This document provides a literature review on the effectiveness of MOOCs for professional development. It discusses how early MOOCs aimed to provide college level courses to students worldwide but completion rates were low. Now, MOOCs are increasingly being used for corporate training and professional development. While some employers view MOOCs favorably, there is limited data on their quality and effectiveness for employee skills and performance gains. Some companies have partnered with MOOC providers to create degree and credential programs, but it remains unclear if MOOCs will be widely accepted as a learning tool for employee development.

1. Effectiveness of MOOCs for Professional Development
Lisa Wressell
Western Oregon University
Dec. 2, 2017

2. 2
Introduction
Distance learning has dramatically changed since correspondence letter writing courses in
the late 1800s (Pappas, 2013). Today, distance learning through online courses and degrees
offered at the collegiate level are commonplace and widely accepted. As the Internet has
disrupted correspondence education, Massive Open Online Classes (MOOCs) are disrupting
higher education (Hansen & Reich, 2015; Pappano, 2012). MOOCs are massive because,
according to Romualo Mabuan, in his 2017 work Confessions of MOOCer, “…they have the
potential of attracting thousands of enrollees from different parts of the world,” (p. 2). MOOCs
are open and online. Anyone in the world can enroll regardless of educational attainment or
socioeconomic background if they have access to the Internet (Hansen & Reich, 2015; Mauban,
2017).
The first MOOC was offered in 2008 when University of Manitoba Canada educators
Stephen Downes and George Siemens created a free, open, and for-credit MOOC called
“Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CCK8).” About 2200 students signed up
worldwide, however only University of Manitoba students who paid tuition received credit
(Daniel, 2012; Mabuan, 2017). The CCK8 course encouraged students to use a variety of
platforms to facilitate learning including: forums, Wiki-pages, blogs, and Facebook groups,
(Marques, 2013). MOOCs received worldwide attention from academics in 2012 after two
professors from Stanford University, Sebastian Thrun and Peter Norvig created the free MOOC
course “Introduction to Artificial Intelligence.” (Daniel, 2012; Pappas, 2013). According to
Juliana Marques, in her 2013 article A Short History of MOOCs in Distance Learning, “More
than 160,000 students in 190 countries signed up, and for the first time, an open online course

3. 3
was truly ‘massive’,” (para.7). The success of Thrun and Norvig’s MOOC led them to create the
start-up MOOC provider Udacity (Marques, 2013, Pappas, 2012).
The New York Times declared 2012 was “The Year of the MOOC,” (Pappano, 2012). In
addition to the launch of Udacity, Harvard and the Massachusetts Institution of technology
created the non-profit start-up edX, and computer science professors from Stanford University
Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller founded Coursera, a for-profit MOOC provider. Elite
universities including Brown, Columbia, Princeton and Duke began partnering with MOOC
providers at rapid pace (Holland & Tirthali, 2014; Pappano, 2012).
While MOOCs promise to democratize education, they are not without detractors. Liberal
arts professors at elite universities have been protesting the push to adopt MOOCs because they
worry MOOCs will weaken liberal arts education (Johnson, 2013). MOOCs also have a high
dropout rate at 90% or more (Eriksson, Adawi, & Stohr, 2017; Fidalgo-Blanco, Sein-Echaluce,
& Garcia-Penalvo, 2016; Holland & Tirthali, 2014).
Harvard Researchers John D. Hansen and Justin Reich sought to gain insight on the
demographics of students who complete MOOC courses or programs in their quantitative study
analyzing registrants Democratizing education? Examining access and usage patterns in
Massive Open Online Courses. Hansen and Riech found, in their analysis of 68 MOOCs, that the
demographics of students who complete MOOCs mirrors the demographics of digital divide that
exists in public K-12 schools in the United States. Impoverished and minority K-12 students are
less likely to have access to the Internet and, “. . . the academic benefits of home computers were
greater for children from affluent families,” (Attewell in Hansen & Riech, 2015). Hansen and
Reich found that most people who complete a MOOC course have already obtained a bachelor’s
degree (79.4%), or a graduate degree or higher (44.2%); and have a household income that is

4. 4
roughly $12,000 dollars more than the national average (Bayeck, 2016; Hansen & Reich, 2015).
Many participants completed MOOCs to acquire skills for current or future employment or to
change careers (Bayeck, 2016; Hansen & Reich, 2015).
As MOOC providers understand who their participants are and their motivations for
enrolling in MOOCs, they are responding by creating courses that meet the needs of those
students (Dodson, Kitburi, & Berge, 2015). Rebecca Yvonne Bayeck, in her study, MOOC
Learners’ demographics and motivation: The case of students involved in groups found that a
primary motivation for completing a MOOC course is for professional development (Bayeck,
2016). Human Resources and Education author Bryant Nielson in his article 2014: The Year of
the Corporate MOOC reports that the main major MOOC providers Coursera, edX and Udacity
are, “working toward developing alternative credentials to compete with traditional degrees
when it comes to organizations’ hiring decisions,” (Neilson, 2014, para.3). Even though only 7
percent of organizations presently use MOOCs, one-third have plans to start (Nielson, 2014).
Massive open online classes were created to offer introductory level college courses to
students worldwide. Recent studies show MOOCs are not the equalizer they intended to be. The
average person enrolled in a MOOC has the same demographics as the average US college
graduate (Hansen & Reich, 2015). The likelihood of finishing a MOOC is tied to socioeconomic
status. Now, MOOCs are increasingly expanding to include training and professional
development courses in both the private and public sectors (Banks & Meinert, 2016; Dodson,
Kitburi, & Berge, 2015; Savino, 2014). Considering the completion rate of MOOCs is so low,
are MOOCs an appropriate learning tool for employee training and development? Should
MOOCs only be considered for industries where the typical employee already holds an advanced

5. 5
degree? The purpose of this literature review is to determine whether MOOCs are an effective
learning platform to prepare learners for employment or career advancement.
Academic MOOCs
MOOCs have been widely available since 2012 on provider platforms such as edX,
Coursera, and Udacity. Colleges and universities, including ivy league schools, have partnered
with MOOC providers to offer students classes for a variety of reasons: personal interest, college
credit, and certification for employment (Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Adams, A.A., & Williams,
S.A., 2013). Most recently, some MOOC university partners are offering courses for college
credit, micro and nano-degrees, and master’s degrees (Hollands, & Tirthali, 2014; Porter, 2014;
Savino 2014).
In January 2013, Udacity partnered with San Jose University to offer introductory college
level classes online for college credit to anyone who wanted to take the class, for a nominal fee
(Dodson, Kitburi, & Berge, 2015; Oremus, 2013; Waks, 2016). The courses offered were
elementary statistics, college algebra, entry level math, introduction to programing, and
introduction to psychology. Many thought this would be the disruption that would change how
college classes were offered, however, San Jose State University ended its partnership with
Udacity just six months after it started because over half of the students who enrolled failed their
final exam (Frey, 2013; Lewin, 2013; Oremus, 2013; Rivard, 2013; Waks, 2016). Steve
Kolowich reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education that in 2012 Colorado State University-
Global Campus offered to grant college credit to MOOC students who passed a computer science
course from Udacity for an $89 fee. Colorado State University charges $1050 for a similar 3
credit class. However, not one student has taken the university up on their offer, (Kolowich,
2013). In 2015, Arizona State University partnered with edX to launch the Global Freshman

6. 6
Academy, but less than 1% of the learners who participated in the three college classes in the
Global Freshman Academy (34,086), are eligible to earn college credit. Only 1,100 of the
students were active throughout the seven-week course, and of those learners, only 323 have the
option to pay Arizona State University additional fees to receive credits (Lewin, 2015;
Straumsheim, 2015). While there is a lot of excitement surrounding changing education models,
MOOCs have not been a successful learning platform for learners without a college degree
(Hollands & Tirthali, 2014; Shrader, Wu, Owens, & Santa Ana, 2016).
MOOCs for Career Development and Training
Since MOOCs have the potential to disrupt higher education, they also have the potential
to disrupt corporate training, because they, “. . . provide what is suddenly possible with what is
desperately necessary,” (Savino, 2014, p. 60). Most human resource personnel who manage
training and development at large corporations are considering future implementation of MOOCs
for employee training, (Savino, 2014). In a 2011 survey by Accenture, of 1,083 employed and
unemployed respondents, only 21 percent stated they had, “. . . developed additional skills
through company provided corporate training since 2006,” (Wiess, 2013, para. 2). This
demonstrates a gap in skill that MOOCs could fill. One reason employers have not included
MOOCs as part of their training is because they have not found MOOCs that work well with
“. . . what corporate trainers are looking for in employee training and development,” (Savino,
2014, p. 61). Currently, MOOCs are starting to develop cooperative partnerships between
MOOC providers, universities, and companies. However, it is also possible that companies will
begin to develop their own custom created MOOC courses for employees in need of this type of
training (Banks & Meinert, 2016; Dodson, Kiburi, & Zane, 2015; Meister, 2013).

