MOOCs and Their Afterlives

Abstract

Most readers of this volume are likely familiar with the distinctive history of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Their rapid expansion contrasts with the more steady expansion of higher-education technologies in prior decades, punctuated by small bursts around the advent of computers, personal computers, multimedia computers, and the Internet. The pace of change quickened around the turn of the century with the open education movement that laid some groundwork for the modern MOOC. The acronym itself was coined in 2008 for an open course on "connectivist" learning offered by George Siemens and Stephen Downes. MOOCs exploded in 2011-12 with Udacity, Coursera, edX, and others, suddenly enrolling tens of thousands of students around the world in free courses designed around the instruction of prominent academics. This outpouring of attention, investment, and learners was unprecedented in higher education. Even as the New York Times dubbed 2012 "The Year of the MOOC" (Pappano 2012), the backlash against MOOCs was already underway. Many observed that the streaming videos and quizzes that dominated the newer MOOCs represented relatively shallow ways of interacting with content (e.g., Kays 2012; Marks 2012; Pope 2012). The acronym "xMOOC" (variously for eXtended or eXtension) was introduced to distinguish these newer offerings from the earlier networked and interactive courses advanced by Siemens and Downes, which quickly came to be called "cMOOCs" in response. Some observers had already commented on the difficulty of connecting with other learners in the cMOOCs (Mackness, Mack, and Williams 2010). It turned out that supporting social interaction in the xMOOCs was proving much harder. An effort to include more interaction and group projects in a Coursera course on online learning was widely cited for going "laughably awry" 1

Stepping back and stepping in: Facilitating learner-centered experiences in MOOCs

“…The actions described in this study reflected moments where educators were driven more by their commitment to a particular vision of teaching and learning, and others where the affordances of the medium took precedence in determining what they could or could not do. This perspective supports calls to approach educational technologies like MOOCs neither as a fundamental break with existing ideas of teaching and learning nor as a passing fad to be dismissed, but instead an opportunity to explore ongoing questions in education ( Corbeil et al, 2018 ; Losh, 2017 ; Storme et al, 2016 ). As educators across the globe find themselves suddenly having to negotiate new media, tools, and settings for learning, we encourage them to not lose sight of the aspirations most important to them.…”

“…Given the heights of initial promise it is perhaps unsurprising that the hype around MOOCs (in any form)—and online education at scale more generally—has subsided since 2012, especially in the face of persistently low retention rates and the complex needs of learners in massive online settings ( Losh, 2017 ). However, if we dismiss MOOCs and other technologies as “passing fads,” we miss out on opportunities to learn from situations in which pedagogical aspirations are negotiated in new contexts ( Corbeil et al, 2018 ; Losh, 2017 ; Storme et al, 2016 ).…”

“…Given the heights of initial promise it is perhaps unsurprising that the hype around MOOCs (in any form)—and online education at scale more generally—has subsided since 2012, especially in the face of persistently low retention rates and the complex needs of learners in massive online settings ( Losh, 2017 ). However, if we dismiss MOOCs and other technologies as “passing fads,” we miss out on opportunities to learn from situations in which pedagogical aspirations are negotiated in new contexts ( Corbeil et al, 2018 ; Losh, 2017 ; Storme et al, 2016 ). While MOOCs themselves may no longer dominate attention, the affordances of this medium embodied in both cMOOC and xMOOC traditions—reaching learners on a massive scale ( Hollands & Tirthali, 2014 ) and building connections among those learners ( Mackness, Mak, & Williams, 2010 )—remain preoccupations of educators across tools, structures, and formats for learning experiences ( Bayne & Ross, 2015 ; Dede & Eisenkraft, 2016 ; Fishman, 2016 ; Knox, 2014 ; Littlejohn & Hood, 2018 ; Spector, 2017 ; Storme et al, 2016 ).…”

“…For example, a dominant segment of research on instructional quality in MOOCs focuses on the presence or absence of specific design elements or categorizes quality according to existing scales ( Bali, 2014 ; Kasch, van Rosmalen, & Kalz, 2017 ; Lowenthal & Hodges, 2015 ). While scholars have noted similarities in the desires and needs of learners in face-to-face and online settings ( Hew, 2016 ), research that transplants in-person criteria to MOOC settings may miss important insights about how teaching might be different in MOOCs given the unique affordances of the medium ( Losh, 2017 ; Ross et al, 2014 ).…”

“…In particular, by focusing on how these educators navigated the affordances of massive online settings in light of their learner-centered aspirations, we were able to show how the translation of learner-centered pedagogy into a new medium and scale prompted practices that were neither wholly continuous nor discontinuous with those of intimate, face-to-face experiences. Especially in times when educators confront sudden or unexpected changes in the media and tools of their work, it is valuable to consider MOOCs and other new technologies as neither passing fads nor loci of revolution, but rather as opportunities to reflect on ongoing questions in teaching and learning ( Losh, 2017 ).…”