Exploration of viable business models for marketing MOOC learning phenomenon

Exploration of viable business models for marketing MOOC learning phenomenon
1 | P a g e
University centre address and code No:
ABC FOUNDATION | SIKKIM MANIPAL UNIVERSITY,DE| SECTOR-V | SALT LAKE | KOLKATA - 700091|AUTHORISED LC
CODE - 03075
Exploration of viable business
models for marketing MOOC
learning phenomenon
By
Mayukh Mukhopadhyay
(1302014225)
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Business
Administration of Sikkim Manipal University, INDIA
Sikkim-Manipal University
of Health, Medical and technological sciences
Distance education wing
Syndicate house Manipal – 576 104

2 | P a g e
Student Declaration
I hereby declare that the project report entitled
“Exploration of viable business models for marketing
MOOC learning phenomenon”
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of
business Administration to Sikkim-Manipal University, India, is my original work
and not submitted for the award of any other degree, diploma, fellowship, or any
other similar title or prizes.
Place: Kolkata (Mayukh Mukhopadhyay)
Date: 15-June-2014
Reg. No: 1302014225

3 | P a g e
Examiner’s certification
The project report of Mayukh Mukhopadhyay titled:
“Exploration of viable business models for marketing
MOOC learning phenomenon”
is approved and is acceptable in quality and form.
Internal Examiner External Examiners
(Name, qualification and designation) (Name, qualification)

4 | P a g e
University study centre certificate
This is to certify that the project report entitled
Exploration of viable business models for marketing MOOC learning
phenomenon
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of
Business Administration of Sikkim-Manipal University of Health, Medical and
technological sciences
Mayukh Mukhopadhyay has worked under my supervision and guidance and that
no part of this report has been submitted for the award of any other degree,
Diploma, Fellowship or other similar titles or prizes and that the work has not been
published in any journal or Magazine.
(Reg. No) Certified
(Guide’s Name and Qualification)

5 | P a g e
Acknowledgement
Though only my name appears on the cover of this project report, a great many
people have contributed to its production. I owe my gratitude to all those people
who have made this report possible and because of whom my graduate experience
has been one that I will cherish forever. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to
all of them.
I am highly indebted to my guide and staff members at SMU, Sector V, Salt Lake,
LC 03075 for their guidance , constant supervision as well as for providing
necessary information regarding the project and also for their support in
completing the project.
I would like to express my gratitude towards my Coursera instructor, Dr. Gautam
Shroff, for his kind co-operation and support which helped me in completion of
this project's case study. I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to
Coursera team for giving me such attention and time.
My wife, Mrittika, have helped me stay sane through these difficult years. Her
support, patience and care helped me overcome setbacks, prevent the urges of
quitting and stay focused on my graduate study and through the many hours of
writing. I greatly value her love and friendship and I deeply appreciate her belief in
me.
Last but not the least; I would like to thank my parents and parents-in-law for
spiritual motivation.
(Mayukh Mukhopadhyay)

6 | P a g e
Executive summary
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) is an online course aimed at unlimited
participation and open access via the web. In addition to traditional course
materials such as videos, e-prints and problem sets, MOOCs provide interactive
user forums that help build a community for students and professors. MOOC
learning phenomenon is a recent development in distance education which began
to emerge in 2008.
A typical MOOC is an online-learning setup hosted by a third party vendor which
supports a web platform where several leading universities post various cutting
edge short term, instructor-led courses with rigorous pedagogy and is open to the
whole web community for participation, irrespective of any mandatory pre-
requisite, for free. One may enroll any number of course, complete it at a stipulated
time or opt out of it at anytime during the session.
As the MOOC learning phenomenon is maturing, this emerging consortium of
vendors and universities are facing the obvious challenge of how to market various
free course contents and its related services for profit, which originally started as a
non-profit initiative, to efficiently fuel the expensive setup and operational cost.
In this report we explore the following salient points on MOOC learning:
a) An introduction on MOOC learning phenomenon with timeline and
geographic analysis.
b) Analysis of various instructional design approaches for delivering a MOOC
with possible concerns, learner’s experience analysis, technology involved
and challenges faced.
c) Major MOOC vendors and viable business models adopted by them for
generating revenues from this learning phenomenon.
d) Case Study of an Indian MOOC course on Coursera Platform and future
implications of MOOC on higher education.

7 | P a g e
Methodology
The literature on MOOCs presents risks, according to Sir John Daniel, who says
much writing on the subject is
“Thinly disguised promotional material by commercial interests and articles by
practitioners whose perspective is their own MOOC courses.”
Commercialization and corporate interest is part of the development trajectory of
MOOCs, and with this goes a noisy literature of self-promotion, press hype,
diatribe and commercial posturing. We have included, but contextualized, these
slanted contributions when discussing them.
Our methodology responds to the issue of perspective in the available MOOC
literature, by dividing them into the following category:
 Academic research articles
 Blog posts
 Essayistic commentary
 Journalistic coverage in general and specialist media.
 Formal comprehensive reviews commissioned by authoritative bodies.
We have excluded:
 Unprocessed commentary from online forums
 Comment from MOOC participants submitted within MOOC courses
 Commentary articles from writers without a professional or sustained
interest in the topics of MOOCs, online education, or Academy reform
 Education press reporting of news stories without analysis e.g. “University
X launches MOOC on topic Y”.
 Material published after May 2014.
Further, a case-study has been done by enrolling and successfully completing one
of the Coursera course during the winter session of 2013, to experience the rigour
of a sample coursework by active participation.

8 | P a g e
Page of Contents
A. Student Declaration
B. Examiner’s certification
C. University study centre certificate
D. Acknowledgement
E. Executive Summary
F. Methodology
G. Page of Contents
H. List of Figures
I. List of Tables
1. An introduction on MOOC (13)
2. Timeline Analysis (17)
2.1 Precursors (18)
2.2 Early approaches (20)
2.3 Recent developments (21)
2.4 MOOC and Hype Cycle (24)
3. Geographical Analysis (25)
3.1 Asia (25)
3.2 Europe (26)
3.3 Australia (27)
3.4 Latin America (28)
4. MOOC Structures and instructional design approaches (29)
5. Various Challenges for MOOC (31)
5.1 MOOC Assessments (31)
5.2 Completion rates of MOOC (32)
5.3 MOOC and Human interaction (33)
5.4 Flipped classrooms (34)
6. Technology and MOOC (35)

9 | P a g e
7. Potential benefits and constraints of a MOOC (40)
7.1 Potential benefits of a MOOC (40)
7.2 Potential constraints of a MOOC (41)
8. Student Experience and feedback on MOOC (42)
8.1 Learners Experience Analysis (46)
9. Various concerns about MOOC (59)
10. Major players in the MOOC universe (61)
11. Viable business models for marketing MOOC (65)
11.1 Business and financial models (66)
11.2 Revenue sources (70)
11.3 Accreditation – a route to payment (76)
11.4 Expanding beyond the elite market (77)
11.5 Assessment methods (79)
12. Case Study on Coursera MOOC platform from a student’s perspective (80)
12.1 About the Company (80)
12.2 Business model (81)
12.3 Course and Infrastructure (83)
12.4 Various Snapshots of a Sample Course in Coursera (85)
12.5 Coursera Course Completion certificate (91)
13. Future Implications on Higher Education (92)
13.1 Drivers and trends towards open education (92)
13.2 Implications for educational policy (95)
13.3 Implications for Higher Education Institutions (97)
14. Conclusion (99)
15. References (100)

10 | P a g e
List of Figures
Figure 1: Poster, entitled "MOOC, every letter is negotiable," exploring the
meaning of the words "Massive Open Online Course"
Figure 2: Understanding MOOC
Figure 3: Tabulation of the significant differences between xMOOC and cMOOC.
Figure 4: MOOCs and Open Education Timeline
Figure 5: Precursor of MOOC - Distance Education History
Figure 6: Typical Hype Cycle Curve
Figure 7: MOOC hype cycle, with expectations undergoing a wild swing.
Figure 8: MOOC Map
Figure 9: Coursera Enrollees
Figure 10: MOOC learner types and proportions
Figure 11: Patterns of student participation data in Coursera MOOCs
Figure 12: Video Views in a Coursera MOOC
Figure 13: MOOC learner aspirations
Figure 14: MOOC course activity record
Figure 15: Summary of selected opinion data from Coursera students
Figure 16: Major concerns of MOOC from US Higher Education Perspective
Figure 17: Major MOOC providers
Figure 18: Various Kinds of MOOC Courses
Figure 19: Key funding process in the MOOC universe

11 | P a g e
Figure 20: Model of the costs of increased student cohort size in conventional and
MOOC education
Figure 21: Cost-reduction metrics from UNC Charlotte
Figure 22: Coursera factsheet
Figure 23: Coursera website
Figure 24: Coursera Homepage for Web intelligence and Big Data Course
Figure 25: Lecture Video and transcript page
Figure 26: Course discussion forum between peer and instructor
Figure 27: Sample discussion thread between peer and instructor
Figure 28: Course Instructor information
Figure 29: Course Records page
Figure 30: Instructor signed Statement of Accomplishment
Figure 31: Four Scenarios of Future Higher Education
Figure 32: Opening up Higher Education

12 | P a g e
List of Tables
Table 1: Student demography
Table 2: Conversion trends between enrolment and course participant activity
Table 3: Forum activity by course, with the average number of posts, comments,
and votes cast by each active participant per activity
Table 4: Total number of course participant assessment submissions during Weeks
3, 5 and 7 of the MOOC
Table 5: Total number of Statement of Accomplishments (SoAs) distributed by
each course and as a percentage of active learners
Table 6: Comparison of key aspects of MOOCs or Open Education initiatives
Table 7: Overview of potential business models

13 | P a g e
1. An introduction on MOOC
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is the term which emerged in 2008 for a
particular type of open online course format. MOOCs have quickly gained
popularity, expanded, and evolved.
What a MOOC actually is, as depicted in figure 1, provides a challenge for
definition.
Figure 1: Poster, entitled "MOOC, every letter is negotiable," exploring the
meaning of the words "Massive Open Online Course"
Descriptively, a typical MOOC course of 2013-14 might take place over 4 to 10
weeks, of which most are given to learning and a final week or fortnight to
production of a piece of work, sometimes a video. Students on average estimates
dedicate two to six hours a week to the course although a small cohort of highly
engaged learners may be much more committed. Materials are consumed in
diminishing volumes throughout the MOOC as many learners’ commitment wanes.

