1. bookVolume 18 (2015): Issue 1 (July 2015)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

A Systematic Review Of The Socio-Ethical Aspects Of Massive Online Open Courses

Published Online: 23 Sep 2015
Volume & Issue: Volume 18 (2015) - Issue 1 (July 2015)
Page range: 52 - 71
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
English Abstract

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) offer learners across the globe unprecedented access to education. Through sophisticated e-learning technologies and web approaches, MOOCs attract massive scale participation and global interest. Some commercial ventures place social equality at the heart of their missions, claiming to empower communities by making education accessible and affordable. In reality, the socio-ethical impact of MOOCs has not been investigated fully, so it is not clear whether they meet these aspirations.

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review to examine the socio-ethical dimensions of MOOCs. The results showed a paucity of literature specifically addressing the subject in question, although there was evidence of many innovative approaches underway to examine new paradigms within learning analytics and online study behaviour that are emerging because of MOOCs. A small number of papers explored new pedagogic approaches such as conducting peer assessment on a massive scale, and how learning groups connect and establish on the open web.

To conclude, this paper begins to provide a framework on which to consider the socio-ethical dimensions of MOOCs. There is a need for good quality research to provide an evidence-base to ensure MOOCs deliver a socially equitable learning experience.

Keywords

1. Altbach, P.G. (2014). MOOCs as neocolonialism: who controls knowledge? In International Higher Education, 75(Spring), (pp. 5-7). Available online at http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/view/5426/4854Search in Google Scholar

2. Bearman, M.; Smith, C.D.; Carbone, A.; Slade, S.; Baik, C.; Hughes-Warrington, M. and Neumann, D.L. (2012). Systematic review methodology in higher education. In Higher Education Research and Development, 31(5), (pp. 625-640). doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.70273510.1080/07294360.2012.702735Search in Google Scholar

3. Brey, P. (2006). Social and ethical dimensions of computer-mediated education. In Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 2, (pp. 91-102). ISSN: 1477-996X10.1108/14779960680000284Search in Google Scholar

4. Camilleri, A.F.; Ehlers, U.D. and Pawlowski, J. (2014). State of the art review of quality issues related to Open Educational Resources (OER). European Commission Report. Available online at http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/documents/201405JRC88304.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

5. Conole, G. (2013). A new classification for MOOCs. Web log post, 2013, June 4. Available online at http://mooc.efquel.org/a-new-classification-for-moocs-grainne-conole/Search in Google Scholar

6. Cormier, D. (2008). The CCK08 MOOC – Connectivism course, 1/4 way. Web log post, 2008, October 2. Available online at http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/10/02/the-cck08-mooc-connectivism-course-14-way/Search in Google Scholar

7. Department for Business Innovation and Skills (2011). Higher education: Putting students at the heart of the system. Available online at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/putting-students-at-the-heart-of-higher-educationSearch in Google Scholar

8. Dima, A.M.; Vasilache, S.; Ghinea, V. and Agoston, S. (2013). A model of academic social responsibility. In Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, (38 E), (pp. 23-43).Search in Google Scholar

9. Evans, J. and Benefield, P. (2001). Systematic reviews of education research: Does the medical model fit? In British Educational Research, 27(5), (pp. 527-541). doi: 10.1080/0141192012009571710.1080/01411920120095717Search in Google Scholar

10. Hew, K.F. and Cheung, W.S. (2012). Student participation in online discussions: Challenges, solutions, and future research. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-2370-6Search in Google Scholar

11. Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. In The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1). Available online at http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1651/277410.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651Search in Google Scholar

12. Kernohan, D. (2012). Open as in door or open as in heart? #mooc. Web log post, 2012, May 14. Available online at http://followersoftheapocalyp.se/open-as-in-door-or-open-as-in-heart-mooc/Search in Google Scholar

13. Liyanagunawardena, T.; Adams, A.; Rassool, N. and Williams, S. (2013a). Telecentres and e-learning. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), (pp. E156-E158). ISSN 1467-8535, doi: 10.1111/bjet.12020.10.1111/bjet.12020Search in Google Scholar

14. Liyanagunawardena, T.R.A.; Adams, A.A. and Williams, S.A. (2013b). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. In The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), (pp. 202-227). Available online at http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1455/253110.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455Search in Google Scholar

15. Liyanagunawardena, T.R.; Parslow, P. and Williams, S. (2014). Dropout: MOOC participant perspective. In EMOOCs 2014, the Second MOOC European Stakeholders Summit, 10-12 February 2014, Lausanne, Switzerland. Paper Available online at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/36002/2/MOOC%20Dropout%20Participants%20Perspective.pp95-100.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

16. Marshall, S. (2014). Exploring the ethical implications of MOOCs. In Distance Education, 35(2), (pp. 250-262). doi:10.1080/01587919.2014.91770610.1080/01587919.2014.917706Search in Google Scholar

17. McAulay, A.; Stewart, B.; Siemens, G. and Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. University of Prince Edward Island. Available online at http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

18. Means, B.; Toyama, Y.; Murphy, R.; Bakia, M. and Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. US Department of Education. Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Policy and Program Studies Service. ED-04-CO-0040. Available online at http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

19. Molesworth, M.; Nixon, E. and Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: The marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. In Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), (pp. 277-287).10.1080/13562510902898841Search in Google Scholar

20. Morrison, J.L. and Khan, B.H. (2003). The global e-learning framework: An interview with Badrul Khan. In The Technology Source, May/June 2003. Available online at http://technologysource.org/article/global_elearning_framework/Search in Google Scholar

21. Neary, M. and Winn, J. (2009). The student as producer: reinventing the student experience in higher education. In The future of higher education: policy, pedagogy and the student experience, (pp. 192-210). Continuum, London. ISBN 1847064728.Search in Google Scholar

22. Nyoni, J. (2013). The viral nature of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in open and distance learning: discourses of quality, mediation and control. In Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3). doi:10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n3p665.10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n3p665Search in Google Scholar

23. Peters, R.S. (1971). Ethics and education. London: Unwin University Books.Search in Google Scholar

24. Rolfe, V. (2013). MOOCs and social responsibility toward learners. In OPEN-ED Open Education Conference 2013. Utah, Park City, November 6-8, 2013. http://vivrolfe.com/uncategorized/mooc-research-on-student-experience-and-social-responsibility-toward-learners/Search in Google Scholar

25. Rolfe, V. (2015). Ethical dimensions of massive open online courses. Manuscript submitted for publication.Search in Google Scholar

26. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (1998). Higher education in the twenty-first century vision and action. In World Conference on Higher Education: UNESCO Paris 5–9 October 1998. Volume 1, final report. Available online at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001163/116345e.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

27. Sun, P.; Tsai, R.J.; Finger, G.; Chen, Y.; Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. In Computers and Education, 50(4), (pp. 1183-1202). doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007.10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007Search in Google Scholar

28. The White House (2014). Higher education. Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-educationSearch in Google Scholar

29. Williams, B. (2013). Roll call: taking a census of MOOC students. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Massive Open Online Courses at the 16th Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Memphis, TN. Paper Available online at http://people.csail.mit.edu/zp/moocshop2013/paper_18.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

30. Willging, P.A. and Johnson, S.D. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of online courses. In Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), (pp. 115-127).Search in Google Scholar

31. Yuan, L. and Powell, S. (2013). MOOCS and open education: Implications for higher education. A white paper. (Jisc CETIS 2013:WP01). Available online at http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2013/667Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo