Teaching in the Open: Widening Access or Homogenizing Learning Opportunities?

IHR Note: We are proudly presenting the final issue of the International HETL Review Volume 4 (2014). The issue features an article based on a presentation made at the 2014 HETL Conference in Anchorage, Alaska (USA). Dr Ruth Sacks and Dr Jan Myers examine in detail the emergence of new forms of teaching and learning that explore and exploit the new (and challenging) opportunities offered by technology. The authors note that emerging virtual learning platforms such as MOOCs (Massive Online Open Courses) offer environments that are very similar to the remote or virtual contexts contemporary learners operate in professionally. While the issues around how to derive pedagogical value form these new environments may need further debate and research some of the their advantages are quite clear – for example, affordable access to education; thus the authors argue that such platforms may help educators come up with innovative approaches to content delivery and to learning that will provide learners with space to reflect on their experiences as well as to interact with peers while actively building and co-creating their own knowledge.

Author bios: Ruth recently joined Westminster Business School, the University of Westminster (UK), with a dual role of teaching and business development. Previously Ruth has run her own organisation development consultancy. She delivered consultancy and training for organisations of all sizes and formats including: RS Components, Chisenhale Art Place, Cadbury’s, East Midlands Development Agency, and Holme Valley Memorial Hospital. She is particularly proud of her work with both The United Nations and Nottingham City Council where the impact of her programmes was far reaching. Ruth teaches on post graduate courses in the Department of Leadership and Professional Development. She has developed and is now running Women for the Board, a programme for senior women who are considering or about to start senior executive board level roles. The programme is designed to inform, challenge and encourage women to take their next career steps to a higher level. Dr Sacks can be contacted at: [email protected]

Jan has been a senior lecturer/assistant professor in business and management, organisational behaviour and HR, and leadership and development in both the UK and Canada. She has recently joined the Corporate and Executive Development Centre at Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University (UK) focusing on leadership and organisational development. Before moving into academia, she was a senior manager, trainer and consultant working in and with third sector and public sector organisations, both in the UK and internationally. Jan’s research interests include: individual and organisational learning; leadership and sense-making; member-based and member-owned organisations; and participatory mechanisms in and across organisations. Dr Myers can be contacted at [email protected]

Teaching in the Open: Widening Access or Homogenizing Learning Opportunities?

Ruth Sacks, University of Westminster, UK

Jan Myers, Northumbria University, UK

Abstract

The changing landscape in UK higher education has led to claims that traditional university days are numbered and “deep, radical and urgent transformation” is needed. Included in this discourse is a focus on the emergence and development of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and the associated potential to open up and widen participation in education and learning in new communicative environments that may have potential to disrupt and/or revolutionize provision of higher education. This article considers some of the discussions and tensions that have surrounded MOOCs in order to explore the opportunities and challenges offered by continuing developments in virtual learning environments.

Keywords: MOOCs, higher education, collaborative learning, on-line courses

Introduction

Strategies and policy attention in higher education to widen access and increase participation of students from a diversity of backgrounds is frequently “articulated in terms of social justice, equality of opportunity, and economic prosperity at the levels of both the individual and the nation” (Tonks & Farr, 2003, p. 26). Distance and on-line learning courses have been seen as routes to extending and increasing access to education (Simonson, Smaldino, Allbright, & Zvacek, 2011). In the UK one of the key providers and champions of open and distance learning has been the Open University established in the 1960s. Moreover, technology-driven or enhanced distance learning is viewed as an enabler of this policy agenda and as a means of transforming education in terms of systemic cultural and structural changes within traditional institutions and in the range and type of course providers (Dunn, 2000; HEFCE, 2010). This debate has gained traction in the UK through a recent publication from the Institute of Public Policy Research (Barber, Donnelly, & Rizvi, 2013). This publication points to a number of factors combining to “challenge the 20th-century university paradigm and shake it to the core” (p. 9), leaving universities to consider their future identities, shape and form. In addition, the launch of FutureLearn in 2012, a private company wholly owned by The Open University with collaboration between leading universities, cultural and educational institutions, marks a leap forward as the first UK multi-stakeholder collaboration to deliver MOOCs.

This paper reviews some of the current discourse related to on-line delivery and MOOCs. The authors are academics in UK higher education institutions (HEIs) with experience in on-line and blended learning provision. This paper was instigated by our interest in co-operative and collaborative learning through learning communities and communities of practice (Dooley, 2008; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1999). Reflecting on our own access to learning and knowledge sharing, we make some use of physical resources (books, journal articles, libraries, classrooms), but also spend much of our time on-line: communicating synchronously and a-synchronously with our research communities, colleagues, and students. As scholars, technology has changed the way we seek, find, explore, and share knowledge (de Andrés Martinez, 2012).

As mobile technology develops and becomes more common, these developments can be seen as catching up with an already observable phenomenon where institution-located students organize in and around class-based activities via social networking sites and instant messaging. In this sense, we can see the need to escape the boundaries of the classroom and perhaps even break through the walls of the virtual learning environments currently provided through WebCT, Blackboard and Moodle (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009). One of the vehicles to assist this change and to increase the diversity of course providers is the MOOC. While MOOCs have been around for some time, recent press coverage has provided a “new level of attention” to this “hot topic” (Sloman, 2013) and further highlighted the for-or-against debate (Allen & Seaman, 2013, p. 3). Do MOOCs help us to re-think approaches to learning? Do they broaden the educational experience through advancing critical pedagogies; or do they reduce choice and limit education to a stable of elite institutions as has been forewarned (Barber et al., 2013; Dunn, 2000)? Are they as revolutionary as first mooted? Will they bring the discontinuous change and disruption as predicted? Is an avalanche coming?

In order to explore these questions, an initial literature search was undertaken in relation to the changing context of HEI and MOOCs. A more systematic literature review followed together with a scan of MOOCs listed as available on one day in March 2014 through for example YouTube, iTunes, university websites, MOOC List (an aggregator of MOOCs – www.mooc-list.com), and providers such as edX, Coursera and FutureLearn.

This paper is a work-in-progress to initiate and support a process of further questioning and review to link to potential avenues for more robust research. The first section looks at the development of technology enhanced tertiary education. Here we make distinctions between the emergence of different types of MOOCs and, in the following sections consider some of the implications for learning and practice. Although the discussions around open and distance learning and sustainable business models are reasonably well rehearsed, “evidence about the pedagogy of learning in MOOCs remains limited” (Mackness, Waite, Roberts & Lovegrove, 2013, p. 1). While a full discussion of pedagogical approaches as well as teaching and learning philosophies is beyond the scope of this paper, we are mindful of concepts of social capital (Coleman, 1988) and collaborative learning (Vygotsky, 1962) to explore the pedagogical value of reciprocal, interdependent, and socially interactive relationships in building learning communities. Further these theories helps to provide a framework to consider the opportunities and challenges offered by continuing developments in virtual learning environments. We conclude with raising further questions and identification of areas for research.

Approaches to Learning

Flexible and distance learning options are not new phenomena. We can see a range of ways in which students have been offered access to academic courses when unable to attend in person or unable to commit to fixed patterns of learning provision. A quick exploration of the University of London’s timeline webpage attests to this: in 1858 a Royal Charter was signed to allow the University to grant degrees worldwide, making “university education available to people who were not wealthy, who worked, or who were not able to study full-time on a University campus” (University of London, 2014, Timeline para 1). The University developed this democratic approach to learning with provision of studies to Armed Forces personnel in prisoner-of-war camps during two World Wars; partnerships with Commonwealth countries; and provision of legal studies for Nelson Mandela during his incarceration on Robben Island. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of these delivery mechanisms. Here, we can see the shift from isolated, individual learning based on single lessons to the development of cohorts and programmes of learning that allowed for some, albeit limited, interaction between students.

Table 1. Distance learning delivery mechanisms

The concept of blended learning and the extension of learning beyond the classroom through improved technology supported a move to on-line delivery. While this was often seen as the emergence of e-learning, in practice on-line facilities have supported the delivery of traditional materials (through learning portals and closed virtual learning environments) and teaching delivery. This phase of distance learning, however, increased the scale of delivery and the speed with which modular units could be delivered. The bridge to the development of mass communication and on-line learning has been with the shift to boundary-less learning that can be afforded via e-learning and mobile technologies (Table 2).

Table 2. Distance and on-line delivery mechanisms

In this way, we can see MOOCs as part of a continuing trend of distance learning that has been happening in HEIs for some time. Since their emergence in 2008, the range of MOOCs offered and the number of HEIs partnering with private provider organisations has increased. In the two years from 2011 to 2013, Coursera (a MOOC platform) has increased its university partnerships from 1 to 110 and now offers 683 MOOCs (www.coursera.org). Commentators who champion MOOCs posit their huge potential for increasing borderless access to improved learning and development opportunities. Key arguments focus on the opening up and democratization of education through increased student enrolments and participation; the rise of the “super-professor” – super- and celebrity-professors providing the attraction to certain courses, referred to as the “Ronaldo Effect” (Barber et al., 2013, p. 27); and content for programmes that allows standardization across universities.

The overarching discourse linked to these arguments is that “traditional” university days are numbered and “deep, radical and urgent transformation” will lead to revolutionary and disruptive change in higher education systems (Barber et al, 2012, p. 3). It is therefore necessary to look beyond the rhetoric to explore real and potential impacts on practice.

Widening Access?

As mentioned above there is huge potential for MOOCs to increase the numbers and types of students taking up studies at tertiary levels. In many respects, MOOCs can achieve what some regional universities are struggling to do: increase diversity in student cohorts with a greater mix of domestic and international students; cater for intergenerational cohorts; and broaden the variety and choice of courses to traditionally non-student communities. Once a MOOC is fully developed then its reach has the potential to become global; see Clarke (2013 for a useful overview of current MOOC providers; and Kay, Reimann, Diebold, and Kummerfeld, (2013) for an overview of MOOC platforms).

In some respects it appears that the potential to widen access supports the proposition that MOOCs are a key mechanism to increasing participation in higher education. Yet, while some universities are using MOOCs to target and increase their international presence and markets, the adoption of MOOCs by HEIs remains relatively low. A recent review suggests only 2.6 per cent of HEIs in the United States currently offer MOOCs with a further 9.4 per cent planning MOOCs as part of their future provision (Allen & Seaman, 2013, p. 3). In Europe, the growth rate for MOOCs is even slower with distribution of MOOCs in 2013, according to Gaebel (2013), largely concentrated in Spain (29%), the UK (24%), and Germany (12%). This may be due to the infrastructure needs and costs of MOOC platforms, and the concentration of MOOCs within collaborative relationships between specific learning institutions and a small number of private for-profit and non-profit providers.

Yet, whether widening participation equates to democratizing education needs further consideration. For example, an initial evaluation of the widespread appeal of MOOCs seems to indicate that this approach to study and learning is not generation specific as some have suggested. However, current demographics and early indications show that rather than attracting younger learners and those with no or limited previous higher educational experience, MOOC participants are generally employed professionals and graduates (Kolowitch, 2012) with many aged between 41 and 60 years (de Waard, Abajian, Gallagher, Hogue, Keskin, Koutropoulos, & Rodriguez, 2011). Contrary to expectations, this appeal to older, more experienced learners raises questions about the capacity of MOOCs to widen access to education, find broader appeal with younger learners, meet the needs both of the IT-savvy generation as well as those traditionally excluded from tertiary education.

Equally, the range and types of courses on offer have to be factored into any consideration of widening access to education. A scan of MOOCs being offered by private providers in partnership with universities and other higher education institutions shows predominantly science, technology and mathematics modules (42% – 353 out of 823 offerings), followed by philosophy (12%), the humanities and social sciences (10% – mainly applied psychology). Out of a listing of 94 MOOCs available in March 2014 through providers such as edX, Coursera and FutureLearn, 50% are mathematics, science and technology; 12% are business and management courses; and, interestingly, 11% are focused on learning and teaching (teaching skill development). The prevalence of science focused/test based on-line courses might confirm Bowen’s (2013, p. 56-57) suggestion that the predominant xMOOC -,while appropriate for concrete subjects and technical information that need to be transferred, is less able to cope with more discursive subjects, needing different pedagogical approaches. The choice and range of learning available is governed and limited by the ways in which technology and platforms are being developed and controlled. We will return to this shortly from a different perspective when considering the pedagogical differences between different types of MOOCs.

MOOCs are defined by specific characteristics: open access to all, limitless number of participants, no fees, and the non-requirement of a specific academic level of achievement prior to entry. As such, they are presented as different from traditional credit bearing assessed courses offered by HEIs and other types of on-line products offered through partnerships between universities and private enterprise. It has been suggested that educators need to consider alternative approaches to measuring learning and success in relation to on-line studies, where “learners pick and choose what they want to learn [and…] are not necessarily interested in completing the whole course” (Honeychurch & Draper, 2013, p. 6). This makes sense when considering current demographics and participation observed in MOOCs (Clow, 2013). In some respects this shifts attention away from traditional ways of measuring (institutional) outputs of educational experience (completions) to look at a broader range of outcomes for individual learners that link to non-formal routes to learning and development. In formal and structured education programmes in which MOOCs form a part, enrolments, usually seen as a key measure to assess widening access and participation, cannot be accounted for in isolation. Participation in the whole experience and movement through to completion cannot be ignored.

While it is estimated that participant numbers worldwide are in the region of five million with an average sign up rate of 33,000 students per MOOC (Blake, 2014), registrations still far exceed either actual participation or completion rates (Hoy, 2014, p. 87). Egerstedt (2013), for example, reporting on his experience of running a MOOC for the first time, states that from an initial registration of 40,000 students, the number of active participants fell to 9,000 with around 6,000 completing weekly quizzes. In this example, 4,000 certificates were awarded, representing 10% of the initial uptake for the course. This is well above the typical retention rate of 6% (Egerstedt, 2013, p. 42). Other reports, estimate up to 95% drop out and a pass rate (where assessment is provided) of between 5-10% of the remaining cohort (Kay et al., 2013).

On-line cohorts have the potential to outnumber the student numbers of a small regional UK university and, for some institutions already part of wider networks of MOOC providers, there has also been anecdotal evidence of a knock-on effect in terms of traditional enrolments. In a recent report, the University of London concludes that even though it is too early to attempt an evaluation of impact on conversion of students to its international programmes, “over 30 students” who applied for one of the 2013/2014 fee-paying programmes indicated that they already had taken one of the University’s MOOCs (Grainger, 2013, p. 4). While numbers matter, the quality of experience is also a significant factor in the success and growth potential for on-line delivery.

Standardization or Homogenization?

Standardization often infers attention to process and quality in order to achieve similar experiences and learning outcomes for students. On the one hand, the opportunity to provide access to significant and prestigious professors or courses to individuals who would not necessarily have the educational grades to achieve traditional entrance to Ivy League or Russell Group institutions offers significant liberalizing and democratizing potential. On the other hand, for some, MOOCs signal further commercialization and homogenization of education. Private providers can thus focus on product delivery without the overheads associated with faculty engaged in research and other activities as well as teaching. These providers can look to rationalize their offerings further with automated assessments and adjunct professors to support and facilitate student interactions. In this scenario smaller and less prestigious universities are perceived as losing out to more elite institutions. In an open letter from San Jose State University professors (reported by Kolowich, 2013a), there is palpable resistance to using course content led and provided by a Harvard professor. This, is seen as part of a process to provide cheap on-line provision at the expense of faculty jobs and terms and conditions (Kolowich, 2013a, para 3 & para 5). Added to this is the recent rejection of edX by Amherst College (Rivard, 2013) and the reported turnaround or “pivot” of Udacity founder, Sebastian Thrun (Chafkin, 2013/2014). An alternative argument is that continued development of on-line provision, in addition to MOOCs, can greatly reduce the cost to the learner thereby supporting increased equality of opportunity to tertiary levels of education.

In some instances the hyperbole that has accompanied learning from the best and most famous professors is not necessarily seen in practice. Moreover, Daniel (2012) suggests that MOOCs will gain reputational influence related to their content rather than figurehead professors. He further suggests that MOOCs are part of a more evolutionary, work-in-progress with accompanying potential to re-focus teaching and pedagogy. If so then this could shift focus from the elite institutions to provide increased opportunities for the more teaching-intensive and practice oriented UK universities borne out of technical colleges and polytechnics. These HEIs may well be better placed to take on the challenge to be more innovative through their provision of services allied to education.

Equally, Daniel points to specialist, niche and modest providers partnering with less prestigious institutions. These, unlike their larger counterparts, have seen positive returns on investment and increased graduation rates by converting course-based degree programmes to on-line provision. Whereas many HEIs are facing reduced staffing levels and budgets, such partnering institutions have been able to freeze tuition and give faculty raises due to the success of their online programmes (Academic Partnerships cited by Daniel, 2012, p. 7). What remains is the continued concern regarding further commodification of teaching and learning as universities try to balance their targets of student outcomes and income generation marked by a push towards “private rather than public solutions” (Kolowich, 2013b, para 3). A further concern, which is likely to remain high on most HEI agendas, is how to continue to develop initiatives that raise their profile and popularity to attract future on-campus students.

As shown earlier, the predicted mass adoption of MOOCs is not yet evident. In some instances, MOOCs can be a useful complement to traditional studies. Take the example of one student part way through a UK generalist business management degree, but with a desire to work in the financial services sector. By supplementing current studies with an on-line MOOC on financial markets, this student is able to explore a professional area of competence that would not have been available at their current university. At no extra cost and risk-free, this on-line opportunity can support the student’s choice of professional development and allow him to complete the course at a prestigious US university. As an early adopter, he also gains a useful boost to his résumé.

To date, design and delivery of on-line and MOOC products are, in the main, shaped by traditional approaches to content delivery. This content has been tutor generated and led. Learning activities and different approaches to teaching have been transferred between physical learning spaces such as active engagement in the classroom through experiential, problem-based and active learning tools and techniques; virtual learning platforms and private networks such as Blackboard and Moodle; and web supplemented programmes and courses such as YouTube, blogs, wikis, and social networking sites. In turn, much of the development of blended learning approaches has been informed by significant research on group, face-to-face, and on-line delivery. This has revitalized the debate as to the benefits of a fully virtual learning environment. Issues such as inclusion/exclusion in on-line activities, lurking, on-line identities, cheating, communication between participants and between participants and tutors, and the dominance of English as the language of on-line learning, remain under-explored (Agger-Gupta, 2010; Haggard, 2013).

Meanwhile, many institutions are continuing to shift away from traditional “instructor oriented delivery” (Walker, Voce, & Jenkins, 2013, p. 15). These institutions are developing experiential and active learning opportunities involving a range and blend of learning technologies. MOOCs, as a current albeit transitional stage in on-going educational innovation, may well be a catalyst to drive the momentum of change in individual organisations. As part of an evolution of developing virtual learning environments, they additionally provide “an important way for institutions to learn about online pedagogy” (Allen & Seaman, 2013 p. 11). What is also interesting is the shift away from massive and open to more contained and structurally closed offerings. This necessitates a closer look at the emergence of different types of MOOCs.

Broadening the educational experience; c, x, or mini-MOOC?

While MOOCs is a generic term, the shape and format of MOOCs has been changing since the emergence of the cMOOC in 2008(Table 3). What we can see from this overview is that there are broadly three types of MOOC – cMOOCs, xMOOCs, and hybrid or mini-MOOCs that have different content, delivery and reach. In turn, they may have different approaches to teaching and learning. Some massive on-line offerings have sought to embody the characteristics of mobile and social media. Others (small MOOCs, closed MOOCs, and SPOCs) have continued to be or have reverted to closed or regulated systems to enable greater accountability for managing processes and assessment of student learning. What is emerging is the concept that no one size fits all, and the binary for-or-against MOOCs debate is limited and limiting. For example, if we start to think about access to and opportunities for broadening the educational experience, rather than the provision of education per se, the debate takes on a different complexion and complexity.