7. 7
While Savino’s report demonstrates that employers have an interest in MOOCs for
training and development, a 2014 study by Alexandria Walton Radford et al. thoroughly
examines how employers view and or plan to implement MOOCs currently and in the future.
The researchers implemented a finding and developing talent study where they surveyed 103
employers through a web survey and subsequently interviewed a subset of 20 HR professionals
regarding their awareness of MOOCs and whether they would use MOOCs for recurring, hiring,
and professional development. The researchers found that approximately 31 percent of the
surveyed employers had heard of MOOCs, however once the employer understood what they
were most employers viewed MOOCs positively for hiring decisions. Fifty-nine percent of
employers were also interested in using MOOCs for recruiting purposes, and 83 percent of
human resource professionals were either using MOOCs, considering using MOOCs, or could
see their company someday using MOOCs for professional development. The findings from the
personal interviews point out that employers would be more likely to use MOOCS in the future
for professional development and in recruiting and hiring if there was evidence about the “. . .
quality of MOOCs including the long-term learning and work performance gains that employees
accrue from taking them,” (Radford et al., 2014 p. 21).
Michele Dodson, Karat Kitburi, and Zane Berge, in their 2015 Performance Improvement
article, Possibilities for MOOCs in Corporate Training and Development question whether
MOOCs an appropriate learning platform for businesses because:
it appears less compatible with the traditional aim of corporate learning because it is so
public and, in some ways driven to provide generic content so as to be applicable to as
many learners as possible. This stands apart from traditional corporate learning, which
appeals to private and specific companies that develop or purchase formal training that is

8. 8
specific to their organization’s business practices or that is custom tailored to employee
audiences fulfilling a particular role. (p. 16).
Dodson, Kiburi, and Zane believe that it is possible for companies to implement MOOCs
three ways by: a. supplementing employee development with existing MOOCs; b. creating
MOOCs to market the company’s offering to end users, business partners, or potential clients; or
c. creating a “MOOC-like” solution for existing and future corporate training (2015). The
authors additionally report that MOOC providers such as Udacity, edX, and Courseara are “. . .
beginning to create and market corporate training programs,” (Dodson, Kiburi, & Zane, 2015, p.
18).
While the current reports indicate that human resources professionals view MOOCs
favorably, the results are limited, because only 31 percent of surveyed employers have heard of
MOOCs and the conducted phone interviews only represent the views of 20 human resources
professionals. Before companies are broadly disrupting corporate training for MOOCs,
employers need to have measured data that reflects MOOC quality, success, and effectiveness
(Dodson, Kiburi, & Zane, 2015; Radford et al., 2014). It is not clear how likely MOOCs are to be
implemented for future training and development.
Several companies that have partnered with MOOC providers and universities to create
MOOC master’s degrees, nanodegree credentials, and professional development for continuing
education.
Udacity. After the public disaster of the San Jose State partnership with Udacity, founder
Sebastian Thrun shifted MOOC focus from community college level courses to corporate
training (Chafkin, 2013; Waks, 2016). In 2014 the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia

9. 9
Tech) partnered with AT&T and Udacity to offer an online master’s degree in computer science
(OMSCS) in the MOOC format (Straumsheim, 2017). AT&T subsidized the OMSCS by $3.9
million. The program costs students $7,000 making it the most affordable master’s degree in
computer science in the United States (Lewin, 2013; Straumsheim, 2017). AT&T uses the
program to train employees and source potential new hires (Lewin, 2013). It is suspected that
AT&T will benefit more from the program at Georgia Tech than the university itself because
AT&T has basically, “. . . arranged exceptionally cheap training for its employees through a tax-
deductible contribution,” (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014, p. 88). The courses are free online for those
not seeking a degree. Although Georgia Tech is offering an in-demand degree at a low cost that
appears to be directly connected to Fortune 100 corporations training and hiring pipeline, it is
unclear how accepted the MOOC master’s programs will be in academia or whether the degree
will be universally accepted by employers (Lewin, 2013).
In addition to the Georgia Tech Master’s Degree in Computer Science, Udacity also
partnered with AT&T to create nano-degrees. According to Leonard J Waks, in his book The
Evolution and Evaluation of Massive Open Online Courses: MOOCs in Motion, the Udacity
created nano-degree is
A new entry in the occupational training space outside the official educational
system. Learners do not require prior credentials, and the Udacity nano-degree
certificates are not indented for transfer credit. This new pathway addresses many
pressing problems. It’s brief, inexpensive, and equipped with coaching that aids student
completion. The skills conveyed are in demand, so the nano-degree can readily lead to
employment – primarily with the partner firm…for students seeking an occupational

10. 10
credential and for firms seeking workers with specific skills the nano-degree may be a
better fit than the college pathway. (p. 97).
AT&T and Google have partnered with Udacity to establish nano-degree credential
employment pathways. More employers are expected to do the same (Porter, 2014). Nano-
degrees are an affordable option for people who are looking for employment skills, but even in
the nano-degree tracks, the drop-out rate is still high, especially amount populations without a
college degree. The nano-degree purports to provide entry-level job training, but students who
are completing MOOCs are college educated and want to acquire new job skills. They tend not
to be entry-level workers or recent high school graduates. Students without a college degree need
the motivation and guidance that on-campus traditional classes provide (Eriksson, Adawi, &
Stohr, 2017; Porter 2014; Waks, 2014).
Coursera. MOOC provider Coursera began offering the Specializations program in
January 2014 that are essentially learning certificates (Lewin, 2013; Waks, 2014). The program
comprises of classes on a single topic that are sequenced for the learner to master a skill (Waks,
2016). The Specializations are primarily in business, computer science, and data science
(Marinova, 2015; Meister, 2013). Coursera has academic partnerships with top universities,
including ivy league schools (Staumsheim, 2015; Waks, 2016). Coursera has also partnered with
Google, Instagram, Shazam, Snapdeal and other 500 Startups. These employers will judge the
learner created capstone projects (in the Specializations programs) and give students a chance to
learn from top employers. This allows companies a platform to recruit the best talent in the
specializations (Lardinois, 2015). Coursera does not provide data on job placement after
completing a specialization. A study conducted by Cousera, University of Pennsylvania, and the
University of Washington:

11. 11
surveyed 52,000 people who completed its courses. Of those who responded72%
took online classes to advance their careers. And 87% of that group reported that they
experienced some kind of career benefit from taking those courses, including feeling
better quipped for a current job or improved candidacy for a new job; 33% reported
tangible career benefits including a pay raise, promotion, a new job, or starting a new
business. (Marivona, 2015, para. 2).
Coursera self-reports that their program Coursera for Business is, “. . . helping companies
worldwide by arming their workforce with the in-demand skills of tomorrow,” (Coursera, 2017
para. 1). They have publicly acknowledged that they are working with large corporations:
PayPal, Axis Bang, Ingram, VIP kid, BCG, Telenor and Loreal (Coursera, 2017; Straumshim,
2016). Details including completion rate, measured learning, and skills achieved from corporate
MOOCs are currently available.
For teacher professional development Coursera has partnered with Arizona State
University to provide MOOCs for teacher continuing education. Romualdo Mabuan, in his work
Confessions of a MOOCer, conducted an autoethnographic inquiry for the Coursera and Arizona
State University MOOC Teach English Now! to reveal participants, “…personal experience in
participating in and completing Teach English Now! As a form of their teacher professional
development,” (Mabuan, 2017, p. 4). The participants used the following to create and analyze
their personal narratives: personal journals, chat messages, MOOC discussion forum posts,
MOOC peer feedback, ASU expert comments, and dyadic discussion from April through
December 2016. The Teach English Now! program comprised of eight classes. Analysis of the
participant’s reflections found that the MOOC online education was as engaging and meaningful
as traditional on line and in person classes. Mauban found that the participant’s experience in the

