Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Online Learning and MOOCs: A Framework Proposal

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015

Abstract

Decades of distance learning evolution and innovation, particularly due to the Internet and recently, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), have led to industry and academic confusion about online learning nomenclature. This study takes a preliminary step in reducing the confusion, proposing a conceptual framework for categorising online learning. Drawing on content structure and interactivity, the paper proposes four categories of online learning: resources, tutorials, courses and MOOCs. These four categories serve as a base for illustrating five online learning variables—open versus closed access, cost, interactivity, recognition and assessment—which subsequently help clarify the framework of the four somewhat overlapping categories. The resultant framework gives industry and academia common ground for discussing online learning and for future research such as MOOC types and additional variables to consider, i.e., synchronicity, learning outcomes, openness, and self-direction.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Admiraal, W., & Lockhorst, D. (2009). E-learning in small and medium-sized enterprises across Europe. International Small Business Journal, 27(6), 743–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker III, F. W., & Surry, D. (2013). Open education designs: A taxonomy for differentiating and classifying open learning environments. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Chesapeake, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, A., & Sangrà, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher education: Strategies for transforming teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B., & Federman, J. (2013). eLearning in postsecondary education. The Future of Children, 23(1), 165–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantoni, L., Botturi, L., Succi, C., & New MinE Lab. (2007). E-learning: Capire, progettare, comunicare. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantoni, L., & Kalbaska, N. (2010). eLearning offers by destination management organizations. In U. Gretzel, R. Law, & M. Fuchs (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism (pp. 247–259). Wien: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantoni, L., Kalbaska, N., & Inversini, A. (2009). E-learning in tourism and hospitality: A map. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 8(2), 148–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, N. (2012, September 27). The crisis in higher education. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/429376/the-crisis-in-higher-education/. Accessed August 18, 2014.

  • CEC. (2001). Communication from the commission to the council and the European parliament. The eLearning action plan: Designing tomorrow’s education. Brussels: COM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chauhan, A. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCS): Emerging trends in assessment and accreditation. Digital Education Review, 25, 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conole, G. (2013). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: Strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Pre-print book chapter, http://eprints.rclis.org/19388/4/Pegagogies%20for%20enhanced%20the%20learner%20experience%20and%20quality%20of%20MOOCs.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2014).

  • Cooper, S., & Sahami, M. (2013). Reflections on Stanford’s MOOCs. Communications of the ACM, 56(2), 28–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, J., Kanwar, A., & Uvalić-Trumbić, S. (2009). Breaking higher education’s iron triangle: Access, cost, and quality. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41(2), 30–35. Available at: www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/March-April%202009/full-iron-triangle.html. Accessed October 18, 2014.

  • DeBoer, J., Ho, A., Stump, G., & Breslow, L. (2014). Changing “Course”: Reconceptualizing educational variables for massive open online courses. Educational Researcher. doi:10.3102/0013189X14523038.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, A. (2013). From MOOCs to SPOCs. Communications of the ACM, 56(12), 38–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handel, B., Groenland, C., & Gerzina, T. (2010). Dentistry students’ perceptions of learning management systems. European Journal of Dental Education, 14(1), 50–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harden, N. (2013). The end of the university as we know it. The American Interest, 8, 54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, B. (1995). The evolution of the character and practice of distance education. Open Learning, 10(2), 47–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 133–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalbaska, N. (2012). Travel agents and destination management organizations: eLearning as a strategy to train tourism trade partners. Journal of Information Technology and Tourism, 13(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. (2012, May 6). David Brooks confuses MOOCs with online learning. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/david-brooks-confuses-moocs-online-learning. Accessed August 14, 2014.

  • Kop, R., & Fournier, H. (2011). New dimensions to self-directed learning in an open networked learning environment. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 7(2), 2–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuttainen, C., & Lexhagen, M. (2012). Overcoming barriers to SME e-commerce adoption using blended learning: A Swedish action research case study. Journal of Information Technology and Tourism, 13(1), 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of learning management systems. Computers and Education, 53(3), 686–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. (2012). LMS teaching versus community learning: A call for the latter. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(5), 826–841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J., Kalbaska, N., Williams, A., Ryan, P., Cantoni, L., & Horton-Tognazzini, L. (2014). Massive open online courses: Strategies and research areas. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 26(1), 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadkarni, S., & Venema, M. (2012). Tourism capacity building in developing geographies: A case for open educational resources. Journal of Information Technology and Tourism, 13(1), 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Negash, S., & Wilcox, M. V. (2008). E-learning classifications: Differences and similarities. In S. Negash, M. Whitman, A. Woszczynski, K. Hoganson, & H. Mattord (Eds.), Handbook of distance learning for real-time and asynchronous information technology education (pp. 1–23). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pappano, L. (2012, November 2). Year of the MOOC. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html. Accessed August 18, 2014.

  • Peters, O. (2003). Distance education in transition. New trends and challenges. Oldenburg: Bibliotheks und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, O. (2013). The concept of openness behind c and x-MOOCs. Open Praxis, 5(1), 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimabakura, J. (2013, September 26). SPOCs are MOOC game changers. ETC Journal. http://etcjournal.com/2013/09/26/spocs-are-mooc-game-changers/. Accessed August 20, 2014.

  • Sigala, M. (2002). The evolution of internet pedagogy: Benefits for tourism and hospitality education. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 1(2), 29–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tankelevičienė, L., & Damaševičius, R. (2009). Towards a conceptual model of learning context in e-learning. Paper presented at the Ninth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning, ICALT 2009, Riga, Latvia. Accessed August 20, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkowski, J., Russell, D. M., & Deutsch, A. (2014). Self-evaluation in advanced power searching and mapping with Google MOOCs. Paper presented at the L@S‘14, Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is an updated, expanded and improved version of an APacCHRIE 2014 manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian School of Management, Perth, WA, Australia

    Jamie Murphy & Laurel Horton-Tognazzini

  2. The Faculty of Communication Sciences, University of Italian Switzerland, Lugano, Switzerland

    Nadzeya Kalbaska & Lorenzo Cantoni

Authors
  1. Jamie Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nadzeya Kalbaska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laurel Horton-Tognazzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lorenzo Cantoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jamie Murphy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Hospitality Business Management, Carson College of Business, Washington State University, Vancouver, Washington, USA

    Iis Tussyadiah

  2. Faculty of Management, Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset, United Kingdom

    Alessandro Inversini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Murphy, J., Kalbaska, N., Horton-Tognazzini, L., Cantoni, L. (2015). Online Learning and MOOCs: A Framework Proposal. In: Tussyadiah, I., Inversini, A. (eds) Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14343-9_61

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation