A MOOC taxonomy based on classification schemes of MOOCs

Lists

Download

[thumbnail of MOOC taxonomy-EURODL-unanonymised-full paper-final.pdf]

Preview

MOOC taxonomy-EURODL-unanonymised-full paper-final.pdf - Accepted Version (575kB) | Preview

Tools

Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K., Mitchell, R., Warburton, S. and Williams, S. A. (2019) A MOOC taxonomy based on classification schemes of MOOCs. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 22 (1). pp. 85-103. ISSN 1027-5207

Abstract/Summary

In recent years there has been a significant growth in the number of online courses known as MOOCs available via online providers such as edX and Coursera. The result has been a marked reduction in the clarity around the different course offerings and this has created a need to reconsider the classification schemes for MOOCs to help inform potential participants. Many classifications have been proposed which cover the needs of academics and providers but may not be suitable for learners choosing a course. In this paper, the various classifications used by MOOC providers and aggregator services to categorise MOOCs in presenting information to prospective learners are gathered and analysed. As a result, 13 different categories are identified, which cover information provided to learners before entering a course. These categories are then compared and combined with classifications from the literature to create a taxonomy centred round eight terms: Massive (e.g. enrolments), Open (e.g. pre-requisites), Online (e.g. Timings), Assessment, Pedagogy (e.g. instructor-led), Quality (e.g. reviews), Delivery (e.g. educators), Subject (e.g. Syllabus). Thus, producing a taxonomy capable of categorising MOOCs from a wider perspective.

Item Type	Article
URI	https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/83058
Item Type	Article
Refereed	Yes
Divisions	Science > School of Mathematical, Physical and Computational Sciences > Department of Computer Science
Publisher	De Gruyter
Download/View statistics	View download statistics for this item

Download Statistics

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Deposit Details

Date Deposited:	04 Apr 2019 10:23	Date item deposited into CentAUR
Last Modified:	30 Jun 2024 01:24	Date item last modified

References

1. Bansal, S. K., & Kagemann, S. (2015). Integrating big data: A semantic extract-transform-load framework. Computer, 48(3), 42-50. doi: 10.1109/MC.2015.76 2. Bozkurt, A., Keskin, N. O., & de Waard, I. (2016). Research Trends in Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Theses and Dissertations: Surfing the Tsunami Wave. Open Praxis, 8(3), 203-221. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1112556 3. Clark, D. (2013, April 16). MOOCs: taxonomy of 8 types of MOOC. Donald Clark Plan B [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/moocs-taxonomy-of-8-types-of-mooc.html 4. Conole, G. (2014). A new classification schema for MOOCs. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 65-77. Retrieved from http://empower.eadtu.eu/images/fields-of-expertise/OERsMOOCs/INNOQUAL-Issue-3-Publication-Sep-2014-FINAL-w-cover.pdf#page=72 5. Conole, G. (2015). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 39. Retrieved from http://www.um.es/ead/red/39/conole.pdf 6. Cormier, D. (2008, October 2). The CCK08 MOOC – Connectivism course, 1/4 Way. Dave’s Educational Blog [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/10/02/the-cck08-mooc-connectivism-course-14-way/ 7. Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of interactive Media in education, 2012(3). http://doi.org/10.5334/2012-18 8. Downes, S. (2008). Places to go: Connectivism & connective knowledge. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(1), A6. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol5/iss1/6 9. Ebben, M., & Murphy, J. S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: a review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(3), 328-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.878352 10. Ferguson, R., & Clow, D. (2015). Examining engagement: analysing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses (MOOCs). Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 16–20 March 2015, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA, ACM, 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1145/2723576.2723606 11. Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and Reality. Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED547237.pdf 12. Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651 13. Jordan, K. (2015). MOOC Research Literature Browser. Retrieved from http://www.katyjordan.com/moocliterature 14. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (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. 15. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K. Ø., & Williams, S. A. (2015a). Who are with us: MOOC learners on a FutureLearn course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 557-569. 16. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K. Ø., & Williams, S. A. (2015b). Massive Open Online Courses and Economic Sustainability. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning. 18(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2015-0015 17. Mohamed, M. H., & Hammond, M. (2017). MOOCs: A Differentiation by Pedagogy, Content and Assessment. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(1). http://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-07-2017-0062 18. Pilli, O., & Admiraal, W. (2016). A taxonomy for Massive Open Online Courses. Contemporary Educational Technology, 7(3), 223-240. Retrieved from https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/47088/Pilli_Admiraal2016.pdf 19. Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 15(2). Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2012/Rodriguez.pdf 20. Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education – A white paper: JISC CETIS. Retrieved from https://publications.cetis.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MOOCs-and-Open-Education.pdf

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar