From OER to MOOCs: An Evolutionary Analysis and Its Neoliberal Context

Abstract

Well before the MOOC, there was something quite similar without the popularity. It was called the Open Educational Resource (OER) movement. This chapter endeavours to delineate the intricate lineage of MOOCs, paying homage to its antecedent, the OER. By charting its evolutionary course, we gain insights into the expansive growth, nuances, and multifaceted dimensions of various MOOCs. Research into MOOCs is vast; however, critiques are very slim. Understandably, how could someone critique such a good thing? Well, as MOOCs started changing, so did their interests, and this chapter aims to highlight that such changes are consistent with the forces of global Neoliberalism.

What Are MOOCs?

To truly comprehend the essence of MOOCs, one must first dissect its nomenclature. The name ‘MOOC’ is an acronym for Massive Open Online Courses, with each letter reflecting the different features of MOOCs. For example, the letters’ M’ and ‘Massive’ reference the unlimited class sizes in these courses. ‘Open’ aligns with the claim that most MOOC providers allow anyone to participate without any prerequisites or qualifications (Gaebel, 2013, p. 3). The inclusion of ‘Online’ notes the courses’ technological basis and delivery method. The concluding term, ‘Course’, situates a MOOC within the pedagogical continuum, akin to conventional educational paradigms, possessing a structured curriculum and discernible content (Pappano, 2012). The initial premise behind MOOCs was that they “were online courses, with no formal entry requirements, no participation limit, are free of charge, and do not earn credits” (Gaebel, 2013, p. 3). In recent years, MOOCs have been mostly commercially driven companies. Their differences can be captured in the contrasting emphases given to each characterising letter of the acronym.

c-MOOCs vs x-MOOCs

In 2008, Cormier and Alexander first coined MOOCs to describe a new course and learning theory called connectivism or c-MOOCs (Clarà & Barberà, 2013; Cooper, 2013; Rodriguez, 2013). More broadly, connectivism, as a learning theory, suggests knowledge resides in the ability to leverage and access particular networks of information, such as RSS feeds, blogs, and forums (Calvani, 2009; Siemens, 2007). Nevertheless, the academic discourse surrounding this topic remains rife with contention. Luminaries such as Calvani (2009) and Kop and Hill (2008) challenge the categorisation of connectivism as a novel learning theory. These scholars postulate that connectivism, while pioneering, is perhaps better described as a pedagogical innovation rather than an entirely new theoretical construct, arguing that it does not fulfil the foundational criteria to be dubbed a new learning theory. For a concise comparison between c-MOOCs and x-MOOCs, readers are directed to Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Differences between x-MOOCs and c-MOOCs

In the wake of c-MOOCs, the educational sphere witnessed the emergence of x-MOOCs. A monumental juncture in this narrative occurred in 2011 when Stanford University pioneered the inaugural x-MOOC course. This evolution heralded the advent of three paradigmatic x-MOOC derivatives: Coursera, Udacity, and edX, as depicted in Fig. 2.1. Stanford University conducted the first x-MOOC experiment on Artificial Intelligence, delivered by Professors Thrun and Norvig. The course sparked a media whirl, as it was the first free course from a leading university to attract over 160,000 students. A Stanford University President called MOOCs a “digital tsunami threatening to sweep aside conventional university education” (Boxall, 2012, p. 2). Soon after, in 2012, two other Stanford Professors, Ng and Koller, developed another commercial platform called Coursera. The same year, MIT partnered with Harvard University to develop the not-for-profit MOOC, edX. As of 2021, edX was acquired by 2U and is now a commercial entity.

Fig. 2.1

OER and MOOCs timeline 2000–2023

The MOOC realm is vast and varied. On one end of the spectrum, c-MOOCs, deeply rooted in connectivist learning paradigms, emphasise the importance of networked knowledge, advocating for open, diverse, interconnected, and interactive online engagements (Downes & Siemens, 2009). In stark contrast, x-MOOCs, reflecting an instructional-behaviourist stance, advocate for a unilateral, educator-driven pedagogy (de Waard et al., 2011; Giroux, 2009). This dichotomy underscores the distinctive character of each MOOC offering. While scholarly pursuits have predominantly revolved around x-MOOCs, the connectivist origins encapsulated by c-MOOCs warrant acknowledgement. Even though c-MOOC research endeavours have existed, their prominence has waned over the years.

OER and MOOCs Timeline 2000–2023

Emerging in this milieu, blended MOOCs, or b-MOOCs, gained traction in 2019 and conceptualised to amalgamate conventional classroom experiences with online modules (Chauhan & Chauhan, 2022; Pertuz et al., 2023; Zhao & Song, 2020). Yet, akin to c-MOOCs, their representation in academic literature remains eclipsed by their x-MOOC counterparts (see Fig. 2.1).

So Why These Case Studies?

The motivations behind developing each of the four major MOOC platforms are quite different (see Table 2.2). For instance, Coursera and Udacity are commercial businesses offering a fee for certifications. Udemy, another for-profit x-MOOC, offers no course accreditation but still charges a fee. On the other hand, edX also charges students for certification but is considered a not-for-profit provider. These MOOCs have been chosen to demonstrate a representative spread of the major MOOC providers and the applications of ideology critique to various websites with differing motives.

Table 2.2 Differences between the main MOOC case studies

The four MOOC case studies differ in popularity, funding models, pedagogy, and the assessment structures they employ. More particularly, they were chosen based on the diverse partnership models in Table 2.1. Finally, these four MOOC websites also represent the first and earliest examples of x-MOOCs (see Fig. 2.1). It is timely here to offer a brief history of Open Educational Resources (OER) to understand MOOCs within a broader context.

History and Context of MOOCs

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, a decade before MOOCs, a ground-breaking announcement echoed through the halls of academia. In 2001, the then-President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) proclaimed an audacious vision: all MIT resources for all courses would be freely available online to anyone over the coming decade (Caswell et al., 2008). It was this OpenCourseWare (OCW) project by MIT that saw the birth of OER and, by extension, MOOCs (see Fig. 2.1) (Atkins et al., 2007).

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) called for an international academic forum to assess the potentialities and challenges of the OER movement. It was within these discussions that the name “Open Educational Resources” (OER) was coined (Caswell et al., 2008). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also gathered senior researchers to address the phenomenon (see Fig. 2.1). Of particular interest were its costs and benefits, intellectual property issues, university incentives, and how to increase student access (Hylen & Schuller, 2007). Their seminal report, ‘Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of OER’ defined OER as “the digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators, students, and self-learners to use and reuse for teaching, learning, and research” (Hylen & Schuller, 2007, p. 10).

Critical Concerns About OER and MOOCs

As the years unfolded, a corpus of literature surrounding OER endeavoured to dissect the manifold facets of OER, spanning its virtues, ramifications, and legacy (Atkins et al., 2007; Caswell et al., 2008; Kanwar et al., 2011). Where commentators were critical of OERs (see, for example, Atkins et al., 2007; Daniel, 2012; Yuan et al., 2008), their concerns related to revenue issues, policy concerns, copyright issues, or general funding implications. However, the OER movement lacked a robust critique of its ideological motives.

Offering a counter-narrative, Knox (2013) critiqued the OER movement and suggested an under-theorisation of the term ‘open’ in the debate. Informed by positive and negative liberty perspectives, he argued that one could remove barriers to entry to university (negative liberty), but people may not be able to transition due to a lack of academic or technological literacies (positive liberty). Knox (2013) also warned that OERs might cultivate a two-tiered education system. For instance, while traditional face-to-face students would be given guidance and ‘scaffolding’ to support their learning, online OER students would be left to learn independently. McGreal et al. (2013) also cautioned that OERs might not gain the same status and prestige as traditional face-to-face accreditation. Knox (2016) later published a book titled “Posthumanism and the Massive Open Online Course: Contaminating the Subject of Global Education”, which extended these arguments to suggest that MOOCs treat all human subjects as one and the same—telling a universal cultural and social student archetype that undervalues and underplays the value of different socio-cultural perspectives and argues that a post-humanist lens is needed for the end goal of decolonisation.

He argues that MOOCs represent a form of ongoing colonisation fuelled by Data Mining, or as he puts it, “data collected from MOOC participants is used to create profiles of these individuals, which can then be used for marketing or other purposes” (Knox, 2016, p. 5). In a world increasingly propelled by Generative Artificial Intelligence (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard) and vast data repositories, Knox (2016) and later, Adam (2019) articulated a very pressing concern about the blurring of lines when students become “data points” ready to be predicted, quantified, modelled, commodified, and ultimately sold to the highest third-party bidder (Adam, 2019), with MOOCs representing a flux of continued colonialism buoyed by Neoliberalism.

Evolution of Academic Responses to MOOCs

The proliferation of MOOCs in the educational landscape marked a significant evolution in the world of e-learning. Yet, the academic response to this transformative phenomenon, especially in terms of critical analysis, seemed somewhat muted. This lack of comprehensive scrutiny is intriguing, given MOOCs’ considerable impact and reach in reshaping educational paradigms worldwide. The review does not aim to cover every single piece of MOOC literature; however, it draws from various literature reviews over the last decade to paint a narrative of how research (interests) has changed over time. The earliest review of the literature around the birth of MOOCs was conducted by Liyanagunawardena et al. (2013), who offered a systematic review of 45 primary publications relating to MOOCs. The authors classified eight broad themes in the literature (see Fig. 2.2). These themes serve as an illuminating lens into the scholarly conversations, or perhaps more tellingly, the conspicuous silences that permeated the initial years of the MOOC emergence, spanning 2008–2012. In the years following 2012, as the wave of MOOC websites grew, so did the MOOC literature, with many delving into their disruption and impact on higher education (El Ahrache et al., 2013; Anders, 2012; Conole, 2013; Daniel, 2012; Dennis, 2012; El Skiba, 2012; Lawton & Katsomitros, 2012; Odom, 2013).

Fig. 2.2

(Note Adapted from Liyanagunawardena et al. [2013])

Earliest themes of MOOCs between 2008–2013

However, most examined a more intimate approach examining case studies, such as universities adopting mobile MOOCs (de Waard et al., 2011). Others shined light on the benefits and pitfalls of automated and peer assessment of MOOCs (Balfour, 2013; Piech et al., 2012), something Generative AI has brought back to the limelight in 2023. Gasevic et al. (2014) took a closer look at student engagement and learning success in MOOCs from 2008 to 2014. Their work yielded insights into how MOOCs influenced learners’ engagement levels and overall learning outcomes.

The landscape of MOOCs was further enriched by discussions surrounding their diverse pedagogical approaches, notably the contrast between c-MOOCs and x-MOOCs, a distinction previously alluded to (Calvani, 2009; Cooper & Sahami, 2013; Downes & Siemens, 2009; Dunaway, 2011; Kop & Hill, 2008; Rodriguez, 2013). As the literature continued to evolve, two overarching themes consistently emerged as focal points of discussion: sustainability, capturing the attention of scholars and researchers (Kim, 2013; Kolowich, 2012a; 2012b; 2013; Yuan et al., 2013), and revenue models, an area that piqued the curiosity of those exploring MOOCs’ financial aspects (Billington & Fronmueller, 2013; Daniel, 2012; Dellarocas & Alstyne, 2013; Lawton & Katsomitros, 2012).

Nevertheless, during that time, there needed to be more critical awareness of learning design within MOOCs, especially within the first few years of its development. As Holton (as cited in Baggaley, 2013) puts it, “It is especially disturbing is that none of the major MOOC providers have hired anyone trained in instructional design” (p. 4). While MOOCs may not have hired instructional designers during this time, research into instructional design became more evident (Martin, 2012; Cooper & Sahami, 2013; Zhang, 2013). One notable study was Koutropoulos and Zaharias’s (2015) typology of MOOCs, which included an analysis of 109 articles relating to MOOCs. Their papers were consolidated into 13 broad themes (see Fig. 2.3) from 2011 to 2014.

Fig. 2.3

(Note Adapted from Koutropoulos and Zaharias [2015, p. 4])

Broad themes in the MOOCs literature 2011–2014

The MOOCs Literature 2014–2019

From 2014 to 2019, MOOC research experienced a surge in publications. However, uncovering handfuls of literature critically questioning their ethics, privacy, data, and quality remained challenging. The scholarship on MOOCs in Foreign Language Learning during this epoch was noticeably restrained, with only a smattering of discourse around its Eurocentric English instruction tendencies (Palacios Hidalgo et al., 2020). While Hew and Cheung (2014) focused on motivations and challenges associated with MOOCs by both learners and providers, the pressing conversation about MOOCs’ actual societal value, critique, or any tangible quality outcomes remained visibly untouched. Zhu et al. (2020) comprehensively understood MOOC research techniques and methodologies from 2009 to 2019 and accentuated an intriguing trend: the stark absence of rhetorical or ideological critique within the predominantly quantitative studies. It is worth noting that despite a few pockets of scepticism regarding the quality and integrity of MOOCs, there remained a shortage of critical theoretical understandings of MOOCs.

Recent Research Themes from 2019 to 2023

From 2019 to 2023, research into MOOCs narrowed into four broad themes: adoption, engagement, experience, and completion, with methodologies and research designs largely leaning into quantitative paradigms. A deep dive by Meet and Kala (2021) into a spectrum of 104 papers revealed a proclivity for topics like MOOC adoption (57.84%), followed by MOOC Engagement and continuance (17.65%), MOOC Experience and Appraisal (16.67%), and MOOC completion (7.84%); dominating 70.00% of the articles. Surveys comprised the majority (57.84%) of the articles, followed by field surveys at 15.69% and similar to Zhu et al.’s (2020) findings, ideological criticism or any critical approaches were slim to none. This book offers and calls for research students to carry out research outside the expected qualitative-quantitative-mixed methods paradigm (Liu, 2022) towards more critical approaches to research design.

Also, academic debate regarding quality assurance still needs to be improved, as there have been limited benchmarks or standards regarding MOOCs (Conole, 2013; Eaton, 2012; Moore, 2013). Instead, attempts to retrofit traditional higher education blueprints pushed to fit the MOOC space, like the Quality Matters Framework were made (Xiao et al., 2019). Another under-researched area is the ethical, data, and privacy considerations concerning MOOCs (see Marshall, 2014; Churchill, 2014). One study examined 1,249 MOOC articles relating to extensive data mining and found that only 1.5% (13 articles) obtained research ethics approval, and only 5% mentioned the term “ethics” (Costello et al., 2023). While pedagogical factors, such as assessment, overwhelmingly dominate the literature (see Fig. 2.4), Stracke and Trisolini (2021) unveiled another jigsaw piece by grouping findings from 103 papers into quartiles—organisational, technical, social, and pedagogical and found just one article which was bold enough to question the social benefits of MOOCs (Stracke & Trisolini, 2021).

Fig. 2.4

Key themes within the MOOCs literature between 2013 and 2019 (guided by Stracke and Trisolini [2021])

The Voice of Criticism in MOOCs Literature

In the evolving landscape of MOOC research, one crucial thread remained consistent: a persistent need for more research on its epistemological underpinnings, critical theoretical approaches, and ideological methodologies and techniques. The prevailing tone in much of the published research on MOOCs leaned towards positivity, generalisation, quantification, and descriptiveness. However, these traits raise considerable concerns or as Fernandes (2013, p. 2) recognised that MOOC literature consistently limited critical dialogue. Often downplaying issues of accessibility and labour of instructional design, taming the need for human and intellectual capital while assuming it to be progressive, with no history or motives. Bali and Sharma (2017) and Adam (2019) both call for a need to challenge these Eurocentric assumptions of MOOCs and offer a decolonial approaches to counter such narratives.

Challenges to Neutrality: Eurocentric Discourse and Commercialisation

The rapid adoption of MOOCs by educators has raised concerns about their underlying motives. Canavan (2013) expressed his apprehension that many professors were eager to experiment with a pedagogical model that actively sought to render their roles obsolete. Mirrlees and Alvi (2014) joined the argument by pointing out the techno-deterministic optimism that enveloped MOOCs, allow neoliberal ideals of efficiency to overshadow any critical scrutiny. Providing room for a new managerial market-driven struggle to make education more Taylorized (i.e., efficient). Despite these concerns, the analysed MOOC literature generally assumed it to be unbiased, progressive, and positive. However, all technologies should be critically examined, including MOOCs (Feenberg, 2009; Popenici, 2015). The veneer of progressiveness and neutrality disguises the historical and economic interests of itself. This research aims to delve into the assumptions underpinning MOOCs as progressive, or what Gramsci (1971) would term “common sense” (see Chapter 3). Furthermore, it guides researchers, educators, and newcomers to rhetorical criticism.

Technological Critiques: A Historical Perspective

The critique of technology’s role in education is not recent, while it might sound new within the MOOC domain. David Noble was one of those pioneers who dared to question the role of online education in his seminal piece, ‘Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education’. Feenberg and Friesen (2012) probed Noble (1998, p. 5) about his cautions of online education, and he replied, “The visions of democratisation and popular empowerment via the net are dangerous delusions; whatever the gains, they are overwhelmingly overshadowed and more than nullified by the losses”. Noble (1998, p. 5) concluded that online education differs from traditional education “as students want the genuine face-to-face education they paid for, not a cyber-counterfeit”. Noble (1998) went on to argue that universities were undergoing a change towards the commercialisation of higher education, where technology served as both a vehicle and a deceptive disguise. In light of these concerns, one might question—where do researchers start? The work aims to offer guidance by examining (1) the educational progressiveness of MOOCs as ‘common sense’, (2) the taken-for-granted assumptions of knowledge on four MOOC websites, and (3) linking (1) and (2) with the hegemonic forces of Neoliberalism. Another formidable voice critiquing educational technology has been Richard Hall. Hall (2011) underscores that technology is not neutral but instead is driven by the neoliberal restructuring of higher education (Hall, 2011, 2013; Hall & Stahl, 2012). Drawing upon Marx’s critique of technologies, Hall (2011) indicates how critical social theory can assist in questioning the neutrality of technology. In a later study, he highlights how such technologies aim to further valorise and proliferate academic labour (Hall, 2013) and alienate researchers and academics themselves (Hall, 2018). It is paramount for researchers and academics to remain vigilant to ensure that the adoption of educational technologies do not come at their expense or their students.

Aims and Objectives of the Present Study

The development of MOOCs are deeply rooted in the histories of OERs and the forces of neoliberalism. Hall and Winn (2010) aptly state, “There is a tendency for the ‘how’ of technological implementation to be elevated ahead of the ‘why’” (p. 349). Selwyn et al. (2015) agree, commenting that once technology becomes justified as inevitable and natural, it provides a free passage against critical debate.

The present study, therefore, analyses four selected MOOC websites to critique the language used to justify their ideological assumptions, serving as both a benchmark and a case example for future Higher Degree Research (HDR) students. Serving as a template, this book aims to provide future HDR scholars with a robust methodology that is not confined to educational platforms. It promises to shed light on a gamut of other digital touchpoints—from news portals and political manifestos to different ecosystems, such as online museums or pop culture analysis on platforms like Twitter (X), Instagram, and Facebook.

Even though substantial research has been carried out on MOOCs, no single empirical study critiques their underlying ideologies, daring to question and critique the foundational ideologies that these platforms stand upon. A toolkit for critique is provided to support scholars in carrying out this work. The expansive trajectory of MOOC research offers a profound reflection on the shifting priorities, opportunities, and challenges posed by this transformative educational tool. As the scholarly discourse of MOOCs evolved, insights into its ethical purpose and social benefit narrowed.

The initial investigations from 2008 to 2013 sought to map the terrain, focusing predominantly on categorising, and examining broader themes, but as MOOCs matured, the research emphasis transitioned towards their integration into higher education, sustainability concerns, and revenue models. However, a pertinent gap persisted, even then, on critical analysis. Despite the significant volume of research that followed from 2014 to 2023, an absence of comprehensive critique on ethical, data, and privacy aspects underscores the need for a more robust and ethical approach. This scholarly venture encapsulated the multifaceted exploration of MOOCs, underscoring the pressing necessity to bridge existing research gaps and compelling the academic community to adopt more critical and reflective paradigms in the future. With this in mind, the following chapter aims to illuminate a robust theoretical scaffold, laying the foundation for the empirical insights that follow.