Internet Learning Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 56

Many Shades of MOOC's
Theoretical Framework of MOOCs
MOOCs are a recent phenomenon
in higher education. By widespread
acknowledgment, the first
MOOC was offered in 2008. The term itself
was coined in Canada when Dave Cormier
and Bryan Alexander used it to describe an
open course with over 2,000 students that
was free and took place at the University of
Manitoba.
Since then, MOOCs have exploded
in higher education, with first Ivy League
institutions embracing and scaling up the
trend, and new companies emerging to
host MOOCs (Educause, 2012). But what
specifically about the MOOC model is
disruptive? Daniel writes “While the hype
about MOOCs presaging a revolution in
higher education has focused on their
scale, the real revolution is that universities
with scarcity at the heart of their business
models are embracing openness” (Daniel,
2012, p. 1). The rush of institutions offering
MOOCs will itself transform the landscape
of higher education, or at the very least,
help to precipitate change.
The very concept of disruptive innovation
addresses this directly. “According
to Christensen (1997), organizations
that don’t pay attention to disruptive innovation
(1) maintain that their goods and
services will always be needed, (2) develop
sustaining improvements based on current
customers, (3) don’t understand the natural
laws of disruptive innovation, and (4)
fail to spin off an organization in direct
competition with itself. These organizations
risk becoming obsolete” (Thornton,
2013, p. 47). Institutions of higher education
are particularly vulnerable to external
influences during a time when funding is
uncertain and pressures to perform come
from students, citizens, and businesses
alike (Lattuca & Stark, 2009). This directly
addresses the discussion of “part of a more
fundamental shift in universities” … which
“is taking place at a time when the nature
and purpose of the university as well as
higher education are very much in question”
(Blackmore & Kandiko, 2012, p. 128).
What will college education become
as a result of MOOCs and other disruptive
innovations? Will they persist at all?
Despite their relatively short history,
MOOCs have already splintered into
two distinct models for massive learning:
cMOOCs and xMOOCs. “Their differences
are so stark so distinct in pedagogy that it
is confusing to designate them by the same
term” (Hill, 2012, as cited in Daniel, 2012,
p. 2). cMOOCs embrace a constructivist
approach whereas xMOOCs embrace a
more traditional, behaviorist approach to
massive online learning.
cMOOCs refer to a constructivist
or connectivist learning experience typified
by the initial MOOCs that followed
a more organic philosophy of interacting
with resources and with fellow students to
connect learning and construct knowledge.
Wiley and Green describe them as applying
“the ‘open’ ethos to course outcomes.
In other words, students are empowered to
learn what they need/want to learn, and the
journey of learning is often more important
than any predefined learning outcomes”
(Wiley & Green, 2012, p. 88). cMOOCs
often encompass four main types of activities:
aggregation or curation of content, remixing
of content, repurposing of content,
and feed forward – the term referring to
sharing the newly crafted knowledge with
a variety of outward facing streams (Kop,
Fournier, & Sui, 2011).
Is this type of MOOC effective at
positively impacting student learning?
While there currently exists no robust body
of research on the effectiveness of MOOCs
to say one way or another, there is related
55