12. 12
teacher training and development course contradicts findings that suggest that MOOC training
and development coursers are not high quality and intellectually superficial. (Mabuan, 2017).
Employers believe that many job seekers, including college graduates from traditional
universities, are not prepared with the skills needed for the available jobs (Banks & Meinert,
2016). Specialized MOOCs could bridge that gap. Google and Apple have created their own
course platforms for training and development (Hollands, & Tirthali, 2014) and it’s expected that
in the future more employers will either create their own or turn to MOOC providers to for
learning and development (Dodson, Kitburi, and Berge, 2015; Savino, 2014).
MOOCs for Job Seekers
As corporations are beginning to turn to MOOC providers for training and development
and as a tool for recruitment, how are MOOC credentials helping job seekers find employment?
The Radford et al study The Employer Potential of MOOCs indicates that although most
employers who had heard of MOOCs view MOOCs favorably, most employers had not heard of
MOOCs, so it is unclear whether completing a MOOC translates to employment opportunities
for job seekers (2014). Of the human resource professionals who had heard of MOOCs,
explained that they had, “. . . researched these because of either management inquiries about
using them to save costs within the company or through other employees who were undertaking
MOOCs,” (Banks & Meinert, 2016, p. 216). They had not researched MOOCs as a guideline for
recruitment (Banks & Meinert, 2016). The main issue of employer acceptability is whether the
credentials and certificates are credible and can be taken seriously by employers (Banks and
Meinert, 2016; Radford et.al, 2014). Interpreting a MOOC on a resume or job application is
challenging for recruiters because there are no established values to help hiring professionals
understand the merit of the credential a job seeker earned (Krumrie, 2014).

13. 13
Although there is not enough evidence to support whether employers will accept a
MOOC credential as readily as traditional college degree or credential, learners continue to
enroll in MOOCs for employment related career training. Particularly in the technology sector,
the value is not placed on the degree acquired or certificate obtained, but instead on the skills
acquired. (Banks & Meinert, 2016; Krumrie, 2014). Portfolios or coursework that demonstrates
an applicant’s abilities are preferred over a general degree or certificate in a broad subject (Banks
& Meinert, 2016). In the Udacity nano-degree programs and the Coursera Specialization
credentials, students, over the duration of their program, build portfolios that demonstrate
acquired skills that could aid in finding employment (Banks & Meinert, 2016; Lardinois 2015;
Porter, 2014). In the 2015 study of Coursers MOOC finishers, researchers found that 52% of the
51, 954 respondents took MOOC courses to improve their career options, and a third of those
reported finding a new job or receiving a promotion as a result (Zheng, et al., 2015).
The completion rate for MOOCs is less than 10 percent (Shrader, Owens, & Santa Ana,
2016). With a completion rate so low, are MOOCs an appropriate platform for job seekers who
want to update their skills? Are participants dropping out of MOOCs because of the platform,
personal characteristics, or other reason? In the study Time is a Bottleneck, researchers analyzed
what led learners to drop out. Based on in-depth phone interviews with 34 interviewers the
researchers found that there were four main factors that led to participants dropping out:
perception of course content, perception of course design, learner’s personal social situation and
characteristics, and the learners ability to mange their time. Lack of time was the biggest
influence for why a student chose to drop out of a MOOC course (Eriksson, Adawi, and Shohr,
2016).

14. 14
Additionally, students drop out because of a lack of peer motivation. In the 2016 study
From Massive Access to Cooperation researchers found that of the 9000 students enrolled in the
MOOCs study, about half dropped out before the first module. After the first module, students
who participated in the class were twice as likely to stay in the class if there was an outside
social influence, such as an in person meet-up for the MOOC class (Fidgalo-Blanco, Sein-
Echaluce, & Garcial-Penalvo, 2016). Job seekers could be more likely to finish a MOOC
credential if they were participating with peers in their field.
MOOC provider Udacity claims that nano-degree graduates are guaranteed employment
within six months of completing their program or they will have their tuition refunded (Fain,
2016). Udacity claims a ninety-nine percent job placement rate for graduates in 2015 who were
seeking employment (Fain, 2016), and that includes 20 workers at Google (Lohr, 2016).
Approximately 11,000 students have enrolled in one of Udacity’s nano-degree programs that are
fee based, and 1000 have graduated (Fain, 2016). It helps Udacity’s ability to place technology
credentialed graduates because lot of technology companies are struggling to fill engineer jobs.
The U.S. Department of labor projects that about a million programming jobs will remain
unfilled by 2020, and there will only be 400,000 graduates of computer science to fill those jobs
(Lohr, 2016). Udacity’s money back guarantee for tuition for nano-degrees leaves some
unanswered questions. What is the average starting salary range? Are applicants required to
relocate, and if not, are they not counted as looking for work in their employment guarantee
numbers? What are the demographics of their graduates? A New York Times article about
Udacity’s job training placement features an interview covering a young adult (Miraj
Hassanpur), whose highest level of education was a high school diploma, he worked at
McDonalds, and was living with his father when he enrolled at Udacity. Within a few months of

15. 15
graduating, Hassanpur found employment that allowed him to move out of his father’s house in
San Diego, California (Lohr, 2016). Hassanpur’s success makes for a hopeful feature story, but
is Hassanpur a typical nano-degree graduate? Or is his outlier narrative being used to sell the
Udacity nano-degree program? MOOCs could be the answer for the growing need for computer
programmers, but they might not be the best platform for every job sector.
Conclusion
MOOCs were started to democratize education for learners around the world. Non-profit
MOOCs for personal interest are still being created and utilized, however the main for-profit
MOOC providers, Coursera and Udacity, are increasingly shifting their focus toward credentials
for job seekers, professional development, and corporate training. At their inception, MOOCs
appeared to provide learning opportunities to anyone, regardless of background, if they had
access to the Internet. Anyone can still access MOOC courses, but to potentially benefit from a
MOOC credential or degree, applicants still must pay fees for the credentials, or meet the
admissions requirements for the MOOC degree programs. As MOOCs providers move toward
fee and admissions based credentials should they still be called MOOCs? Are MOOC degrees
and credentials truly open with fee and admissions requirements?
MOOCs continue to have an enormously high drop out rate at about 90 percent of
students who enroll (Shrader, Wu, Owens, & Santa Ana, 2016). The students who complete
MOOCs are primarily men, who have already earned at least a bachelor’s degree, and who live
in a household with an income at least 10k higher than the national average (Hansen & Reich,
2015). Community colleges have partnered with MOOCs, but have not had success (Waks,
2016). When Udacity partnered with San Jose college, more than half of the students who
completed the five introductory courses failed (Oremus, 2013). Shana Jaggars, Assistant Director

16. 16
at the Community College Research Center Teacher College Columbia University cautions that,
“ . . . to benefit from MOOCs, student must have relevant background knowledge and specific
interest in the subject; be self-directed, and strongly motivated to learn/ and have strong skills in
time management, metacognition, and information literacy,” (Hollands, & Tirthali, 2014, p.55)
Jaggars further cautions that only a small portion of community college students have those
skills. Most community college students require, “ . . . more structure, guidance and
encouragement that in currently provided from MOOCs,” (Hollands, & Tirthali, 2014, p.55).
Unless the job seekers without higher education are extremely motivated, there is no evidence
that MOOCs are an appropriate learning platform for community college level students and job
seekers.
MOOCs for employment purposes are just beginning, but they are not yet mainstream (Porter,
2013). Employers continue to have concerns about the validity of MOOCs and it is not clear to
higher managers who are unfamiliar with MOOCs (and only 30 percent of MOOCs are familiar)
how to evaluate MOOC credentials on a resume (Eriksson, Adawi, and Shohr, 2016). Initiatives
from MOOC providers, such as Coursera and Udacity, are encouraging partnerships with elite
universities on their platforms, and employers are in the beginning stages of implementing
MOOCs as an added employee perk for continuing education or for corporate training for current
employees. The MOOCs used for corporate training are either existing credential tracks or
private proprietary training the company developed alone or in conjunction with a MOOC
provider. Current research shows that MOOCs would be best used for corporate training and
development if the employees already held at least a bachelor’s degree.
Whether employers will accept MOOC credentials with the same weight as college
degrees and training programs is unknown until there is further research. Another issue that

17. 17
needs further research is the gender gap in MOOCs. MOOCs are primarily taught by men (Paul,
2014). Students who enroll in and complete MOOCs are mostly men, and most alarmingly the
students who were admitted to Georgia Tech’s Master of Computer Science were 90 percent
men, compared to 76 percent of students on campus. (Sraumsheim, 2016; 2013).

18. 18
References
Banks, C., & Meinert, E. (2016). The Acceptability of MOOC Certificates in the Workplace.
International Conference of e-Learning. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571496.pdf
Bayeck, R. Y. (2016). Exploratory study of the MOOC learners’ demographics and motivation:
the case of students involved in groups. Open Praxis, 8(3). 223-233. Retrieved from
https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/282-1432-2-PB.pdf
Chafkin, M. (2013, November 14). Udactiy’s Sebastian Thrun, Godfather of Free Online
Education, Changes Course. Fast Company. Retrieved from
https://www.fastcompany.com/3021473/udacity-sebastian-thrun-uphill-climb
Coursera. (2017). Coursera for Business. Retrieved from https://www.coursera.org/enterprise
Dodson, M.N, Kitburi, K., & Berge, Z.L. (2015). Possibilities for MOOCs in Corporate Training
and Development. Performance Improvement, 54(10), 14-20.
Daniel, J. (2012). Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and
Possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved from
http://jime.open.ac.uk/2012/18
Eriksson, T., Adawi,T., & Stöhr, C. (2016). “Time is a bottleneck”: a qualitative study exploring
why learners drop out of MOOCs. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 29, 133-
146.

19. 19
Fain, P. (2016, November 29). Risky Gimmick or Risk Sharing? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/11/29/udacity-and-boot-camps-offer-
money-back-guarantees-job-placement
Fidgalo-Blanco, A., Sien-Echaluce, M.L. & Garcia-Penalvo, F.J. (2016). From massive access to
cooperation: lessons learned and proven results of a hybrid xMOOC/cMooc pedagogical
approach to MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41239-016-0024-z
Frey, S. (2013, July 9). Online Course experiment between Udacity, San Jose State falls short.
Ed Source. Retrieved from https://edsource.org/2013/online-course-experiment-between-
udacity-san-jose-state-university-falls-short/36321#.Ui4SMGSkdml
Hansen, J.D., & Reich, J. (2015) Democratizing education? Examining Access and usage
Patterns in massive open online courses. Science 350 (6265).
Hollands, F.M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and Reality. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED547237.pdf
Johnson, D.H. (2013). Teaching a “mooc:” Experiences from the front line. IEEE Digital Signal
Processing and Signal Processing Education Meeting. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261072966_Teaching_a_mooc_Experiences_fr
om_the_front_line
Krumrie, M. (2014). Should Employers Take Massive Open Online Courses Seriously?
ZipRecruiter. Retrieved from https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/do-employers-take-
massive-open-online-courses-seriously/

20. 20
Kolowich, S. (2013, July 8). A University’s Offer of Credit for a MOOC Gets No Takers. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-
Universitys-Offer-of-Credit/140131
Liyanagunawardena, T.R. Adams, A.A., and Williams, S.A. (2013). MOOCs: Astematic Study
of the Published Literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning 14 (3).
Lardinois, F. (2015, February 11). Coursera Partners with Google, Instagram, 500 Starups and
Others on Students’ Capstone Projects. Tech Crunch. Retrieved from
https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/11/coursera-partners-with-google-instagram-500-
startups-and-others-on-students-capstone-projects/
Lewin, T. (2013, December 10). After Setbacks, Online Courses are Rethought. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/11/us/after-setbacks-online-
courses-are-rethought.html
Lewin, T. (2015, April 22). Promising Full College Credit, Arizona State University Offers
Online Freshman Program. The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/us/arizona-state-university-to-offer-online-
freshman-academy.html
Lewin, T. (2013, Aug. 7). Master’s Degree is New Frontier of Study Online. The New York Tims
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/education/masters-degree-is-new-
frontier-of-study-online.html
Lohr, S. (2016, November 17). Udacity, an Online Learning Start-up, Offers Tech Job Trials.
The New York Times. Retrieved from

21. 21
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/technology/udacity-an-online-learning-start-up-
offers-tech-job-trials.html
Marques, J. (2013, April 17). A Short History of MOOCs and Distance Learning. MOOC News
and Reviews. Retrieved from http://moocnewsandreviews.com/a-short-history-of-moocs-
and-distance-learning/
Martin_Guiterrez, J. (2015). Transversal Skills and MOOCs: A Good Partnership to Improve
Employment Opportunities. Universidad de La Laguna. Retrieved from
http://www.kadis.si/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Transversal-Skills-and-MOOCs-A-
Good-Partnership-to-Improve.pdf
Marinova, P. (2015, Sept 22). Do online courses deliver any career benefits? Coursera certainly
things so. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/09/22/coursera-career-
benefits/
Mabuan, R. (2017). Confessions of a MOOCer: An authoethnographic Inquiry on Online
Distance Education. Lyceum of the Philippine University. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320226041_Confessions_of_a_MOOCer_An_
Autoethnographic_Inquiry_on_Online_Distance_Education
Meister, J. (2013, August 13). How MOOCs Will Revolutionize Corporate Learning and
Development. Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeannemeister/2013/08/13/how-moocs-will-revolutionize-
corporate-learning-development/#54efcf611255

22. 22
Nielson, B. (2014, March 6). 2014: The Year of the Corporate MOOC? Your Training Edge.
Retrieved from: http://www.yourtrainingedge.com/2014-the-year-of-the-corporate-mooc/
Online Course Report. (2017). State of the MOOC 2017: A Year of Privatized and Open
Education Growth. Online course Report. Retrieved from
https://www.onlinecoursereport.com/state-of-the-mooc-report/
Oremus, W. (2013, July 19). University Suspends Online Classes After More Than Half the
Students fail. Slate. Retrieved from
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/07/19/san_jose_state_suspends_udacity_o
nline_classes_after_students_fail_final.html
Parr, C. (2013, May 10). Not Staying the Course. Inside Higher ED. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/10/new-study-low-mooc-completion-
rates
Paul, A. (2014, September 10). The MOOC Gender Gap. Slate. Retrieved from
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/09/mooc_gender_gap_how_t
o_get_more_women_into_online_stem_classes.html
Pappas, C. (2013, February 5). The History of Distance Learning Infographic. ELearning
Industry. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/the-history-of-distance-learning-
infographic/
Porter, E. (2014, June 18). A Smart Way to Skip College in Pursuit of a Job. The New York
Times https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/business/economy/udacity-att-nanodegree-
offers-an-entry-level-approach-to-college.html

23. 23
Pappano, L. (2012, November 2). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-
are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html?mcubz=1
Radford, A.W., Robles, J., Cataylo, S., Horn, L., Thornton, J., & Whitfield, K., (2014). The
Employer Potential of MOOCs: A Mixed-Methods Study of Human Resource
Professional’s Thinking on MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 15(5), 1-25.
Rivard, Ry. (2013, July 18). Udacity Project on Pause. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/18/citing-disappointing-student-
outcomes-san-jose-state-pauses-work-udacity
Savino, D.M. (2014). The Impact of MOOCs on Human Resource Training and Development.
Journal of Higher Education and Theory, 14(5), 59-64.
Shrader, S., Wu, M., Owens, D., & Santa Ana, K. (2016). Massive Open Online Courses
(MOOCs): Participant Activity, Demographics, and Satisfaction. Online Learning, 20(5).
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maryalice_Wu/publication/304379714_Massive_Op
en_Online_Courses_MOOCs_Participant_Activity_Demographics_and_Satisfaction/link
s/576d5eb908ae0b3a3b7550b6/Massive-Open-Online-Courses-MOOCs-Participant-
Activity-Demographics-and-Satisfaction.pdf
Straushei,, C. (2017, Jan. 12). Georgia Tech’s Model Expands. Inside Higher Ed
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/12/georgia-tech-launches-second-low-
cost-online-masters-degree-program

24. 24
Straumsheim Carl. (2015, February 12). Specializations, Specialized, Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/02/12/coursera-adds-
corporate-partners-massive-open-online-course-sequences
Straumsheim C. (2015, Dec 21). Less than 1 %. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/12/21/323-learners-eligible-credit-moocs-
arizona-state-u
Strumsheim, C. (2016, April 27). Georgia Tech’s Next Steps. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/27/georgia-tech-plans-next-steps-online-
masters-degree-computer-science
Staumsheim, C. (2017, January 12). Georgia Tech’s Model Expands. Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/12/georgia-tech-launches-
second-low-cost-online-masters-degree-program
Walker, R. (2017, October 4). With Abysmal completion rates, colleges move to improve
approach to MOOCs. Edscoop. Retrieved from http://edscoop.com/massive-open-online-
courses-move-to-improve-completion-rates
Waks, L.J. (2016). The Evolution and Evaluation of Massive Open Online Courses. Springer.
New York, NY.
Weiss, R. P. (2013, January 21). Hot Topic: MOOCs, Are they Right for Corporate L & D?
Association for Talent and Development. Retrieved from
https://www.td.org/Publications/Newsletters/LX-Briefing/LXB-Archives/2013/01/Hot-
Topic-Moocs-Are-They-Right-for-Corporate-LD

25. 25
Zheng, S. Rosson, M.B., Shih, P.C., & Carroll, J.M. (2015). Understanding Student Motivation,
behaviors and Perceptions in MOOCs. Conference on Computer Supportive Cooperative
Work & Social Computing. Retrieved from https://hci.ist.psu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/6/2014/11/CSCW-MOOCs-Zheng-et-al-Carmera-Ready.pdf