14 | P a g e
The resources posted in the MOOC remain accessible after it has closed. Course
applicants can be numbered in the tens of thousands, while those who complete
and obtain certificates are usually numbered in the hundreds, or a few thousand at
most.
Historically, it is an evolution of previous experiments in open education and
online learning. Other antecedents include the movement for Open Education
Resources (OER), and earlier pioneering experiments in distance learning
technology. The heritage matters for three reasons. First, these origins may reveal
that the MOOC is, or is not, a genuine educational innovation. Second, if the
innovations emerging from MOOCs are connected to the other recent learning
practices, the benefits of MOOC formats will be widely shared. Third, the history
of distance learning shows earlier cycles of online innovation and popularity which
have not ended happily: the dotcom boom saw optimistic commercial ventures
such as Fathom, AllLearn, Universitas 21 and others promising provision and
quality of education. These have either folded, or stepped back from their original
aims. MOOCs may be subject to the same factors and could be, like these, a flash
in the pan.
Functionally, the basket of products carrying the MOOC label is now quite
diverse. The term applies to any course offered free, online and at scale. What
marks the MOOC out from conventional online learning is that no professional
academic time (or virtually none) is allocated to guiding or supporting individual
learners. Some aspects of some MOOCs are now charge-bearing (such as credit-
bearing examinations) and this trend is spreading as MOOCs begin to offer
accredited learning.

15 | P a g e
Figure 2: Understanding MOOC
Two classes of MOOC exist side by side for the time being, in a distinction
observed by all participants and commentators: the cMOOC and the xMOOC.
cMOOCs (C for “connectivist”, the educational theory, closely associated
with educational theorists such as George Siemens, which emphasizes the
extent to which knowledge and skills emerge from connections experienced
between different domains of activity such as experience, learning and
knowledge, as well as between individuals in a social network. It
foregrounds learners’ exposure to social and cultural experiences, rather than
their exposure to didactic transmission or self-directed enquiry) run on open
source learning platforms and are led by academics as part of their university
activity. Their pedagogical model is peer learning. These are associated
particularly with their founding institutions Abathasca and Manitoba
Universities in Canada.
xMOOCs are online versions of traditional learning formats (lecture,
instruction, discussion etc.) on proprietary specialist software platforms
owned by private enterprises. They feature contractual and commercial
relationships between Universities who create content, and technology
providers. These are associated mostly with the three largest platform

16 | P a g e
providers edX, Udacity and Coursera. The UK’s FutureLearn, scheduled to
launch autumn 2013, will be in this group.
Figure 3: Tabulation of the significant differences between xMOOC and cMOOC.
An editorial comment about this distinction, from the UK’s JISC-CETIS report, is
worth citing for the additional depth it brings to this description:
“cMOOCs emphasizes connected, collaborative learning and the courses are built
around a group of like-minded individuals’ platform to explore new pedagogies
beyond traditional classroom settings and, as such, tend to exist on the radical
fringe of HE. On the other hand, the instructional model (xMOOCs) is essentially
an extension of the pedagogical models practiced within the institutions
themselves, which is arguably dominated by the “drill and grill” instructional
methods with video presentations, short quizzes and testing”.

17 | P a g e
2. Timeline Analysis
The timeline below in figure 4 captures the extent to which MOOCs are still an
emerging phenomenon. There is organizational instability in the sector, with
partnerships being rapidly forged and broken. The business models and products of
the main players are not established, and have little common ground. Crucial issues
such as whether the MOOC learner experience is worthy of accreditation, are yet
to be settled.
Figure 4: MOOCs and Open Education Timeline

18 | P a g e
2.1 Precursors
Before the Digital Age, distance learning appeared in the form of correspondence
courses, broadcast courses and early forms of e-learning.[6] By the 1890s
correspondence courses on specialized topics such as civil service tests and
shorthand were promoted by door-to-door salesmen.[7] Over 4 million Americans
– far more than attended traditional colleges – were enrolled in correspondence
courses by the 1920s, covering hundreds of practical job-oriented topics. Their
completion rate was under 3%. [8]
Broadcast radio was new in the 1920s and with programs that were free to
audiences of any size.[9] By 1922, New York University operated its own radio
station, with plans to broadcast practically all its courses. Other schools followed,
including Columbia, Harvard, Kansas State, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin, Utah
and many others. Students read textbooks and listened to broadcast lectures, while
mailing in answers to tests. Journalist Bruce Bliven asked: "Is radio to become a
chief arm of education? Will the classroom be abolished and the child of the future
be stuffed with facts as he sits at home or even as he walks about the streets with
his portable receiving-set in his pocket?"[10] Completion rates were very low,
cheating was hard to detect, and there was no way to collect tuition. By the 1940s
radio courses had virtually disappeared in the United States.[11] The Australian
School of the Air used two-way shortwave radio starting in 1951 to teach students
in classrooms in remote locations, with students able to ask questions of the live
instructor.
During World War II, movies were used to train millions of draftees, as lecturers
could demonstrate physical equipment in action. Universities offered televised
classes, starting in the late 1940s at the University of Louisville.[12]
At many universities in the 1980s classrooms were linked to a remote campus to
provide closed-circuit video access for some students. The CBS TV series Sunrise
Semester, broadcast from the 1950s to the 1980s with cooperation between CBS
and NYU, offered course credit.[13]
In 1994, James J. O'Donnell of the University of Pennsylvania taught a seminar
over the Internet, using gopher and email, on the life and works of St. Augustine of

19 | P a g e
Hippo, attracting over 500 participants from around the world.[14] The short
lecture format used by many MOOCs developed from "Khan Academy’s free
archive of snappy instructional videos."[15] In 2003 Hello China launched what
the UK Guardian newspaper described on 24 September that year as a new media
venture to teach 4 million Chinese learners who were preparing for business
degrees by radio, web and mobile phone. The course was open to all participants
who could have access to radio and the internet.
Figure 5: Precursor of MOOC - Distance Education History

20 | P a g e
2.2 Early approaches
The first MOOCs emerged from the open educational resources (OER) movement.
The term MOOC was coined in 2008 by Dave Cormier of the University of Prince
Edward Island and Senior Research Fellow Bryan Alexander of the National
Institute for Technology in Liberal Education in response to a course called
Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (also known as CCK08). CCK08, which
was led by George Siemens of Athabasca University and Stephen Downes of the
National Research Council, consisted of 25 tuition-paying students in Extended
Education at the University of Manitoba, as well as over 2200 online students from
the general public who paid nothing.[18] All course content was available through
RSS feeds and online students could participate through collaborative tools,
including blog posts, threaded discussions in Moodle and Second Life
meetings.[16][19][20] Stephen Downes considers these so-called cMOOCs to be
more "creative and dynamic" than the current xMOOCs, which he believes
"resemble television shows or digital textbooks."[18]
Galway based online education provider ALISON is often cited in industry
literature as the first MOOC, pioneering the systematic aggregation of online
interactive learning resources made available worldwide with a freemium
model.[21][22][23] Its stated objective is to enable people to gain basic education
and workplace skills.[23][24] Contrary to other MOOC providers with close links
to American third level institutions such as MIT and Stanford University, the
majority of ALISON's learners are located in the developing world with the fastest
growing number of users in India.[25][26] It records 1.2 million unique visitors per
month with 250,000 graduates of its 500+ courses as of January 2013.[22] In
February 2014, ALISON registered its 3 millionth user.
Other MOOCs then emerged. Jim Groom from The University of Mary
Washington and Michael Branson Smith of York College, City University of New
York hosted MOOCs through several universities. Early MOOCs did not rely on
posted resources, learning management systems and structures that mix the
learning management system with more open web resources.[27] MOOCs from
private, non-profit institutions emphasized prominent faculty members and
expanded existing distance learning offerings (e.g., podcasts) into free and open
online courses.[28]

21 | P a g e
2.3 Recent developments
In the fall of 2011 Stanford University launched three courses.[31] The first of
those courses was Introduction Into AI, launched by Sebastian Thrun and Peter
Norvig. Enrollment quickly reached 160,000 students. The announcement was
followed within weeks by the launch of two more MOOCs, by Andrew Ng and
Jennifer Widom. Following the publicity and high enrollment numbers of these
courses, Thrun started a company he named Udacity and Daphne Koller and
Andrew Ng launched Coursera. Coursera subsequently announced university
partnerships with University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, Stanford
University and The University of Michigan.
Concerned about the commercialization of online education, MIT created the not-
for-profit MITx. The inaugural course, 6.002x, launched in March 2012. Harvard
joined the group, renamed edX, that spring, and University of California, Berkeley
joined in the summer. The initiative then added the University of Texas System,
Wellesley College and Georgetown University.
In November 2012, the University of Miami launched its first high school MOOC
as part of Global Academy, its online high school. The course became available for
high school students preparing for the SAT Subject Test in biology.[32]
In January 2013, Udacity launched its first MOOCs-for-credit, in collaboration
with San Jose State University. In May 2013 the company announced the first
entirely MOOC-based Master's Degree, a collaboration between Udacity, AT&T
and the Georgia Institute of Technology, costing $7,000, a fraction of its normal
tuition.[33]
"Gender Through Comic Books," was a course taught by Ball State University's
Christina Blanch on Instructure's Canvas Network, a MOOC platform launched in
November 2012.[34] The course used examples from comic books to teach
academic concepts about gender and perceptions.[35]
In March 2013, Coursolve piloted a crowdsourced business strategy course for 100
organizations with the University of Virginia.[36] A data science MOOC began in
May 2013.[37]

22 | P a g e
In May 2013 Coursera announced free e-books for some courses in partnership
with Chegg, an online textbook-rental company. Students would use Chegg's e-
reader, which limits copying and printing and could use the book only while
enrolled in the class.[38] In June 2013, the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill launched Skynet University,[39] which offers MOOCs on introductory
astronomy. Participants gain access to the university's global network of robotic
telescopes, including those in the Chilean Andes and Australia. It incorporates
YouTube,[40] Facebook[41] and Twitter.[42]
In September 2013, edX announced a partnership with Google to develop Open
edX, an open source platform and its MOOC.org, a site for non-xConsortium
groups to build and host courses. Google will work on the core platform
development with edX partners. In addition, Google and edX will collaborate on
research into how students learn and how technology can transform learning and
teaching. MOOC.org will adopt Google's infrastructure.[43]
EdX currently offers 94 courses from 29 institutions around the world (as of
November 2013). During its first 13 months of operation (ending March 2013),
Coursera offered about 325 courses, with 30% in the sciences, 28% in arts and
humanities, 23% in information technology, 13% in business and 6% in
mathematics.[44] Udacity offered 26 courses. Udacity's CS101, with an enrollment
of over 300,000 students, was the largest MOOC to date.
Some organisations operate their own MOOCs – including Google's Power Search.
As of February 2013 dozens of universities had affiliated with MOOCs, including
many international institutions.[45][46] As of May 2014, more than 900 MOOCs
are offered by US institutions: List of MOOCs offered by US universities.

23 | P a g e
2.4 MOOC and Hype Cycle
Figure 6: Typical Hype Cycle Curve
Dennis Yang, President of MOOC provider Udemy has suggested that MOOCs are
in the midst of a hype cycle, with expectations undergoing a wild swing.[76]
During a presentation at SXSWedu in early 2013, Instructure CEO Josh Coates
suggested that MOOCs are in the midst of a hype cycle, with expectations
undergoing wild swings.[77] Dennis Yang, President of MOOC provider Udemy,
later made the point in an article for the Huffington Post.[78]
Many universities scrambled to join in the "next big thing", as did more established
online education service providers such as Blackboard Inc, in what has been called
a "stampede." Dozens of universities in Canada, Mexico, Europe and Asia have
announced partnerships with the large American MOOC providers.[45][79] By
early 2013, questions emerged about whether academia was "MOOC'd
out."[76][80]

24 | P a g e
Figure 7: MOOC hype cycle, with expectations undergoing a wild swing.

25 | P a g e
3. Geographical Analysis
Figure 8: MOOC Map
3.1 Asia
The first MOOC in Malaysia was offered by Taylor's University in March 2013.
The MOOC was titled "Entrepreneurship" and it attracted students from 115
different countries. Following this successful MOOC, Taylor's University launched
the second MOOC titled "Achieving Success with Emotional Intelligence" [49] in
July 2013. In August 2013, Universitas Ciputra Entrepreneurship Online (UCEO)
launched first MOOC in Indonesia with the first course entitled Entrepreneurship
Ciputra Way.[50][51] With over 20,000 registered members, the course offered
insights on how to start a business, and was delivered in Indonesian.

26 | P a g e
3.2 Europe
In February 2012, ex-Nokia employees in Finland based CBTec launched
Eliademy.com,[52] based on the Open Source Moodle Virtual learning
environment.[53] The site is localized to more than 19 languages (including Latin),
designed for mobile use.[53][54] In late 2012, the UK's Open University launched
a British MOOC provider, Futurelearn, as a separate company[55] including
provision of MOOCs from non-university partners.[56] On 15 March 2012
Researchers Dr. Jorge Ramió and Dr. Alfonso Muñoz from Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid successfully launched the first Spanish MOOC titled
Crypt4you. Iversity is a MOOC provider in Germany.[45] With over 82,000
students (Nov 2013) Iversity's "The Future of Storytelling" is Europe's largest
MOOC to date. OpenupEd[57] is a supranational platform, founded with support
of the European Union (EU).[48] In Ireland ALISON provides free online
certificate/diploma courses to two 2 million learners worldwide.[48] ALISON was
shortlisted in June 2013 by London–based education technology company Edxus
Group and specialist media and advisory firm IBIS Capital, as one of the 'top 20 e-
learning companies in Europe' as judged by an expert panel.[58] In October 2013,
the French government announced the creation of France Universite Numerique
(FUN), a French public alternative to existing solutions. French business schools
have begun launching their own MOOCs, the first being supervised by Alberto
Alemanno.

27 | P a g e
3.3 Australia
On 15 October 2012 The University of New South Wales launched UNSW
Computing 1, the first Australian MOOC.[59] The course was initiated
OpenLearning, an online learning platform developed in Australia, which provides
features for group work, automated marking, collaboration and gamification.[60]
In March 2013 the Open2Study platform was set up in Australia.[61][62]
In July 2013 the Wicking Centre at the University of Tasmania launched
Understanding Dementia, the world's first Dementia MOOC. With one of the
world's highest completion rates (39%),[63] the course was recognized in the
journal Nature.[64]

28 | P a g e
3.4 Latin America
In 18 June 2012, Ali Lemus from Galileo University[65] launched the first Latin
American MOOC titled "Desarrollando Aplicaciones para iPhone y iPad"[66] This
MOOC is a Spanish remix of Stanford University's popular "CS 193P iPhone
Application Development" and had 5,380 students enrolled. The technology used
to host the MOOC was the Galileo Educational System platform (GES) which is
based on the .LRN project.[67] Startup Veduca[68] launched the first MOOCs in
Brazil, in partnership with the University of São Paulo in June 2013. The first two
courses were Basic Physics, taught by Vanderlei Salvador Bagnato, and
Probability and Statistics, taught by Melvin Cymbalista and André Leme
Fleury.[69] In the first two weeks following the launch at Polytechnic School of
the University of São Paulo, more than 10,000 students enrolled.[48][70]

29 | P a g e
4. MOOC Structures and instructional design approaches
Many MOOCs use video lectures, employing the old form of teaching using a new
technology.[83] Thrun testified before the President’s Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) that MOOC "courses are 'designed to be
challenges,' not lectures, and the amount of data generated from these assessments
can be evaluated 'massively using machine learning' at work behind the scenes.
This approach, he said, dispels 'the medieval set of myths' guiding teacher efficacy
and student outcomes, and replaces it with evidence-based, 'modern, data-driven'
educational methodologies that may be the instruments responsible for a
'fundamental transformation of education' itself".[84]
Because of massive enrollments, MOOCs require instructional design that
facilitates large-scale feedback and interaction. The two basic design approaches
are:
 Peer-review and group collaboration
 Automated feedback through objective, online assessments, e.g.
quizzes and exams
So-called connectivist MOOCs rely on the former approach; broadcast MOOCs
rely more on the latter.[85] This marks a key distinction between cMOOCs where
the 'C' stands for 'connectivist', and xMOOCs where the x stands for extended (as
in TEDx, EdX) and represents that the MOOC is designed to be in addition to
something else (university courses for example).[86]
An emerging trend in MOOCs is the use of nontraditional textbooks such as
graphic novels to improve knowledge retention.[87] Others view the videos and
other material produced by the MOOC as the next form of the textbook. "MOOC is
the new textbook," according to David Finegold of Rutgers University.[88]
As MOOCs have evolved, there appear to be two distinct types: those that
emphasize the connectivist philosophy, and those that resemble more traditional
courses. To distinguish the two, Stephen Downes proposed the terms "cMOOC"
and "xMOOC".[90] A third type, the "vMOOC", has been suggested[91] to
describe vocational MOOCs, that would require simulations and related

30 | P a g e
technologies to teach and assess practical skills and abilities. Such instructional
design approaches attempt to connect learners to each other to answer questions
and/or collaborate on joint projects. This may include emphasizing collaborative
development of the MOOC.[92]
Connectivist MOOCs are based on principles from connectivist pedagogy:
[93][94][95][96]
 Aggregation. Enable content to be produced in different places and
aggregated as a newsletter or a web page accessible to participants.
 Remixing associates materials created within the course with each other and
with other materials.
 Re-purposing of aggregated and remixed materials to suit the goals of each
participant.
 Feeding forward, sharing of re-purposed ideas and content with other
participants and the rest of the world.
An earlier list (2005) of Connectivist principles from Siemens:[97]
 Learning and knowledge rest in diversity of opinions.
 Learning is a process of connecting specialised nodes or information
sources.
 Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
 Capacity to learn is more critical than what is currently known.
 Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate learning.
 Ability to see connections between fields, ideas and concepts is a core skill.
 Accurate, up-to-date knowledge is the intent of all connectivist learning
activities.
 Decision making is a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the
meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting
reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to
alterations in the information climate affecting the decision
Ravenscroft claimed that connectivist MOOCs better support collaborative
dialogue and knowledge building. [98][99]

31 | P a g e
5. Various Challenges for MOOC
5.1 MOOC Assessments
Assessment can be the most difficult activity to conduct online, and online
assessments can be quite different from the bricks-and-mortar version.[100]
Special attention has been devoted to proctoring and cheating.[101]
The two most common methods of MOOC assessment are machine-graded
multiple-choice quizzes or tests and peer-reviewed written assignments.[100]
Machine grading of written assignments is also underway.[102]
Peer review is often based upon sample answers or rubrics, which guide the grader
on how many points to award different answers. These rubrics cannot be as
complex for peer grading as for teaching assistants. Students are expected to learn
via grading others[103] and become more engaged with the course.[104] Exams
may be proctored at regional testing centers. Other methods, including
"eavesdropping technologies worthy of the C.I.A." allow testing at home or office,
by using webcams, or monitoring mouse clicks and typing styles.[101]
Special techniques such as adaptive testing may be used, where the test tailors
itself given the student's previous answers, giving harder or easier questions
accordingly.

32 | P a g e
5.2 Completion rates of MOOC
Completion rates are typically lower than 10%, with a steep participation drop
starting in the first week. In the course Bioelectricity, Fall 2012 at Duke
University, 12,725 students enrolled, but only 7,761 ever watched a video, 3,658
attempted a quiz, 345 attempted the final exam, and 313 passed, earning a
certificate.[105][106]
Early data from Coursera suggest a completion rate of 7%–9%.[107] Most
registered students intend to explore the topic rather than complete the course,
according to Koller and Ng. The completion rate for students who complete the
first assignment is about 45 percent. Students paying $50 for a feature designed to
prevent cheating on exams have completion rates of about 70 percent.[108]
Coursera found that students who paid $30 to $90 were substantially more likely to
finish the course. The fee was ostensibly for the company's identity-verification
program, which confirms that they took and passed a course.[110]
One online survey published a "top ten" list of reasons for dropping out.[109]
These were that the course required too much time, or was too difficult or too
basic. Reasons related to poor course design included "lecture fatigue" from
courses that were just lecture videos, lack of a proper introduction to course
technology and format, clunky technology and trolling on discussion boards.
Hidden costs were cited, including required readings from expensive textbooks
written by the instructor that also significantly limited students' access to learning
material.[104] Other non-completers were "just shopping around" when they
registered, or were participating for knowledge rather than a credential. Providers
are exploring multiple techniques to increase the often single-digit completion
rates in many MOOCs.
Research found that time spent on homework exercises was the largest grade
predictor—more than time spent watching videos or reading. Among comparable
students, one additional hour yielded a 2.2-point score increase on a 100-point
scale (with a 60 required to pass). "Organizing the course around exercises and
mental challenges is much more effective than around lectures", says Thrun.

33 | P a g e
5.3 MOOC and Human interaction
"The most important thing that helps students succeed in an online course is
interpersonal interaction and support," says Shanna Smith Jaggars, assistant
director of Columbia University's Community College Research Center. Her
research compared online-only and face-to-face learning in studies of community-
college students and faculty in Virginia and Washington state. Among her
findings: In Virginia, 32% of students failed or withdrew from for-credit online
courses, compared with 19% for equivalent in-person courses.[110]
A study of edX student habits found that certificate-earning students generally stop
watching videos longer than 6 to 9 minutes. They viewed the first 4.4 minutes
(median) of 12- to 15-minute videos.
Assigning mentors to students is another interaction-enhancing technique.[110] In
2013 Harvard offered a popular class, The Ancient Greek Hero, taken by
thousands of Harvard students over prior decades. It appealed to alumni to
volunteer as online mentors and discussion group managers. About 10 former
teaching fellows also volunteered. The task of the volunteers, which required 3–5
hours per week, was to focus online class discussion. The instructor, Gregory Nagy
with an edX course registered 27,000 students.[111]

34 | P a g e
5.4 Flipped classrooms
Some traditional schools blend online and offline learning, sometimes called
flipped classrooms. Students watch lectures online at home and work on projects
and interact with faculty while in class. Such hybrids can even improve student
performance in traditional in-person classes. One fall 2012 test by San Jose State
and edX found that incorporating content from an online course into a for-credit
campus-based course increased pass rates to 91% from as low as 55% without the
online component. "We do not recommend selecting an online-only experience
over a blended learning experience," says Coursera's Ng.[110]
Techniques for maintaining connection with students include adding audio
comments on assignments instead of writing them, participating with students in
the discussion forums, asking brief questions in the middle of the lecture, updating
weekly videos about the course and sending congratulatory emails on prior
accomplishments to students who are slightly behind.[110]
Some instructors make students begin with self-assessment surveys and videos.
They asked, "What do you think it takes to be successful in online education, and
do you feel that you are ready for it?" Asking those kinds of questions "improved
the engagement right off the bat."

35 | P a g e
6. Technology and MOOC
Unlike traditional courses, MOOCs require additional skills, provided by
videographers, instructional designers, IT specialists and platform specialists.
Georgia Tech professor Karen Head reports that 19 people work on their MOOCs
and that more are needed.[131] The platforms have availability requirements
similar to media/content sharing websites, due to the large number of enrollees.
MOOCs typically use cloud computing.
Course delivery involves asynchronous access to videos and other learning
material, exams and other assessment, as well as online forums. Before 2013 each
MOOC tended to develop its own delivery platform. EdX in April 2013 joined
with Stanford University, which previously had its own platform called Class2Go,
to work on XBlock SDK, a joint open-source platform. It is available to the public
under the Affero GPL open source license, which requires that all improvements to
the platform be publicly posted and made available under the same license.[132]
Stanford Vice Provost John Mitchell said that the goal was to provide the "Linux
of online learning."[133] This is unlike companies such as Coursera that have
developed their own platform.[134]
UniversitiesUK underlines that MOOCs foster a set of so-called “emergent
learning technologies” (as opposed to those already resident in installed Learning
Management Systems) and highlights the potential from them. The priority
technologies are listed as:
 Learning Analytics (to improve feedback to students)
 Adaptive Learning (personalized pathways)
 Social Network Analysis (puts connection and linkage to the fore)
 Discourse Analytics (automated assessment)
 Semantic Web Technologies (automated personalized enabling of
customized support and content feeds)
 Virtual Problem Based Learning (immersive environments to hone
procedural skills).

36 | P a g e
Stanford’s Education School has positioned itself as a centre of expertise for an
emerging discipline, closely linked to MOOC affordances, in which data
technology and education practice merge. “Education Science” as it is called is
aired in the Stanford discussion series Education’s Digital Future. Mitchell
Stevens, a Stanford sociologist and one of the founders, believes that Stanford’s
work on MOOC data will help researchers “to know the extent to which digitally
mediated college experiences will deliver the same returns as a four-year
residential experience”.
A computer science perspective on MOOCs from two Stanford University
professors writing in 2013 for the Association for Computing Machinery journal
Communications of the ACM draws attention to the high quality of online
education technologies existing for many years before MOOCs commanded
headlines.
Taking a US-centred perspective, authors Cooper and Sahami reference the
Stanford Center for Professional Development (SCPD) offer of distance-learning
courses via television microwave channels from 1969 onwards. These course
offerings evolved to using streaming video via the Internet and electronic
assignment submission and distribution of course materials.
The 2008 launch of Stanford Engineering Everywhere open course, while not itself
novel (MIT's Open Courseware project was created years prior to SEE) established
a new level of response to open online materials, with course lecture videos that
have been viewed more than two million times on YouTube alone. The authors
note this strong response occurred without any of the affordances of MOOCs (such
as enrolment, quizzes and assessments, assignment deadlines, statements of
accomplishment etc). It is, in this critique, the addition of such packaging features
that allowed the current set of MOOCs to cross a line from being considered yet
another free educational resource to being viewed as scalable free courses. Again
emphasizing the legacy of previous learning technology, the authors highlight
intelligent tutoring systems and educational data mining techniques developed in
traditional online courses, and endorsed for their validity in large metastudies of
online learning efficacy. The incorporation of MOOCs into "flipped classrooms,"
which existed in various forms before MOOCs, is also highlighted. Within their

37 | P a g e
own computer science discipline, the authors cite five online learning tools which,
they state, are equally promising environments for student learning.
Assessing the technology achievements of contemporary MOOCs, the authors
highlight as their main novelty the opportunity to collect unprecedented volumes of
data on students' interactions with learning systems. In this context, the MOOC,
combined with machine learning technology, is an enabler of insight on and
progress in personalized human learning.
The argument from technology by Cooper and Sahami tends to suggest that the
legacy of online learning established in the decades prior to the dawn of MOOCs,
is the essential foundation of the affordances of the new format.
A MOOC operator’s perspective on data and measurement comes from Diana
Oblinger, editor of the 2012 Educause report From Metrics to Analytics, Reporting
to Action: Analytics’ Role in Changing the Learning Environment written by
Linda Baer and John Campbell. Oblinger adopts a twenty-year perspective on how
tools have transformed data-driven industries from metrics to analytics. She
affirms University education is also subject to this change, under pressure from
learners and funders to demonstrate quantitative improvements in outcomes.
Oblinger argues that:
“Leading the institution from metrics to analytics and reporting to action
will require a significant institutional shift […] to develop analytics or
“actionable intelligence” in all institutional areas—particularly in learning
analytics.”
Her discussion references several ways in which analytics will significantly
improve success for all students, including simplifying the registration process;
accelerating the time to degree completion; blocking schedules with fixed,
predictable classroom meeting times; forming peer support and learning networks;
embedding remediation into the regular curriculum; and reducing time in the
classroom through the use of online technologies.
Analytics therefore herald a disruptive innovation and a break with current practice
and will deliver new ways to serve the student, faculty, and administrative users in

38 | P a g e
radically different ways. Innovations to be expected from growing analytics
capability in the Academy include, according to Oblinger,
 Utilising “social” data to better understand student integration into campus.
As the use of social media continues to increase, one could imagine
mapping social connections to determine which students are having
difficulty with connecting to the institution.
 Emergence of adaptive learning. If efforts to use analytics to predict success
proved fruitful, the next significant step would be to use analytics to power
adaptive systems that adapt to the learner’s needs based on behaviours of the
individual as well as of past students’ patterns.
 Mapping to interventions. Analytics can link suggested interventions to the
use and impact of the interventions. If the intervention suggested utilizing
the “math helpdesk,” did the student use the resource? If so, for how long
and while doing what activities?
Perspectives such as Oblinger’s do demonstrate the extent to which disruptive
innovations driven by technology can continue to transform educational outcomes,
whether or not MOOC formats are deployed by institutions.
This is a futuristic scenario which forecasts educational techno-bliss in the same
rosy terms as MOOC enthusiasts might use – but without reference to MOOCs.
Oblinger hails these transformations: “Technologies currently exist that would
allow students to map their educational starting point and destiny, determine how
many educational units per dollar they are getting with their funding and how
much time is left on their educational journey, interpret the academic gas tank
indicators, and compare how they are stacking up against the educational norm
during all points of their journey.”
However, Oblinger’s manifesto for an analytics-based revolution has to some
extent been overtaken by events in MOOC-land. These analytics-based
optimization techniques are already deployed in MOOC platforms. It may be that
the MOOCs ability’s to hover all educational innovations into its space is a
defining characteristic.

39 | P a g e
Fournier, Kop and Sitlia presented the possibilities of utilizing learning analytics in
order to drive improvements in pedagogy in personalized learning environments
such as MOOCs. Their paper, The Value of Learning Analytics to Networked
Learning on a Personal Learning Environment (2011)92 argued that learning
analytics are not just useful for academic managers and instructors, but also for
learners in order to provide feedback on performance as well as their learning
styles. Their interpretation is supported by a study of learning behaviour in
connectivist MOOCs. The learning analytics for the MOOCs considered by the
authors quantified types of participation from students, helping to distinguish
active “repurposing” material from more passive “consuming”. The use of learning
analytics provided rich sources of information about learner activity, key words
that anchored the course, and tracked activity outside the learning environment
such as Twitter posts. It also revealed the kinds of contributions made, as well as
the knowledge, ideas, thinking, information, tools and experiences that promoted
learning. Nonetheless, the authors stressed that despite the possibilities offered by
learning analytics, there was still a need for human interpretation, contextualizing,
and capturing contextual nuances in data.
To conclude, learner analytics technology already theorized and explored in a
mature and established debate rooted in the ODL literature, comes to its full
potential with the scale and mechanization of MOOCs. Applications will enable
students to be served more engaging material based on their individual profiles.
Adaptive learning is a real possibility. Interventions can be targeted to secure
completion.

40 | P a g e
7. Potential benefits and constraints of a MOOC
If we look at the MOOC realm, we will find that MOOC’s have eager supporters,
but also avid criticizers. A MOOC is a new knowledge and networking method and
as new things get tested, they will always have their evangelists and bashers. Here
are some of the pros and cons of MOOC’s [135]:
7.1 Possible benefits of a MOOC
 We can organize a MOOC in any setting that has connectivity
 We can organize it in any language we like
 We can use any online tools that are relevant to our target region or that
are already being used by the participants
 We can move beyond time zones and physical boundaries
 It can be organized as quickly as we can inform the participants (which
makes it a powerful format for priority learning in e.g. aid relief)
 Contextualized content can be shared by all
 Learning happens in a more informal setting, at a place of our convenience
and often around our own schedule.
 Learning can also happen incidentally thanks to the unknown knowledge
that pops up as the course participants start to exchange notes on the
course’s study
 You can connect across disciplines and corporate/institutional walls
 We don’t need a degree to follow the course, only the willingness to learn
 We add to our own personal learning environment and/or network by
participating in a MOOC
 We will improve our lifelong learning skills, for participating in a MOOC
forces we to think about our own learning and knowledge absorption

41 | P a g e
7.2 Possible constraints of a MOOC
 It feels chaotic as participants create their own content
 It demands digital literacy
 It demands time and effort from the participants
 It is organic, which means the course will take on its own trajectory
 As a participant we need to be able to self-regulate our learning and possibly
give ourselves a learning goal to achieve.

42 | P a g e
8. Student Experience and feedback
About 10% of the students who sign up typically complete the course.[2] Most
participants participate peripherally ("lurk"). For example, one of the first MOOCs
in 2008 had 2200 registered members, of whom 150 actively interacted at various
times.[136]
Learners control where, what, how and with whom they learn, although different
learners choose to exercise more or less of that control.[137]
Students include traditional university students, along with degreed professionals,
educators, business people, researchers and others interested in internet
culture.[107]
Principles of openness inform the creation, structure and operation of MOOCs. The
extent to which practices of Open Design in educational technology[138] are
applied vary. Research by Kop and Fournier[137] highlighted as major challenges
the lack of social presence and the high level of autonomy required.
Grading by peer review has had mixed results. In one example, three fellow
students grade one assignment for each assignment that they submit. The grading
key or rubric tends to focus the grading, but discourages more creative
writing.[140]
A. J. Jacobs in an op-ed in the New York Times graded his experience in 11
MOOC classes overall as a "B".[141] He rated his professors as '"B+", despite "a
couple of clunkers", even comparing them to pop stars and "A-list celebrity
professors." Nevertheless he rated teacher-to-student interaction as a "D" since he
had almost no contact with the professors. The highest rated ("A") aspect of
Jacobs' experience was the ability to watch videos at any time. Student-to-student
interaction and assignments both received "B-". Study groups that didn't meet,
trolls on message boards and the relative slowness of online vs. personal
conversations lowered that rating. Assignments included multiple choice quizzes
and exams as well as essays and projects. He found the multiple choice tests
stressful and peer graded essays painful. He completed only 2 of the 11
classes.[141][142]

43 | P a g e
Many popular MOOC sites were created by scientists. However, MOOCs are also
useful for teaching poetry. "There was a real question of whether this would work
for humanities and social science," says Ng. However, psychology and philosophy
courses are among Coursera's most popular. Student feedback and completion rates
suggest that they are as successful as math and science courses.[110]
In the community-college study, Ms. Jaggars found lower online grades in English
than in natural-science classes, although no definitive explanations emerged.[110]
By June 2012 more than 1.5 million people had registered for classes through
Coursera, Udacity and/or edX.[143][144] As of 2013, the range of students
registered appears to be broad, diverse and non-traditional, but concentrated among
English-speakers in rich countries. By March 2013, Coursera alone had registered
about 2.8 million learners.[44]
By October 2013, Coursera enrollment continued to surge, surpassing 5 million,
while edX had independently reached 1.3 million.[110]
Figure 9: Coursera Enrollees

44 | P a g e
A course billed as "Asia's first MOOC" given by the Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology through Coursera starting in April 2013 registered 17,000
students. About 60% were from "rich countries" with many of the rest from
middle-income countries in Asia, South Africa, Brazil or Mexico. Fewer students
enrolled from areas with more limited access to the internet, and students from the
People's Republic of China may have been discouraged by Chinese government
policies.[145]
"We have the whole gamut of older and younger, experienced and less experienced
students, and also academics and probably some people who are experts in related
fields," according to Naubahar Sharif who teaches the class on Science,
Technology and Society in China. "We do have students from China as well, in
places where Internet connections are more reliable."[145]
Koller stated in May 2013 that a majority of the people taking Coursera courses
had already earned college degrees.[146]
According to a Stanford University study of a more general group of students
"active learners" – anybody who participated beyond just registering – found that
64% of high school active learners were male and 88% were male for
undergraduate- and graduate-level courses.[147]
In 2013, the Chronicle of Higher Education surveyed 103 professors who had
taught MOOCs. "Typically a professor spent over 100 hours on his MOOC before
it even started, by recording online lecture videos and doing other preparation,"
though some instructors' pre-class preparation was "a few dozen hours." The
professors then spent 8–10 hours per week on the course, including participation in
discussion forums.[148]
The medians were: 33,000 students enrollees; 2,600 passing; and 1 teaching
assistant helping with the class. 74% of the classes used automated grading, and
34% used peer grading. 97% of the instructors used original videos, 75% used
open educational resources and 27% used other resources. 9% of the classes
required a physical textbook and 5% required an e-book.[148][149]

45 | P a g e
A study from Stanford University's Learning Analytics group identified four types
of students: auditors, who watched video throughout the course, but took few
quizzes or exams; completers, who viewed most lectures and took part in most
assessments; disengaged learners, who quickly dropped the course; and sampling
learners, who might only occasionally watch lectures.[147] They identified the
following percentages in each group:[150]
Table 1: Student demography
Course Auditing Completing Disengaging Sampling
High school 6% 27% 28% 39%
Undergraduate 6% 8% 12% 74%
Graduate 9% 5% 6% 80%
Jonathan Haber focused on questions of what students are learning and student
demographics. About half the students taking US courses are from other countries
and do not speak English as their first language. He found some courses to be
meaningful, especially about reading comprehension. Video lectures followed by
multiple choice questions can be challenging since they are often the "right
questions." Smaller discussion boards paradoxically offer the best conversations.
Larger discussions can be "really, really thoughtful and really, really misguided,"
with long discussions becoming rehashes or "the same old stale left/right
debate."[140]

46 | P a g e
8.1 Learners Experience Analysis
The experiences of learners in MOOCs are analyzed in this report in two main
ways, which we consider separately.
 Statistics-based attempts to synthesize, analyze and numerically capture
MOOC learner experiences in aggregate
 Personal reports from individuals which report frontline experiences (often
their own), and which may also be subsequently analyzed by writers in a
systematic way.
There is a further body of learner experience literature delivered in the form of
unsystematic online rants and impromptu blog commentaries, often appended to
MOOC course sites, which we have not assessed.
Statistical methods capture data on participation, retention and completion.
Analytical studies tend to suggest that headline figures about very low completion
and participation rates are something of a red herring. MOOCs demand a more
sophisticated assessment than the binary completed/not completed one used in
popular discourse. Beyond that simplistic variable, many valid learning
experiences are being enjoyed by significant numbers of learners, and in a wide
variety of ways.
Stanford’s Lytics Lab approached the problem by investigating and categorising
learners through courseware analytics, to reveal more granularity in the large
populations dropping out. The report “Deconstructing Disengagement: Analyzing
Learner Subpopulations in Massive Open Online Courses,” identified four
significant clusters of students in three computer science MOOCs:
 “Auditing” learners watched lectures throughout the course, but attempted
very few assessments.
 “Completing” learners attempted most of the assessments offered in the
course.
 “Disengaging” learners attempted assessments at the beginning of the course
but then sometimes only watched lectures or disappeared entirely from the
course.

47 | P a g e
 “Sampling” learners briefly explored the course by watching a few videos.
Different distributions were noted across the three courses analysed (a High
School, Undergraduate and Graduate School course, respectively).
Figure 10: MOOC learner types and proportions
The authors argue that the higher completion rates in the High School MOOCs
related to their increased proportion of highly engaging activities, notably in-video
interactions through video. If this is correct, then MOOCs can, potentially, offer a
realistic option for post-16 learners.
This paper is optimistic that analysis of course metrics, combined with insights into
learner psychology, can be used to improve course design and achieve higher rates
of completion. Learner analytics, according to the writers, show that improvements
to course discussion forums in particular, the best predictor of completion, could
boost drop-out rates. This study is statistical, it should be noted, and does not
deploy any opinion sampling techniques.
Phil Hill writing in the blog e-literate has developed a similar 4-part typology of
learners, with collaboration and critique from other specialists. It is not a one-to-
one correspondence with the Stanford taxonomy, but clearly identifies the same
issues.

48 | P a g e
 Lurkers –enroll but just observe or sample a few items at the most.
 Drop-Ins –partially or fully active participants for a select topic within the
course, but do not attempt to complete the entire course.
 Passive Participants – students who view a course as content to consume
and expect to be taught. Tend not to participate in activities or class
discussions.
 Active Participants – students who fully participate in the MOOC,
including consuming content, taking quizzes and exams, writing
assignments and peer grading. Actively participate in discussions via
discussion forums, blogs, twitter, Google+, or other forms of social media.
Hill has produced a widely-quoted chart (Figure 11) using this taxonomy,
aggregating the available data, and shows a characteristic distribution of MOOC
learner types across course duration in Coursera-style MOOCs (ie xMOOCs). This
is a generalized graphic, with no numerical scales, but has been accepted and
quoted by several commentators.
Figure 11: Patterns of student participation data in Coursera MOOCs

49 | P a g e
Hill also provided a numerically based confirmation of the trend using numbers of
video views reported in a Coursera MOOC on Bioelectricity (Figure 12).
Figure 12: Video Views in a Coursera MOOC
Stephen Downes, the Canadian online learning expert, MOOC practitioner and
commentator, adopts the categorization of participants proposed by Stanford.
Downes argues that non-completion is a misleading metric, and more subtle
classifications of learners are required.
Responding to several surveys of learner experience, Downes reflected in a Blog
on a panel discussion of experts releasing results of various student surveys at ELI
Online Spring Focus Session 2013, "Learning and the Massive Open Online
Course," April 2013,
“The majority of active users say they’re taking the course for fun or a
challenge, rather than a credential. The tendency to judge MOOCs based on
completion rates overlooks the reasons why people join a MOOC. The
majority engage in sampling behaviour [...] Many are MOOC auditors, but
they don’t engage, and they aren’t motivated by completion records.”

50 | P a g e
Edinburgh University ran the first Coursera MOOCs in the UK and has devoted
some effort to statistical analysis. With over 300,000 applicants for its first batch of
six MOOCs, it had significant data to work with. The results are currently only
published in an interim summary of the experience with a second phase of analysis
to follow later.
Edinburgh surveyed 45,000 users on entry, and 15,000 on exit from its MOOCs .
The data it obtained are subject to several caveats, and illustrated wide variation of
trend within and between MOOCs. The points which emerged clearly include:
 A very high proportion of window-shopping learners in all MOOCs
 176 nationalities participated
 Dramatic declines in participation from enrollment to Week 1
 A very small proportion (3%) of completing learners felt they had not “got
what they wanted” out of the courses – implying a high level of satisfaction
 Participation patterns after commencement varied widely between the six
MOOCs
 Main reasons given for joining the courses were:
a. Curiosity about MOOCs and online learning
b. Desire to learn new subject matter.
 Career advancement and obtaining certificates were less important
motivations
 MOOC learners in terms of their attitudes, skills and motivation are more
akin to lifelong learning students in traditional universities than to students
on degree programmes.

51 | P a g e
Two data figures from the Edinburgh learner survey are particularly worth quoting:
Figure 13: MOOC learner aspirations
Figure 14: MOOC course activity record

52 | P a g e
The picture emerges from Figure 13 (the responses of completing MOOC learners
at exit for whom the course did not fail to meet expectations) that motivations were
more exploratory than instrumental. This was a broadly curious audience, not
motivated by any very specific goals, yet willing to commit significant effort if the
content engages them.
In Figure 14 the Edinburgh data confirms the trend observed elsewhere, of clear
declines in participation after the first two weeks of course units are served.
However, the retention stabilizes from Week 3 onwards.
Edinburgh clearly expects to continue its MOOC experiment, and its early thinking
about future editions seems to revolve around handling the issue of large sign-ups
but low course commencements, and maintaining the high quality of the MOOC
experience for those who do actively participate. Among the large amount of data
Edinburgh has published about its MOOCs, the most significant numbers for
addressing the issue of learner engagement in the future are given in Table 2, 3, 4
and 5.
The Edinburgh data also shows engagement levels in different activities on the
MOOCs and the number of final assessments submitted for award of completion
certificates. The awarding of statements of accomplishment (SoA) is interesting
not just for its indication of pass rates, but also for illustrating the wide range of
outcomes between different courses.
The full and final Edinburgh verdict on its MOOCs, based on complete analysis of
course data, has not been published, but the first release of early data is the closest
to a thorough analysis we have seen anywhere, and the most important set of
statistical data so far about learner experience.

53 | P a g e
Table 2: Conversion trends between enrolment and course participant activity
Table 3: Forum activity by course, with the average number of posts, comments,
and votes cast by each active participant per activity

54 | P a g e
Table 4: Total number of course participant assessment submissions during Weeks
3, 5 and 7 of the MOOC
Table 5: Total number of Statement of Accomplishments (SoAs) distributed by
each course and as a percentage of active learners

55 | P a g e
Tucker Balch, a computational trader (i.e., specialist in computerized financial
trading) who happened to be a student on a course in computational trading run on
Coursera in autumn 2012, enterprisingly obtained opinion data from 2,350 students
on the MOOC and then presented results in a blog post “MOOC Student
Demographics”.
The demographic composition arguably reflects the course content as much as the
MOOC format, but the tick-box opinion survey on completing learners is
interesting. This was a MOOC with a 4.8% completion rate (of the signed-up
students). Balch’s data relate almost entirely to those who completed. These
responses show a clear majority of completers were satisfied with the instruction
and materials, but less than half had satisfied their need for knowledge. There was
a notable appetite for further learning on the topic.
The sample responding despite not completing the course is small (2.5%) and
probably not as reliable as the completers, who are a large cohort. Nevertheless the
satisfaction of nearly 90% of non-completers does suggest that non-completion
cannot be taken as an indication of non-satisfaction.
Figure 15: Summary of selected opinion data from Coursera students

56 | P a g e
Mackness, Mak and Williams, academic authors from three continents, presented
The Ideals and Reality of Participating in a MOOC, a mixed-methods study of
participants’ experiences in the 2008 CCK08 module (an early MOOC entitled
Connectivism and Connected Knowledge, run at the University of Manitoba). This
was a seminal connectivist MOOC and the researchers’ findings are heavily based
on connectivism as a valid educational theory, as proposed by Downes and
Siemens.
The main finding was that participants valued their autonomy in the MOOC, but
did so at different levels depending upon language command, subject expertise,
assessment for credit participants, personal learning styles and identity as well as
the reputation of instructors and fellow participants.
Diversity was problematic for the participants, many of whom appeared not ready
to become autonomous learners. The large number of participants also created a
risk and fear for participants that conversations would degenerate into “noise”.
Openness, while representing sharing of resources and open communication, could
also present issues of clarity as to course structure and expectations. The authors
argue that these three problems impact on students’ connectedness and
interactivity.
The conclusion that despite the positive implementation of a connectivist pedagogy
in the course, learners may have been compromised by lack of support and
moderation, leads the authors to recommend light touch moderation to prevent
confusion, firmly intervene in cases of negative behaviour, and explicitly
communicate what forms unacceptable behaviour that can impede learning in the
network. The lesson drawn for learners is that some constraints may actually
improve the learning experience.
These observations from Mackness et al are, arguably, eclipsed by later events.
MOOCs, xMOOCs in particular, have evolved in the direction of ever less
scaffolding and support. Additionally, the impacts on learning of poor support and
bad student behaviour were well known before the MOOC emerged.
Mackness returned to the theme and the CCK08 MOOC in 2010 in a second
Lancaster University paper co-authored with Mak and Williams.

57 | P a g e
Another Mak, Williams and Mackness (2010) paper Blogs and Forums as
Learning Tools in a MOOC further analyzed learner attitudes to blogs and forums
in the CCK08 MOOC 25. The authors compared how forums and blogs enabled
learners to succeed with
(1) personal connections with other participants;
(2) conceptual connections with the ideas introduced in the course;
(3) use of tools and learning affordances;
(4) learning approaches.
Mak et al found that a minority ceased participation due to unacceptable behaviour
from fellow course participants. A new learning affordance was seen in the use of
aggregated network blogs. However, a reduction in openness and autonomy was
noticed due to a substantial preference for forums. The overall interpretation was
that a steadily maturing set of social networking skills in the audience was enabling
a new generation of learners ready to create their own learning affordances, and to
develop their own learning practice.
Three dimensions were proposed by Mak et al for describing the attitudes of
MOOC participants. They are:
 Home > < Bazaar - the dimension of presence, identity, autonomy and
having a home base online.
 Long-loop > < Short-loop - the dimension pertaining to pace, crafted
responses and type of sequence.
 Engagement > < Reflection - the dimension ranging between use of blogs
and forums as a way to connect with and “process” ideas.
The authors provide a wide range of learner comments and reactions to illustrate
different learner positions along these spectra. For example, in the home > < bazaar
spectrum, one learner observation is:
I’m drawn to blogging. I can participate on my terms and in my context. I
find blogs more valuable than forums due to the individual identity of blogs

58 | P a g e
(as well as personal autonomy). The additional benefit of creating my own
space for idea formation is the ability to search resources. I find I constantly
search my blogs, delicious feeds, etc. Autonomy in participation is like
autonomy in learning – i.e. personalization
, whereas another learner situates her experience along a dimension of engagement
> < reflection in different terms:
Blogs are probably more self-reflective and meditative, but discussion in the
forums was stimulating and led in many cases to great interactions that
hardly seemed possible in a blog-and-comment form
Invoking evidence from their analysis, the writers argue that maturing competence
in online social networking skills among the MOOC population is allowing
learners to position themselves in multiple dimensions in the MOOC. Whereas on
entry to a MOOC a learner might define themselves as simply a “blogger” or a
“forum user”, the experience of the MOOC itself enabled them to use all the online
tools in a more nuanced and expressive way.
To conclude, whether the MOOC is a welcome or a threatening prospect for HEIs
divides informed writers. However, there is consensus that MOOCs do offer
education institutions a lever for transition. On balance, the literature expresses the
view that MOOCs will probably not threaten traditional forms of University
teaching in the short term, but a significant sub-group of credible writers foresees
wide and sudden changes and disruptions to HEIs from MOOCs.
Learners’ experiences in MOOCs were examined in this section, both through
statistical analysis and anecdote. Writers assess MOOCs as challenging
environments which can discourage or disorient many learners, as witnessed by the
low percentages completing. However, the literature also shows that mere
completion is not a relevant metric, that learners participate in many valid ways,
and that those who do complete MOOCs have high levels of satisfaction. There is
as yet no agreed satisfactory system of measurement for assessing the quality of
MOOCs from the learners’ point of view.

59 | P a g e
9. Various concerns about MOOC
A major concern is the 'territorial' nature of MOOCs[151] with little/no discussion
of the following pointer:
1) Who enrolls in/completes courses;
2) The implications of courses scaling across country borders, and potential
difficulties with relevance and knowledge transfer;
3) The need for territory-specific study of locally relevant issues and needs.
Other features associated with early MOOCs, such as open licensing of content,
open structure and learning goals, community-centeredness, etc., may not be
present in all MOOC projects.[3]
Effects on the structure of higher education were lamented for example by Moshe
Y. Vardi, who finds an "absence of serious pedagogy in MOOCs", indeed in all of
higher education. He criticized the format of "short, unsophisticated video chunks,
interleaved with online quizzes, and accompanied by social networking." An
underlying reason is simple cost cutting pressures, which could hamstring the
higher education industry.[152]
Cary Nelson, former president of the American Association of University
Professors claimed that MOOCs are not a reliable means of supplying credentials,
stating that "It’s fine to put lectures online, but this plan only degrades degree
programs if it plans to substitute for them." Sandra Schroeder, chair of the Higher
Education Program and Policy Council for the American Federation of Teachers
expressed concern that "These students are not likely to succeed without the
structure of a strong and sequenced academic program."[153]
With a 60% majority, the Amherst College faculty rejected the opportunity to work
with edX based on a perceived incompatibility with their seminar-style classes and
personalized feedback. Some were concerned about issues such as the "information
dispensing" teaching model of lectures followed by exams, the use of multiple-
choice exams and peer-grading. The Duke University faculty took a similar stance
in the spring of 2013. The effect of MOOCs on second- and third-tier institutions
and of creating a professorial "star system" were among other concerns.[102]

60 | P a g e
In May 2003, the Philosophy Department faculty of San Jose State University
wrote an open letter to Harvard Professor Michael Sandel outlining their concerns
about MOOCs, most notably their "fear that two classes of universities will be
created: one, well- funded colleges and universities in which privileged students
get their own real professor; the other, financially stressed private and public
universities in which students watch a bunch of video-taped lectures and interact, if
indeed any interaction is available on their home campuses, with a professor that
this model of education has turned into a glorified teaching assistant." The letter
was published in The Chronicle of Higher Education.[154]
Figure 16: Major concerns of MOOC from US Higher Education Perspective

61 | P a g e
10. Major players in the MOOC universe
Figure 17: Major MOOC providers
edX (https://www.edX.org/) is a non-profit MOOCs platform founded by
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University with $60 million of
resources contributed by the two institutions to support the project. Currently, there
is a total of eight courses including chemistry, computer science, electronics and
public health, but it is anticipated that there will be between 20 to 30 courses in
2013. MITx and Harvardx courses will not be offered for credit at either university

62 | P a g e
but online learners who demonstrate mastery of subjects can pay a modest fee for a
certificate of completion.
Coursera (https://www.coursera.org/) is a for-profit company, which started with
$22 million total investment from venture capitalists, including New Enterprise
Associates and Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers Education. There are four
university partners, namely Stanford University, Princeton University and the
Universities of Michigan and Pennsylvania. Coursera currently has 197 courses in
18 subjects, including computer science, mathematics, business, humanities, social
science, medicine, engineering and education. Some partner universities offer
credit for their Coursera classes to those who want to pay a fee to have some extra
assignments and work with an instructor and be assessed.
UDACITY (https://www.udacity.com/) is another for-profit start-up founded by
Sebastian Thrun, David Stavens and Mike Sokolsky with $21.1 million investment
from venture capitalist firms, including Charles River Ventures and Andreessen
Horowitz. Udacity currently offers 18 online courses in computer science,
mathematics, general sciences, programming and entrepreneurship. When students
complete a course, they receive a certificate of completion indicating their level of
achievement, signed by the instructors, at no cost. Some universities began
offering transfer credit for Udacity students who then take the final examination at
a Pearson centre.
Udemy (https://www.udemy.com/) founded in 2010, with a total $16 million
investment from Insight Venture Partners, Lightbank, MHS Capital, 500 start-ups
and other investors provides a learning platform, which allows anyone to teach and
participate in online video classes. Udemy currently offers over 5,000 courses,
1,500 of which require payment, with the average price for classes falling between
$20 and $200.
P2Pu (https://p2pu.org/en/) was launched in 2009 with funding from the Hewlett
Foundation and the Shuttleworth Foundation. P2PU offers some of the features of
MOOCs, but is focused on a community centred approach to provide opportunities
for anyone that is willing to teach and learn online. There are over 50 courses
available and the process of improving the quality

63 | P a g e
of the courses relies on community-review, feedback and revision. There are no
fees or credits, but P2PU's school of Webcraft adopted a badge reward system to
integrate elements of gamification into the learning process.
Khan Academy (https://www.khanacademy.org/), another well-known free online
learning platform, is a not-for-profit educational organisation with significant
backing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Google. The Khan
Academy, started by Salman Khan in 2008, offers over 3,600 video lectures in
academic subjects with automated exercises and
continuous assessment.
Whereas edX offer only Harvard and MIT’s courses, Coursera focuses on
providing a platform that any university can use and Udacity only offers its own
curriculum with specialised areas. Table 6 and Figure 12 indicates the major
differences between the initiatives described above in terms of financial
motivation, access, fees ,credits and courses offered.
Table 6: Comparison of key aspects of MOOCs or Open Education initiatives

64 | P a g e
Figure 18: Various Kinds of MOOC Courses

65 | P a g e
11. Viable business models for marketing MOOC
The Burning Issue in the MOOC sphere is the search for business models – and all
the associated sub-issues of scale, sustainability monetization, accreditation for
MOOC learning and openness. The inline survey suggests that after a phase of
broad experimentation, a process of maturation is in place. MOOCs are heading to
become a significant and possibly a standard element of credentialed University
education, exploiting new pedagogical models, discovering revenue and lowering
costs.
Figure 19: Key funding process in the MOOC universe

66 | P a g e
11.1 Business and financial models
The most common revenue stream for the major new MOOC providers is to charge
fees for certificates. Whilst edX is a not-for-profit MOOC platform with the goal
of helping universities achieve shared educational missions, in the longer term it
will also need to be self-sustaining. Coursera and UDACITY are examples of for-
profit organisations, they are working on developing a variety of business models,
and according to their published commercial strategies, these include: selling
student information to potential employers or advertisers; fee-based assignment
grading; access to the social networks and discussions; advertising for sponsored
courses; and tuition fees for credited courses (Educause, 2012). Table 7 provides
an overview of potential business models proposed by current MOOC providers.
Table 7: Overview of potential business models
edX Coursera UDACITY
 Certification  Certification
 Secure assessments
 Employee recruitment
 Applicant screening
 Human tutoring or assignment
marking
 Enterprises pay to run their own
training courses
 Sponsorships
 Tuition fees
 Certification
 Employers pay for recruit talent
student
 Students résumés and job match
services
 Sponsored high-tech skills courses

67 | P a g e
MOOCs – by almost every interpretation – are set to impact the business, financial
and commercial operations of Higher Education. This is a consensual theme that
emerges clearly from all the current literature. It should be noted that, up to now,
this impact is more widely forecast than observed in practice. However,
institutional developments are beginning to reflect the maturing MOOC
phenomenon. This is seen most widely in the following areas:
1. Cost-reducing financial models for course production and sale
2. Emergence of viable sources of revenue for MOOC operators
3. Growing acceptance for accreditation of MOOC learning
4. Extension of MOOC format beyond elite institutions via:
a. Open access by other institutions to quality content hosted in MOOC
platforms
b. Recruitment of second-tier Universities to MOOC platforms.
Literature has explored the cost advantages of MOOCs over other forms of online
course production.
The resource requirement of creating online courses is identified by Walter Sinott-
Armstrong of Duke University in an advice video widely used as a guide to course
making.
Sinnott-Armstrong outlines a 10 step process for developing general online courses
which involves intensive teacher effort to develop a syllabus, explicitly identify the
topics covered and plan the time required to cover them. Inputs include detailed
scripting, set-up of audiovisual equipment and hardware, recording, editing and
enhancement. Permissions, quizzes, uploads, monitoring and in-course
modification also add to the teacher workload.
MOOC teams also report intensive workloads (Edinburgh staff reported round the
clock working for several weeks). However, the technique of leveraging the cohort
to develop its own syllabus, media, assessment and modifications, eliminates many
of the steps of course preparation that might otherwise fall on tutors.

68 | P a g e
The comparable MOOC presentation Developing, designing and running MOOCs
by George Siemens (2012) describes the workload in planning and running
MOOCs. For Siemens, this is a 9 step-process:
(i) developing a topic for a certain audience,
(ii) finding other facilitators preferably from other backgrounds,
(iii) determining course content (blogs, online articles, lecture videos) as a
starting point for the course,
(iv) planning spaces for interaction (tags, forums, blogs, emails etc.),
(v) planning interactions (synchronous v asynchronous),
(vi) planning the continued presence of facilitators through active participation,
(vii) organising learning creation through course activities and peer feedback,
(viii) promoting and sharing the course site, and
(ix) iterating and improving on previous course work.
Research by the Chronicle of Higher Ed established that a recent Chronicle survey
found that professors typically spent 100 hours to develop a MOOC, and then eight
to 10 hours each week while the courses were in session. This commitment
amounted to a drain on their normal campus responsibilities.
Figure 20: Model of the costs of increased student cohort size in conventional and
MOOC education

69 | P a g e
The cost advantage of MOOCs over other educational forms is explored by Diana
Laurillard, a former OU Vice-Chancellor and now a Director at the Institute of
Education London Knowledge Lab. In a presentation in February 2013 at the
conference “Online and open-access learning in higher education: MOOCs, new
pedagogies and business models”, Laurillard showed that neither online nor F2F
conventional teaching structures can use scale to improve upon the optimum 1:25
staff:student ratio. However, argued Laurillard, pedagogical innovations do have
the potential to achieve cost breakthroughs.
In the paper “A constructionist learning environment for teachers to model
learning designs” (2012) Laurillard et al scope out the reduction in learning time
and course design time that could come from applying improved instructional
design techniques. The paper suggests teacher preparation time can be more than
halved.
The Centre for Teaching and Learning research at the University of North Carolina
at Charlotte has similar findings based on cost analysis of MOOC type course
construction models, identifying a 12% reduction in the Drop/Fail/Withdraw rate
(DFW) and a final 31% cost saving per student as depicted in the Figure 21.
The different workloads (in quantity, quality and scheduling flexibility) are an
important dimension in the financial and business case for MOOCs over
conventional online course production.
Figure 21: Cost-reduction metrics from UNC Charlotte

70 | P a g e
11.2 Revenue sources
Revenue models are emerging slowly and piecemeal in the literature. They are
being pieced together from snippets of information and leaked documents, rather
than being formally presented.
Thus edX, for example, used a press interview with its President Anant Agarwal in
The Chronicle of Higher Education on 21 February 2013 to state its financial plans
but two months later had not even posted this article, the most detailed treatment to
date of its revenue model, in its own press clippings gallery.
While covering the edX story, the Chronicle article posted an extract from what
appears to be a standard contractual document supplied by edX, detailing a
template commercial agreement between EdX and University partners. In a
revenue-sharing model, edX would receive the first US$50,000 of revenue from
any course it hosted, and 50% split thereafter. In a contracting model, edX would
be paid US$250,000 up front for its “production assistance” in producing a MOOC
for a participating University, and repeat fees of US$50,000 per edition of the
course. If the MOOCs are financially lucrative, the edX model compares
favourably for Universities against Coursera’s 85% - 91% take of income. But, the
Chronicle’s journalist points out, there is as yet no viable proven model for any
MOOC to generate significant income.
The issue has emerged in the Academic Press as a matter of concern for HEIs57.
Universities may, for example, build their own courses and host on EdX for free,
but if they cannot do this, edX charges a base rate of $250,000 per course, then
$50,000 for each additional time that course is offered, if it is preparing the
content.
A comparable template partnership agreement from Coursera was obtained by the
Chronicle of Higher Education under Freedom of Information and published in an
article by Jeffrey Young. The documents showed that Coursera had identified 8
possible sources of income, as follows:
 Certification (students pay for a badge or certificate)

71 | P a g e
 Secure assessments (students pay to have their examinations invigilated
(proctored))
 Employee recruitment (companies pay for access to student performance
records)
 Applicant screening (employers/universities pay for access to records to
screen applicants)
 Human tutoring or assignment marking (for which students pay)
 Selling the MOOC platform to enterprises to use in their own training
courses
 Sponsorships (3rd party sponsors of courses)
 Tuition fees.
Commenting on this list in his 2012 article “Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in
a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility”, Sir John Daniel points out that:
“The striking feature about this list is that the organization least likely to make
money is the partner university. The two options over which the universities have
most control, certification and tuition fees, both present problems. In the case of
certification […] most participating institutions have a self-denying ordinance not
to award credit for these courses. As regards tuition fees there are huge challenges
of principle and practice. Is a MOOC still 'open' if you have to pay for it? Quite
apart from the logistical nightmare of collecting fees in the 160+ countries where
learners are registering for […] MOOCs, it seems certain that even a nominal fee
would reduce interest dramatically.”
In the literature, one of the most commented financial dimensions was the supply
of testing services to EdX and Udacity MOOCs, by Pearson Vue. This inserts an
optional payment gateway ($89, charged to students) in the MOOC format.
Whether a share of the testing revenues accrue to the course platform or the

Exploration of viable business models for marketing MOOC learning phenomenon

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Exploration of viable business models for marketing MOOC learning phenomenon

Similar to Exploration of viable business models for marketing MOOC learning phenomenon (20)

Exploration of viable business models for marketing MOOC learning phenomenon