Table 3: MOOCs – types and characteristics

As previously noted, MOOCs respond to a need for “educational flexibility and responsiveness” (Dziuban & Moskal 2011, p. 236). Yet as Comas-Quinn (2011, p. 219) points out, “the success of any innovation in education… is in great part due to how well teachers deal with new ideas and implement them with their learners”. Over time, the distance between tutor and learner has been mediated by developments in technology that allow for real-time discussion, increased on-line interaction between students, students and tutors, and the inclusion of different media to provide bite-sized digestible chunks of content. The opportunities offered by such technological enhancements have been demonstrated in the design and delivery of xMOOCs. Alongside this is the speed and capacity for individuals to connect not just face-to-face, but locally, nationally and internationally. The blurring of these boundaries as evidenced in a more socialized Internet, virtual communities, and on-line information sharing contributes to the opening up of learning spaces, open space platforms, and opportunities for innovation networks. Equally this shift also mirrors demographic changes and student expectations regarding access to learning and services, the availability of cheaper and more flexible media, and the changing role of academics (Bayne & Ross, 2014).

Further anecdotal evidence from those who have taught on xMOOCs indicates that the success of programmes is more than the combination of teaching, video presentations and tools such as peer grading. The development of on-line relationships between students, and between students and tutors to share knowledge appears to be of importance to those who are studying. Furthermore, Kop and Carroll (2011) suggest that learning and creativity can be encouraged through on-line engagement. They argue that learner satisfaction is increased through producing something that is perceived to be meaningful (cognitive gain through learning perceived as relevant) and may support the learning of others (through more collaborative and dialogic learning and construction of ideas and practice). This is supported with reports of collaborative practice between on-line learners and local community and business networks. For example, Nurmohamed, Gillani and Lennox (2013) report how students on a business strategy MOOC were able to use their learning to undertake strategic analyses of business operations. One hundred companies joined the course to take advantage of this opportunity. Subsequently, 60% of those taking part stated they would want to work with students again on other business problems. Although we cannot know if a similar response could be obtained through an on-ground university programme, it would be a reasonable assumption that the speed of communication and the geographical spread of the students would be a very favourable factor in gaining this immediacy and breadth of support. However, the fact that many of the students were experienced industry professionals from a range of leading international organisations who “brought with them a well-developed ability to solve hard problems” (Nurmohamed et al., 2013 para 8) needs to be taken into account. As such, it may have presented a talent pool that was unlikely to be resisted by participating employers. On the other hand, the MOOC provided the potential to mobilize significant talent and to network individuals who in day-to-day interactions and problem solving may not have been natural collaborators.

If learning is associated with action and change then connectivity with others by the creation of relational and participatory learning spaces is part of a negotiated construction of knowledge and social capital. Rather than their bigger xMOOC siblings, this shifts attention to cMOOCs and smaller, task-oriented, connectivist MOOCs (Mackness et al., 2013). cMOOCs emphasize a focus on connectivity between learners – based on a participatory pedagogical model – which requires coherence between and across multiple conversations and learner groups. The capacity of learners to construct an active, self-regulated and inquiry-based learning environment is supported through less directive and more facilitative processes. This further supports a sociocultural learning approach (Liyanagunawardena, Adams, & Williams, 2013) rather than a structured and linear presentation of content and knowledge transfer typified by traditional and more didactic learning opportunities and xMOOCs. cMOOCs offer more organic, non-linear, sustainable and relationally-responsive learning opportunities that are empathetic to the “complex, open-ended process [of] learning” (Semetsky, 2005 p. 20). This also suggests a basis for a more egalitarian and embedded pedagogy that acknowledges our “self in relation with others (objects and people) and our environment (our ‘situated’ and ‘social’ learning)” (Cato & Myers, 2011, p. 55).

The capacity to create networked learners, as facilitated by cMOOCs, thus enhances capabilities (skills and knowledge) of individuals to think and act in new ways. This increased social capital, the capacity to connect, network, acquire, share and transfer knowledge, “comes about through changes in the relations among persons that facilitate action” (Coleman, 1988, p. S100). An implication is that as educators we need to start to look less at connectivity linked to technological infrastructure and processes. Instead to seek connectedness: the social relations that exist between and within learning communities, which can be navigated and enhanced by technology. This shifts the on-line tutors’ role from the increasingly hackneyed yet apposite description of “sage on the stage, to guide at the side” (adopted by many from King’s 1993 article). Tutors, and to some extent fellow learners, act as guides, coaches and facilitators to point learners in the right direction, to shape the analysis and evaluation of robust and/or questionable information and research; to be co-creators of knowledge and learning (Kop & Caroll, 2011). In this way, metacognitive learning- self-reflection, self-explanation and self-monitoring may be enhanced (Shea & Bijerano, 2010). More specifically, synergistic interaction, focused and coherent forms of student–student communication, has been found to be significantly associated with higher-order thinking, i.e., integration and resolution (Schrire & Levy, 2012). These problem-solving and inter-personal competencies are skills that 21st century employers say they want and, as mentioned earlier, there are increasing examples of collaborative practice and the potential for MOOCs to bridge the theory-practice divide.

The emergent nature of this environment can, however, as Mackness et al. (2013, p. 7) point out, bring “levels of uncertainty, risk, and unpredictability…so high as to make the learning experience feel ‘scary’ and unsafe’”. As such, these semi-structured learning environments have been described as epitomizing “self-organisation, connectedness, openness, complexity, and…chaos” (deWaard et al., 2011, p. 94). In addition, the ability of learners to construct and build semi-autonomous learning environments is more difficult to achieve with massive sign-up and potential diversity of students. In response, rather than a large number of individuals coalescing to form a rich, whole, massive community of learners, a number of reports suggest that sub-communities by geography, interest groups, and language emerge during participants’ time online (Bárcena, Read, Martín-Monje & Castrillo, 2014; Roth 2013). Furthermore, trying to cope with and manage large on-line classes has led to re-thinking structure, organisation and manufacturing interaction; leading in turn to setting up smaller sub-groups and discussion groups to support participation (Lim, Coetzee, Hartmann, Fox, & Hearst, 2014; Mackness et al., 2013).

An interesting hybrid that has emerged recently is the co-located MOOC which is an example of blended or complementary learning environments and activities. Blom, Verma, Li, Skevi and Dillenbourg (2013) describe their experiences at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne where students have been organised into groups of four or five and who come together in the classroom over the duration of the course to engage with a MOOC. These technology supported study groups are reportedly preferred to individual or isolated study by students (Li, Verma, Skevi, Zufferey, & Dillenbourg, 2014) as they both provide opportunity for individuals to share ideas, and enable students to ‘sustain heavy effort associated with the course material’ (Blom et al., 2013, p. 2).

By tracking some of the more pivotal developments in education and learning provision, as shown in the tables above, we can see that one approach has not been superseded by another. We have a mix of delivery mechanisms and similarities in approaches to teaching and learning. MOOCs like previous correspondence and distance learning approaches respond to a need for “educational flexibility and responsiveness” (Dziuban & Moskal 2011, p. 236). This flexibility and responsiveness is defined, as mentioned earlier, by specific characteristics: open access to all, limitless number of participants, no fees, and the non-requirement of a specific academic level of achievement prior to entry. These characteristics are already being re-shaped through limiting access, tracking, and credentialing with associated fees attached.

There is a need to look more deeply and longitudinally at the pedagogic practices emerging or being reinforced by this mix of learning environments. Theories of learning based on classroom spaces help in considering participation and engagement -see for example Bernard and Rubalcava’s (2000) discussion on learning climate, distance education and online learning. They are not, however, necessarily sufficient for educators to consider the range, scale and implications for learning via mobile technology. Networked and collaborative learning take us one-step nearer. We can return, for example, to situational learning concepts posed by Friere (1970); the transformative aspects of education and learning described by Dewey (1916 and 1938); and, more recently, Lave and Wenger’s (1991) work on legitimate peripheral participation, learning communities, and communities of practice. So while not revolutionary, MOOCs and further developments in mobile technologies could support the potential to disrupt future practice, to create spaces for discussion, and develop new or re-worked approaches to critical pedagogy.

Beyond the MOOC: Opportunities for further learning

The on-line and virtual landscape is already re-shaping and re-forming. The focus and direction of pedagogical practice and learning philosophy cannot be taken in isolation. The policy, political and economic environments in which we teach are also factors in determining employability and widening access to education, and more broadly in relation to measures of social development. In the UK, the focus on technology-enhanced learning is, in part, a driver for not only “enhancing the quality of teaching and learning” and developing student-centred approaches, but also modernizing the whole education experience from a consumer perspective. (Walker, Voce, & Ahmed, 2012, p. 2-3).

There is general acceptance that technology allows for greater reach and scope of provision. Yet, due to its proprietary nature, assessment of the time, effort and return on investment for those universities who have created MOOCs have yet to be widely and openly evaluated. This type of evaluation will no doubt impact on the future development of second and third generation MOOCs and alternatives.

To date, there has been a tendency for attention to focus on the North American experience. This is appropriate given the origins and development of MOOCs, but given the concentrations of MOOC and MOOC-type courses in Spain and Germany there is benefit in exploring the European experience. Similarly, the Australian experience and comparative evaluation of the impacts on HEI providers attempting to use MOOCs to break into or develop international markets and collaboration could be interesting avenues for research. Comparative analysis and more longitudinal research on participant profiles, outcomes and impacts as well as emerging trends in student assessment and evaluation would inform policy and investment. Attention also needs to be given to the emergence of small task-oriented cMOOCs (as described by Mackness et al., 2013) and hybrids that support learner autonomy and co-construction of learning opportunities and which HEIs can blend with established in-class provision.

In an increasingly risk-averse environment, it may be difficult for educationalists to move away from tried and tested methods and to flex the boundaries of quality tested and affirmed module design, delivery mechanisms, content and assessment. Universities can neither compete nor replicate the dynamic and user-led environments such as YouTube and Google. The added value in these domains is the spontaneous creation and dissolution of discussion, knowledge and information-sharing groups and networks. If MOOCs and newly emerging virtual learning environments encourage learners to take initiatives to create groups, to start discussions, or to provide space for solitary reflection and personal development, then this environment is one that is much closer to the remote/virtual context in which many people now operate professionally. MOOCs have the potential to help us to re-think approaches to design and alternative delivery mechanisms. They have, indeed, sparked discussion and debate about the challenges and opportunities for increased on-line delivery and virtual learning. How educators inhabit and continue to transform these new environments and changes to pedagogical thinking and practice needs further debate and research. Limits to choice and promotion of elite institutions do not, as yet, appear to have affected day-to-day practice; at least in the UK. It may be, as Vernon (2013) suggests that if we can learn from the developments of massive on-line provision and we can incorporate good practice elements, the predicted MOOC avalanche is “one avalanche that gets stopped”.

References

Agger-Gupta, D. (2010). Uncertain frontiers: Exploring ethical dimensions of on-line learning. In Rudestam, K. E., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (Eds.), Handbook of On-line Learning. London: Sage.

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541571.pdf

Barber, M., Donnelly, K., & Rizvi, S. (2013). An avalanche is coming: Higher education and the revolution ahead, London: IPPR

Bárcena, E., Read, T., Martín-Monje, E., & Castrillo, M.D. (2014). Analysing student participation in foreign language MOOCs: A case study. In Cress, U., & Kloos, C. D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the European MOOCs Stakeholder Summit. Retrieved from: http://www.emoocs2014.eu/sites/default/files/Proceedings-Moocs-Summit-2014.pdf

Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2014). The pedagogy of the massive open online course: The UK view. London, UK:HEA, Retrieved from:
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/elt/the_pedagogy_of_the_MOOC_UK_view

Bernard, R. M., & Rubalcava, B. R. D. (2000). Collaborative online distance learning: Issues for future practice and research. Distance Education, 21(2), 260-277.

Blake, D. (2014). The rising power of MOOCs [Infographic]. Retrieved from http://moocs.com/index.php/category/mooc-infographics/

Blom,J., Verma, H., Li, N., Skevi, A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). MOOCs are more social than you believe, eLearning Papers, 33, 1-3. Retrieved from http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/article/MOOCs-are-More-Social-than-You-Believe?

Bowen, W.G. (2013). Higher education in the digital age. Woodstock, Oxon: Princeton University Press

Cato, M.S., & Myers, J. (2011). Education as re-embedding: Stroud communiversity, walking the land, and the enduring spell of the sensuous. Sustainability, 3, 51-68. doi:10.3390/su3010051

Chafkin, M. (2013/4). Tech forecast: Udacity’s Sebastian Thrun, godfather of free on-line education, changes course, Fast Company, Dec-Jan, [on-line]. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com

Clarke, T. (2013). The advance of the MOOCs (massive open online courses): the impeding globalisation of business education?, Education + Training, 55 (4/5), 403-413.

Clow, D. (2013). MOOCs and the funnel of participation. Paper presented at the Third Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 8-12 April 2013, Leuven, Belgium.

Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital, The American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supp), S95-S120.

Comas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach on-line or learning to become an online teacher: an exploration of teachers’ experiences in a blended learning course, ReCALL, 23(3), 218-232.

Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/2012/18/html

de Andrés Martinez, C. (2012). Developing metacognition at a distance: sharing students’ learning strategies on a reflective blog. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(2), 199-212.

deWaard, I., Abajian, S., Gallagher, M.S., Hogue, R., Keskin, N., Koutropoulos, A., & Rodriguez, O.C. (2011). Using mLearning and MOOCs to understand chaos, emergence, and complexity in education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 94-115.

Dewey. J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books

Dooley, M. (2008). Constructing Knowledge Together. In Dooly, M. (Ed.) Telecollaborative Language Learning. A guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online (pp. 21-45). Bern: Peter Lang.

Dunn, S. (2000). The virtualizing of education, The Futurist, 34(2), 34-38.

Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2011). A course is a course is a course: Factor Invariance in student evaluation of online, blended and face-to –face learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 236-241.

Egerstedt, M. (2013). Controls for the Masses. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, August, 40 – 44.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Company

Gaebel, M. (2013). MOOCs a European perspective. Presentation to ACA-EUA Seminar Making Sense of MOOCs, October, Brussels. Retrieved from: http://www.aca-secretariat.be/index.php?id=684

Grainger, B. (2013). Massive online open course (MOOC) Report. London: University of London International Programmes

Haggard, S. (2013). The maturing of the MOOC: Literature review of massive online courses and other forms of online distance learning, BIS Research Paper Number 130. London: Department of Business Innovation, & Skills

HEFCE (2010). The changing face of UK higher education. London: HEFCE Online Learning Task Force. Retrieved from: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/whatwedo/learningandteaching/enhancinglt/onlinelearningtaskforce/OLTFdiscussion_paper.DOC

Honeychurch, S., & Draper, S. (2013). A first briefing on MOOCs, University of Glasgow Briefing Paper. Retrieved from: http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/localed/docs/moocReport1.pdf

Hoy, M.B. (2014). MOOCs 101: An introduction to massive open online courses. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 33(1), 85-99. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2014.866490

Kay, J. Reimann, P., Diebold, E., & Kummerfeld, B. (2013). MOOCs: So many learners, So much potential. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 28(3), 70-77, doi: 10.1109/MIS.2013.66

King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30-35.

Kolowich, S. (2013a). Why professors at San Jose State won’t use a Harvard professor’s MOOC. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Professors-at-San-Jose/138941/

Kolowich, S. (2013b) MOOC debate simmers at San Jose State, American U calls a halt. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com

Kolowich, S. (2012). Who Takes MOOCs? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/06/05/early-demographic-data-hints-what-type-student-takes-mooc#sthash.dfYwMAFk.dpbs

Kop, R., & Carroll, F. (2011). Cloud computing and creativity: Learning on a massive open online course. European Journal of Open Distance and E Learning. pp. 1 -11. Retrieved from: http://www.eurodl.org/materials/special/2011/Kopp_Carroll.htm

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Li, N., Verma, H. Skevi, A.Zufferey, G. , & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). MOOC learning in spontaneous study groups: Does synchronously watching videos make a difference? in Cress, U. and Kloos, C.D. (Eds.). Proceedings of the European MOOCs Stakeholder Summit, Retrieved from: http://www.emoocs2014.eu/sites/default/files/Proceedings-Moocs-Summit-2014.pdf

Lim, S., Coetzee, D., Hartmann, B., Fox, A., & Hearst, M.A. (2013). Initial experiences with small group discussions in MOOCs. Retrieved from: http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hearst/papers/small_groups_las_2014.pdf

Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Adams, A.A., & Williams, S.A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 202-227.

Mackness, J., Waite, M., Roberts, G., & Lovegrove, E. (2013). Learning in a small, task–oriented, connectivist MOOC: Pedagogical issues and implications for higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(4). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1548/2636

Marginson, S. (2012). Online Open education: Yes this is the game changer, The Conversation, 16 August. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/online-open-education-yes-this-is-the-game-changer-8078

Nurmohamed, Z., Gillani, N., & Lenox, M. (2013). A New use for MOOCs. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2013/07/a-new-use-for-moocs-real-world

Partnership for the 21st Century (2009). 21st century learning environments. White Paper. Retrieved from: http://www.p21.org/component/content/article/600

Rivard, R. (2013). Inside higher ed: EdX rejected, Times Higher Education, 23 April. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/inside-higher-ed-edx-rejected/2003366.article

Roth, M. (2013). My modern experience teaching a MOOC. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59 (34), B18 – B21.

Schrire, S., & Levy, D. (2012). Troubleshooting MOOCs: The case of a massive open on-line course at a college of education, in Amiel, T., & Wilson, B. (Eds.) Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, (pp. 761-766), Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/40832

Semetsky, I. (2005). Not by breadth alone: Imagining a self-organised classroom, Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 2, 19-36.

Shea, S., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning Presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments, Computers, & Education, 55 (4), 1721 – 1731.

Simonson, M. Smaldino, S., Allbright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2011). Teaching and Learning at a distance: foundations of distance learning, 4th edition. London: Pearson.

Sloman, M. (2013). Will MOOCs transform universities? Training Journal, 9 October. Retrieved from: https://www.trainingjournal.com/blog/will-moocs-transform-universities

Tonks, D., & Farr, M. (2003). Widening access and participation in UK higher education, International Journal of Educational Management, 17(1), pp. 26-36, doi: 10.1108/09513540310456374

University of London (2014). Timeline. Retrieved from http://www.london.ac.uk/2595.html

Vernon, J. (2013). Open online courses – an avalanche that might just get stopped. The Guardian, 29 April. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/apr/29/massive-open-online-courses

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Walker, R., Voce, J., & Ahmed, J. (2012). Survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford: Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association.

Walker, R. Voce, J., & Jenkins, M. (2013). Charting the development of technology- enhanced learning developments across the UK higher education sector: a longitudinal perspective (2001-2012). Interactive Learning Environments, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2013.867888

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the independent reviewers for their helpful comments. An earlier version of this work was presented at the 2014 International HETL Conference, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, with an abstract published in: Blessinger, P., Anchan, J., & Cozza, B. (Eds.). (2014). Proceedings of the 2nd International Higher Education Teaching and Learning Conference: Innovative Learning-Scapes, eScapes, Playscapes and More. Retrieved from at https://www.hetl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FINAL2014HETLConferenceAnchorageProceedingsV3.2.pdf

This feature article was accepted for publication in the International HETL Review (IHR) after a double-blind peer review involving five independent members of the IHR Board of Reviewers and two revision cycles. Accepting editor: Dr Donna Qualters (Tufts University, U.S.A), Associate Senior Editor, International HETL Review.

Suggested citation:
Sacks, R., & Myers, J. (2014). Teaching in the Open: Widening access or homogenizing learning opportunities? International HETL Review, Volume 4, Article 12, URL: https://www.hetl.org/feature-articles/teaching-in-the-open-widening-access-or-homogenizing-learning-opportunities

Copyright [2014] Ruth Sacks and Jan Myers

The author(s) assert their right to be named as the sole author(s) of this article and to be granted copyright privileges related to the article without infringing on any third party’s rights including copyright. The author(s) assign to HETL Portal and to educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this article for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The author(s) also grant a non-exclusive licence to HETL Portal to publish this article in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in electronic and/or printed form within the HETL Review. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author(s).

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and as such do not necessarily represent the position(s) of other professionals or any institution. By publishing this article, the author(s) affirms that any original research involving human participants conducted by the author(s) and described in the article was carried out in accordance with all relevant and appropriate ethical guidelines, policies and regulations concerning human research subjects and that where applicable a formal ethical approval was obtained.