open Educational Resources (OERs)? | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Wiley, D.: Open education license draft.
  21. 21.
    Lane, A.: The impact of openness on bridging educational digital divides. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 10(5), 1–12 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Commonwealth of Learning, UNESCO: Guidelines for open educational resources (OER) in higher education (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    When we share, everyone wins.
  24. 24.
    Butcher, N., Kanwar, A., Uvalic-Trumbic, S.: A basic guide to open educational resources (OER). Commonwealth of Learning, UNESCO, Vancouver, Paris (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bozkurt, A., Ozdamar Keskin, N., De Waard, I.: Research trends in massive open online course (MOOC) theses and dissertations: surfing the tsunami wave. Open Praxis 8(3), 203–221 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abeywardena, I.: The Role of OER in a New World of MOOC (2014).
  27. 27.
    Fischer, H., Dreisiebner, S., Franken, O., Ebner, M., Kopp, M., Köhler, T.: Revenue vs. costs of MOOC platforms. Discussion of business models for xMOOC providers, based on empirical findings and experiences during implementation of the project iMooX. In: ICERI2014 Proceedings, pp. 2991–3000. IATED, Seville (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    De Corte, E., Engwall, L., Teichler, U.: The hype of MOOCs. In: De Corte, E., Engwall, L., Teichler, U. (eds.) From Books to MOOCs? Emerging Models of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, pp. xv–xxv. Portland Press, London (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peters, G., Seruga, J.: A supply sided analysis of leading MOOC platforms and universities. Knowl. Manag. E-Learn.: Int. J. (KM&EL) 8, 158–181 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alraimi, K.M., Zo, H., Ciganek, A.P.: Understanding the MOOCs continuance: the role of openness and reputation. Comput. Educ. 80, 28–38 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Open edX Portal.
  32. 32.
    McGill, A., Falconer, I., Dempster, J.A., Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H.: Journeys to open educational practice: UKOER/SCORE Review Final report. JISC (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    William and Flora Hewlett Foundation: White Paper: Open Educational Resources – Breaking the Lockbox on Education. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (2013)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bartholet, J.: Hype and hope. Sci. Am. 309, 53–61 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bishop, J.L., Verleger, M.A.: The flipped classroom: a survey of the research. Presented at the 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lane, A.: Design and development of OER: a student perspective. In: Glennie, J., Harley, K., Butcher, N., van Wyk, T. (eds.) Open Educational Resources and Change in Higher Education: Reflections from Practice, pp. 141–153. Commonwealth of Learning (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kopp, M., Ebner, M., Dorfer-Novak, A.: Introducing MOOCs to Austrian universities - is it worth it to accept the challenge? Int. J. Innov. Qual. Learn. 2(3), 46–52 (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Ebner, M., Lorenz, A., Lackner, E., Kopp, M., Kumar, S., Schön, S., Wittke, A.: How OER enhances MOOCs—a perspective from German-speaking Europe. In: Jemni, M., Kinshuk, Khribi, M.K. (eds.) Open Education: from OERs to MOOCs. LNET, pp. 205–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
  42. 42.
    Ebner, M., Kopp, M., Freisleben-Teutscher, C.F., Gröblinger, O., Rieck, K., Schön, S., Seitz, P., Seissl, M., Ofner, S., Zimmermann, C., Zwiauer, C.: Recommendations for OER integration in Austrian higher education. In: Ubachs, G., Konings, L. (eds.) Enhancing European Higher Education “Opportunities and Impact of New Modes of Teaching”, pp. 34–44. EADTU, Rome (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Academy for New Media and Knowledge TransferUniversity of GrazGrazAustria
  2. 2.New Media and Learning Technology DepartmentUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations