research-article

Designing and Building Inclusive, Entry-level Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Perspectives from Producers

Author:

Michael Joseph MeaneyAuthors Info & Claims

L@S '22: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale

Pages 189 - 200

https://doi.org/10.1145/3491140.3528281

Published: 01 June 2022 Publication History

L@S '22: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale

Designing and Building Inclusive, Entry-level Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Perspectives from Producers

Pages 189 - 200

Abstract
References

Abstract

Persistent calls have been made for more investigation into the actors producing MOOCs and their design processes [30, 45, 51, 22]. In this paper, a series of semi-structured interviews are conducted on a set of MOOC producers from a major research university in the United States building entry-level MOOCs. The interviews focus on how these producers are considering traditionally underrepresented learners and the challenges these students may face throughout the design process. The interviews and analysis contribute several observations. First, diverse conceptions of inclusion reflect a sincere normative commitment on the part of the producers to make inclusive MOOCs, though the conceptions were quite distinct. Second, producers were intentional about utilising best-practice pedagogical methods, as well as innovative program design, to include as many learners as possible. Finally, innovative technology partners helped create interactive, unique experiences, but this also led to challenges in harmonising the design process and required the considerable influence of 'third-space' actors [54].

References

[1]

Daron Acemoglu, David Autor, Jonathon Hazell, and Pascual Restrepo. 2020. AI and Jobs: Evidence from Online Vacancies (No. w28257). NBER. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28257.

[2]

Taskeen Adam. 2020a. Open educational practices of MOOC designers: Embodiment and epistemic location. Distance Education, 41(2), 171--185. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1757405.

[3]

Taskeen Adam. 2020b. Between Social Justice and Decolonisation: Exploring South African MOOC Designers' Conceptualisations and Approaches to Addressing Injustices. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1). http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.557

[4]

Jennifer Attride-Stirling. 2001. Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative research, 1(3), 385--405. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100307.

[5]

Lioness Ayres. 2008. Semi-structured interview. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 811--812). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n420.

[6]

Stephanie Blackmon. 2016. Through the MOOCing glass: Professors' perspectives on the future of MOOCs in Higher Education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2015(167), 87--101. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20156.

[7]

danah boyd. 2010. Streams of content, limited attention: The flow of information through social media. Educause Review, 45(5), 26. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/10/streams-of-content-limited-attention-the-flow-of-information-through-social-media

[8]

Victoria Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77--101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

[9]

Simon Buckingham Shum, Rebecca Ferguson, and Roberto Martínez-Maldonado. 2019. Human-centred learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(2), 1--9. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.62.1.

[10]

Ining Chao, Tami Saj, and Doug Hamilton. 2010. Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 106--126. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.912.

[11]

John Daniel. 2009. Is E-Learning True to the Principles of Technology?. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. http://hdl.handle.net/11599/1367.

[12]

David Deming, Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence Katz. 2012. The for-profit postsecondary school sector: Nimble critters or agile predators?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 139--64. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.1.139.

[13]

David Deming, Noam Yuchtman, Amira Abulafi, Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence Katz. 2016. The value of postsecondary credentials in the labor market: An experimental study. American Economic Review, 106(3), 778--806. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141757.

[14]

David Deming. 2020, September 17. Community colleges can be engines of economic recovery. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/business/community-colleges-economic-recovery.html'searchResultPosition=2

[15]

Ruiqi Deng, Pierre Benckendorff, and Deanne Gannaway. 2019. Progress and new directions for teaching and learning in MOOCs. Computers & Education, 129, 48--60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.019.

[16]

Ruiqi Deng and Pierre Benckendorff. 2017. A contemporary review of research methods adopted to understand students' and instructors' use of massive open online courses (MOOCs). International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(8), 601--607. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.8.939.

[17]

Charlie Eaton, Sabrina Howell, and Constantine Yannelis. 2020. When investor incentives and consumer interests diverge: Private equity in higher education. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(9), 4024--4060. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz129.

[18]

Jane Edwards. 1993. Principles and contrasting systems of discourse transcription. Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, 3--31. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315807928.

[19]

Marcella Escobari, Ian Seyal, and Michael Meaney. 2019. Realism about Reskilling: Upgrading the Career Prospects of America's Low-Wage Workers. Workforce of the Future Initiative. Center for Universal Education at The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/research/realism-about-reskilling/

[20]

Suzannah Evans and Jessica Myrick. 2015. How MOOC instructors view the pedagogy and purposes of massive open online courses. Distance Education, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1081736.

[21]

Rebecca Ferguson, Doug Clow, Leah Macfadyen, Alfred Essa, Shane Dawson, and Shirley Alexander. 2014. Setting learning analytics in context: Overcoming the barriers to large-scale adoption. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 251--253). https://doi.org/10.1145/2567574.2567592.

Digital Library

[22]

Dragan Gasevic, Vitomir Kovanovic, Srecko Joksimovic, and George Siemens. 2014. Where is Research on Massive Open Online Courses Headed? A Data Analysis of the MOOC Research Initiative. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 134--176. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1954.

[23]

Barney Glaser, Anslem Strauss, and Elizabeth Strutzel. 1968. The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing research, 17(4), 364. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199--196807000-00014.

[24]

Greg Guest, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59--82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903.

[25]

Sarah Haavind and Cynthia Sistek-Chandler. 2015. The emergent role of the MOOC instructor: A qualitative study of trends toward improving future practice. International Journal on E-learning, 14(3), 331--350. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/150663/.

[26]

Fiona Hollands and Devayani Tirthali. 2014. Resource requirements and costs of developing and delivering MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 113--133. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.190.1.

[27]

Kenneth Holstein and Shayan Doroudi. 2019. Fairness and equity in learning analytics systems (FairLAK). In Companion Proceedings of the Ninth International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (LAK 2019). https://www.solaresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/LAK19_Companion_Proceedings.pdf.

[28]

Inclusive Design Toolkit. (2021). What is inclusive design?. University of Cambridge. http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/whatis/whatis.html

[29]

Francisco Iniesto, Patrick McAndrew, Shailey Minocha, and Tim Coughlan. 2016. Accessibility of MOOCs: understanding the provider perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2016(1), article no. 20. http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.430.

[30]

Francisco Iniesto. 2020. An Investigation Into The Accessibility Of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). PhD thesis The Open University. https://doi.org/10.21954/ou.ro.0001117a.

[31]

Carolyn King, Kathleen Doherty, Jo-Anne Kelder, Fran McInerney, Justin Walls, Andrew Robinson, and James Vickers. 2014. "Fit for Purpose': a cohort-centric approach to MOOC design. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 11(3), 108--121. http://dx.doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v11i3.2090.

[32]

Malcolm Knowles, Edward Holton III, and Richard Swanson. 2014. The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978131581695.1.

[33]

Sarah Lambert. 2020. Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A systematic review 2014--18. Computers & Education, 145, 103693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103693.

Digital Library

[34]

Lorelei Lingard. 2019. Beyond the default colon: effective use of quotes in qualitative research. Perspectives on medical education, 8(6), 360--364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00550--7.

[35]

Allison Littlejohn and Nina Hood, N .2018. Reconceptualising learning in the digital age: The [un] democratising potential of MOOCs (p. 108). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--981--10--8893--3.

[36]

Adam Looney and Constantine Yannelis, C. 2015. A crisis in student loans?: How changes in the characteristics of borrowers and in the institutions they attended contributed to rising loan defaults. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 1--89. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED576668.

[37]

Patrick Lowenthal, Chareen Snelson, and Ross Perkins. 2018. Teaching massive, open, online, courses (MOOCs): Tales from the front line. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3505.

[38]

Tharindu Liyanagunawardena, Andrew Adams, and Shirley Williams. 2013. MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008--2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202--227. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455.

[39]

Joseph Maxwell and Kavita Mittapalli. 2010. Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, 145--168. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n6.

[40]

Mary McHugh. 2012. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica, 22(3), 276--282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031.

[41]

Michael Meaney. 2021. Essays on the Design of Inclusive Learning in Massive Open Online Courses, and Implications for Educational Futures. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.76128.

[42]

Michael Meaney and Tom Fikes. 2019. Early-adopter Iteration Bias and Research-praxis Bias in Virtual Learning Environments. Companion Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Tempe, Arizona (LAK'19). https://www.solaresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/LAK19_Companion_Proceedings.pdf.

[43]

M. David Merrill. 2002. First principles of instruction. Educational technology research and development, 50(3), 43--59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024.

[44]

Hedieh Najafi, Carol Rolheiser, Laura Harrison, and Stian Håklev. 2015. University of Toronto instructors' experiences with developing MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 233--255. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2073.

[45]

Tina Papathoma. 2019. MOOC Educators: Who They Are And How They Learn. PhD thesis The Open University. https://doi.org/10.21954/ou.ro.0000e7a6.

[46]

Jean Piaget and David Elkind. 1967. Six psychological studies. Random House.

[47]

Lyn Richards. 1999. Using Nvivo in qualitative research. Sage.

[48]

Jeanette Samuelsen, Weiqin Chen, and Barbara Wasson. 2019. Integrating multiple data sources for learning analytics-review of literature. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14(1), 1--20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-019-0105--4.

[49]

Shah, D. (2020, December 14). The second year of the MOOC: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2020. The Report by Class Central. https://www.classcentral.com/report/the-second-year-of-the-mooc/

[50]

Skinner, B. F. (1963). Behaviorism at fifty. Science, 140(3570), 951--958. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.140.3570.951.

[51]

George Veletsianos and Peter Shepherdson. 2016. A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013--2015. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 198--221. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448.

[52]

Celia Whitchurch. 2008. Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: The emergence of third-space professionals in UK higher education. Higher education quarterly, 62(4), 377--396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468--2273.2008.00387.x.

[53]

Yuan Wang, Tom Fikes, and Patrick Pettyjohn. 2018. Open Scale Courses: Exploring Access and Opportunity for Less-Educated Learners. In 2018 Learning With MOOCS (LWMOOCS) (pp. 102--105). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/LWMOOCS.2018.8534667.

[54]

Steven White and Su White. (2016). Learning designers in the "third-space': the socio-technical construction of MOOCs and their relationship to educator and learning designer roles in HE. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2016(1), 1--12. http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.429.

[55]

Charles Teddlie and Fen Yu. 2007. Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 77--100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806292430.

[56]

Meina Zhu, Anissa Sari, and Mimi Lee. 2018. A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical MOOC literature (2014--2016). The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 31--39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.002.

Cited By

Vinueza-Morales MCárdenas-Cobo JCabezas-Quinto JVidal-Silva C(2025)Applying the Block-Based Programming Language ALICE for Developing Programming Competencies in University StudentsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2025.353627913(21471-21485)Online publication date: 2025
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3536279
Duncan ATang THuang YLuu JThakkar NJoyner DJoyner DKim MWang XXia M(2024)Forums, Feedback, and Two Kinds of AI: A Selective History of Learning @ ScaleProceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale10.1145/3657604.3664667(376-382)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3657604.3664667

Index Terms

Designing and Building Inclusive, Entry-level Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Perspectives from Producers
1. Applied computing
  1. Education
    1. Distance learning
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. Empirical studies in HCI

Recommendations

Adding a Demographic Lens to Cluster Analysis of Participants in Entry-level Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)
L@S '22: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale

This paper provides insight into how underrepresented learners are engaging with entry-level MOOCs, leveraging cluster analysis [19] on previously unexamined data from entry-level MOOCs produced by a major research university in the United States (USA) [...
Towards an educational design pattern language for massive open online courses (MOOCs)
PLoP '17: Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs

The design of innovative and groundbreaking Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) has been a difficult task for practitioners, especially novices, because there is no definite standard about the desirable characteristics of MOOC courses. Educational ...
Value hierarchy for Massive Open Online Courses

Explores learners value ladder of Attributes-Consequences-Values chain in MOOCs.Laddering interviews identify 14 attributes, 12 consequences, 9 values of MOOCs.The structures of values are set up by hierarchical value map.The study further explored the ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

L@S '22: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale

June 2022

491 pages

ISBN:9781450391580

DOI:10.1145/3491140

General Chair:
René F. Kizilcec
Cornell University, USA
,
Program Chairs:
Katie Davis
University of Washington, USA
,
Xavier Ochoa
New York University, USA

Copyright © 2022 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 June 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Badges

Honorable Mention

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

L@S '22

L@S '22: Ninth (2022) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale

June 1 - 3, 2022

NY, New York City, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 117 of 440 submissions, 27%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
134
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)8
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Vinueza-Morales MCárdenas-Cobo JCabezas-Quinto JVidal-Silva C(2025)Applying the Block-Based Programming Language ALICE for Developing Programming Competencies in University StudentsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2025.353627913(21471-21485)Online publication date: 2025
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3536279
Duncan ATang THuang YLuu JThakkar NJoyner DJoyner DKim MWang XXia M(2024)Forums, Feedback, and Two Kinds of AI: A Selective History of Learning @ ScaleProceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale10.1145/3657604.3664667(376-382)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3657604.3664667

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten