1

MA in Education – Dissertation on Education

Open online courses for global learning:

opportunities, challenges, and design strategies

Word count: 19269

This dissertation may be made available to the general public for borrowing, photocopying or
consultation without the prior consent of the author.
 2

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my thanks and acknowledge the assistance of the following people:
Tom, for listening to my rambling, hugging, and feeding me, my tutor, Dr Mary Fargher, for
the support and encouragement provided throughout the process, Eileen for the invaluable
discussions in which to hone ideas, Kat for helping me to concentrate, and Leo and Fi for
offering helpful feedback.
Although my dear dog, Colin, did his utmost to distract me, he was nevertheless of great
comfort during very early mornings and late nights at my computer.

Table of contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ 2

Table of contents ................................................................................................................ 2

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Background and context.................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Research objective and questions ................................................................................... 6

1.3 Researcher context ......................................................................................................... 7

1.4 Structure of the dissertation ............................................................................................ 7

Chapter 2: Literature review ............................................................................................... 9

2.1 MOOCs, SPOCs, and other forms of open online learning .............................................. 9

2.2 The position and reach of open online courses ............................................................. 13

2.3 Open online courses as a tool for global learning .......................................................... 20

2.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 24

Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................... 27

3.1 Study objective and research questions ........................................................................ 27

3.2 Research paradigm ....................................................................................................... 27

3.3 Study context ................................................................................................................ 28

3.4 Data collection and analysis methods ........................................................................... 31

 3

3.5 Ethics ............................................................................................................................ 36

3.6 Quality........................................................................................................................... 36

3.7 Limitations of present research ..................................................................................... 38

Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion ............................................................................... 39

4.1 Course profiles .............................................................................................................. 39

4.2 What opportunities do educators think open online courses offer global learners? ........ 42

4.3 What do educators see as the primary challenges to delivering open online courses to
global learners? .................................................................................................................. 48

4.4 What strategies are being used to promote global learners’ engagement with open online
courses? ............................................................................................................................. 54

Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations ............................................................... 60

5.1 Summary of findings ..................................................................................................... 61

5.2 Recommendations for developers of open online courses ............................................ 64

5.3 Future research ............................................................................................................. 65

References ........................................................................................................................ 66

Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 75

Appendix A: Dissertation proposal ...................................................................................... 75

Appendix B: Initial approach to FutureLearn institutional partner contacts........................... 79

Appendix C: Research participant consent form.................................................................. 80

Appendix D: Interview schedule .......................................................................................... 82

Appendix E: Sample interview transcription extract ............................................................. 83

Appendix F: Geographic distribution of courses .................................................................. 84

Appendix G: Data analysis mindmaps................................................................................. 86

 4

Abstract

When open online courses first appeared within the broader educational landscape there

was much discussion surrounding their potential to widen access to higher education

internationally and notably among developing communities. However, as the course format

has matured it has become clear that the issue is far more complex than simple availability,

requiring more considered analysis to better understand problems and develop the kinds of

learning design approaches that could offer both technical and cultural inclusivity. This

qualitative study looked to explore these issues, conducting semi-structured interviews with

educational professionals who were not only engaged in open online course development

but had produced courses that had attracted a significant proportion of their learners from

developing and low-resource settings. Inductive thematic analysis of the data revealed that

while it is thought that the key traits of the format could offer flexibility and rich educational

experiences to learners in these settings, educators face many difficulties in catering to

diverse and often unknown audiences. There are nevertheless a range of attitudes and

pedagogic stances that could be adopted to address, if not entirely solve, issues of cross-

cultural relevance within courses. Based on these findings it is recommended that those who

wish to develop courses that are both accessible and offer positive learning experiences for

global learners should adopt a reflexive stance within the design process. This involves

active acknowledgement of the benefits and drawbacks of the format, but furthermore

requires the learning designer to engage with the principles of openness from technical,

cultural, and pedagogic perspectives.

 5

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background and context

The body of research surrounding the Massive Open Online Course, or MOOC, has grown

rapidly since 2012. While motivations for delivering the courses differ significantly from one

institution to another, a key attraction for educators and researchers alike is the enormous

amount of data made available by the learner analytics facilities intrinsic to each MOOC

platform. The first wave of MOOC research made heavy use of these data and was closely

tied to what is investigated in the context of traditional academic delivery, primarily exploring

the links between demographic variables and learning outcomes such as the rate of course

completion. However, as the format matures and diversifies, different types of course that

utilise some, but perhaps not all, of the original facets of the MOOC mode of delivery are

becoming available, including small, private online courses (SPOCs) and courses with a

stronger focus on formal yet innovative accreditation methods. As a result, the range of

evidence is also expanding, with studies that consider the broader pedagogic influence and

effects of the format and experiences of learners becoming more prominent. Researchers

are now looking to appraise more complex issues such as learner motivation and

engagement, pedagogic design patterns, and the function and sustainability of scaled

learning opportunities.

The first MOOCs, delivered on now well-established platforms, were met with considerable

attention from the international press, with The New York Times declaring 2012 ‘the year of

the MOOC’ (Lewin, 2012). A key focus of this attention was the format’s proposed capacity

to bring the best of higher education to disadvantaged communities around the world, for

free and without constraint (Koller, 2012; Lewin, 2012; Kanani, 2013). However, consequent

analyses (Christensen, et al., 2013; Ho, et al., 2014) demonstrated that such claims were not

immediately realised, while reviews of the literature and studies from developing countries’

perspectives (Liyanagunawardena, 2013b; Nkuyubwatsi, 2016) found that prospective

learners faced wide-ranging difficulties in their engagement with courses. Educational

 6

researchers have now sought to interrogate the premise and possibility of the original claims,

and often from a postcolonial critical perspective (Czerniewicz & Naidoo, 2013; Bali &

Sharma, 2017; Rambe & Moeti, 2017). Some projects (Balaji & Kanwar, 2015; Kepler, 2016)

have examined alternative approaches to delivery and promotion of cross-cultural relevance

using existing courses, but there is little guidance available to those who are developing

courses and wish to promote inclusivity across diverse international contexts, to whatever

degree that it is possible to do so.

1.2 Research objective and questions

The overarching purpose of the study is to explore the position and potential of open online

courses as a global learning opportunity by gathering data from educators who have been

actively involved in their development and delivery. With this aim in mind, the research

participants are drawn on the basis of their courses having attracted learner audiences with

stronger representation across diverse international and in low-resource contexts than is

typically seen in prior analyses. The study will explore the issue using three research

questions:

- What opportunities do educators think open online courses offer global learners?

- What do educators see as the primary challenges to delivering open online courses

to global learners?

- What strategies are being used to promote global learners’ engagement with open

online courses?

The research is guided by an interpretivist paradigm and will formulate its arguments through

an explorative and inductive analysis of the data collected, detail of which is provided in the

Methodology section. Through this approach the study aims to provide those tasked with

development of open online courses with an understanding of the opportunities that they can

offer globally-diverse learners and the challenges that may be present within their

development. However, it also intends to offer practical insight into the attitudes and
 7

strategies that can be adopted in order to mitigate those same issues and promote

engagement across varied international settings.

1.3 Researcher context

Due to the interpretivist research paradigm employed to guide the study and inductive

approach to data analysis, detail of which is provided in chapter three, a reflexive position is

taken throughout the research process. It is therefore important to disclose the interests and

professional experience of the researcher prior to the review and analytical chapters of the

dissertation.

The researcher has to date led the open online course provision of two separate higher

education institutions in the UK, both in partnership with FutureLearn. The first was a

research-intensive, postgraduate institution with specialist focus on global and public health,

while the second organisation, with whom they are currently employed, is a large and

similarly research-focused institution with a broad, multidisciplinary undergraduate and

postgraduate provision. In total, they have overseen the delivery of 17 distinct open online

courses. This has involved varying levels of hands-on engagement, but with guidance and

support provided across the development cycle, spanning learning design, content

development, project management, and evaluation. They have furthermore given

presentations regarding the development process and in relation to institutional research

projects at educational conferences. The researcher has a professional link to one course

involved in the study and its participants (Course 1; C1P1 and C1P2) but has no prior

relationship with any others beyond simultaneous membership of the FutureLearn

partnership network.

1.4 Structure of the dissertation

The dissertation is structured as five chapters. The first introduces the study, outlining the

background and context to the research topic, the research aims and questions, the

researcher’s context, and the structure that is subsequently followed throughout.

 8

Chapter two organises a review of the literature that focuses on three areas of existing open

online course research: definitions of the diverse forms of courses available and the

conceptual models which underpin them; the position and reach of courses in the sense of

their openness, evidence of populations served, and potential utility as an educational tool;

and the reality of their use in the context of global learning, notably in low-resource or

developing settings.

Chapter three concerns the guiding methodology and detail of the research methods

employed to inform responses to the research questions, spanning the sampling methods,

courses, and participants, data collection tools, and analytical approach. The chapter

furthermore identifies the study’s position on research quality through credibility and

transferability of its findings, its ethical considerations, and potential limitations.

As a qualitative study, chapter four combines the research findings and discussion. The

chapter begins with short profiles of the courses selected, highlighting their subject matter,

target audience, and the geographic spread of learners. The remainder is organised

according to the study’s three research questions and the emergent themes contained within

each, using illustrative citations and comparisons with existing literature to develop

arguments.

Chapter five offers a conclusion to the research project, drawing together an overall

summary of the findings and arguments, its key recommendations, and opportunities for

future research.
 9

Chapter 2: Literature review

This literature review will delineate the types of open online course that have gained

prominence in recent years, their current position, reach, and some applications as a form of

educational delivery, and their potential utility in the context of global learning.

2.1 MOOCs, SPOCs, and other forms of open online learning

2.1.1 Defining MOOCs

Massive open online courses have likely been the most discussed form of educational

delivery in recent times, being described by many as a disruptive innovation (Bower &

Christensen, 1995) with the potential to transform higher education (Koller, 2012; Watters,

2012; Barber, Donnelly, & Rizvi, 2013; Yuan & Powell, 2014). Amidst the initial hype

surrounding MOOCs (Lewin, 2012), the desire to produce the courses intensified with

tremendous pace (Shah, 2013). Although press interest has since cooled, institutional

development remains strong and growth continues: more than 800 universities have now

produced approximately 9400 MOOCs with in excess of 81m learners worldwide (Class

Central, 2017).

MOOCs are online courses that are typically delivered to large numbers of learners, free to

study, and don’t make use of formal entry requirements. They are most often made available

as part of a collaboration between a private MOOC platform provider, such as Coursera,

EdX, or FutureLearn, and a higher education or learning institution. Courses are typically

designed using familiar pedagogic patterns seen in online learning (Daradoumis, et al.,

2013; Glance, Forsey, & Riley, 2013; Bali, 2014), being comprised of simple but flexible

forms of content delivery through text, video, audio, and downloadable supplementary

material. They are frequently delivered to a chronologically-bound cohort of learners, with

discursive, social learning activities being either contextualised with content or forming

standalone tasks. Formative assessment activities are ordinarily automated through tools

such as multiple choice quizzes comprising instantaneous feedback, while more extensive
 10

and occasionally summative assignments are commonly peer-reviewed. While these

enduring models of open online course delivery are not suitable for all disciplines and do not

strictly represent cutting edge practice in learning design, they are nonetheless “accessible,

flexible, and scalable to large volumes of diverse students” (UUK, 2013: 15).

Where MOOCs differ from more traditional academic programmes is in their functional

features of openness. The degree to which MOOCs can truly be termed part of the open

education movement has been much debated (Anderson, 2013; Rodriguez, 2013; Weller,

2014) and will be discussed in greater conceptual detail in a later section, but this openness

can be defined in several different ways. One is a general lack of entry requirements or

prerequisites, meaning that very broad potential audiences of learners from across the world

are free to enrol on them without academic restriction (McAuley, et al., 2010; Yuan & Powell,

2014). They also operate at scale, meaning that enrolment numbers on individual course

runs are usually unlimited. Another matter is cost, in that although there are now frequently

paid additions to courses there remains no upfront fee to initially access and study them.

Courses are additionally more flexible than traditional programmes when it comes to length;

most are between two and eight weeks long (Jordan, 2014). Finally, their value or the

qualification that they yield is also open to interpretation. Originally all courses were non

credit-bearing, but there is now greater diversity of awards available as a potential outcome

of participation and assessment.

2.1.2 SPOCs and microcredentials

The ‘massive’ aspect of MOOCs was originally presented as a key driver for developing and

delivering such courses, drawing the attention of millions to previously unseen material,

engaging with the principles of open education, and scaling up access to higher education

(Daniel, 2012; Guo & Reinecke, 2014; Yuan, Powell, & Olivier, 2014). However, the sheer

size of cohorts in earlier MOOCs, where the average enrolment held at around 43,000

learners (Jordan, 2014) and learner numbers sometimes reached into the hundreds of
 11

thousands (FutureLearn, 2015) has now been discussed as both an advantage of and

hindrance to their success (Hill & Waters, 2014). As early as 2013, Professor Robert Lue of

Harvard University, co-creator of the EdX platform alongside MIT, suggested higher

education was already in a “post-MOOC” era (cited in: Coughlan, 2013 for BBC News), but

that aspects of the format could be retained to promote stronger engagement from learners.

On that basis, SPOCs, or small private online courses, are now growing in stature as a form

of open online course delivery. While they are generally free and delivered online, these

courses have an enrolment limit, enabling a more customised, and in some cases facilitated,

online learning experience.

The concept of accreditation through microcredentials, now often delivered via participation

in MOOCs or SPOCs, remains in its infancy. Originating as a digital form of the physical

badges awarded by various organisations across the world, digital badges began to gain

traction upon The Mozilla Foundation’s initiation of the Open Badge standard (2011). MOOC

platform providers have since seized upon the idea, offering non credit-bearing certificates of

participation or achievement from their aligned university partners. The approach is now

expanding into the credit-bearing context, with ‘stackable’ credentials (Gazi, 2016) such as

nano degrees (Udacity, 2018) or MicroMasters programmes (EdX, 2018) from various higher

education providers acting as both independent qualifications and flexible, atomised routes

into more expansive and traditional online or on-campus academic programmes. The term

thus represents a range of separate educational and technological ideas, contributing to

what is proposed as an ‘unbundling’ of the traditional higher education accreditation

landscape (Watters, 2012). The principle that unites the often nebulous implementation is

that micro-credentials are awarded upon completion of tiny educational modules through

which learners demonstrate their knowledge of and abilities in a small number of

competencies.
 12

2.1.3 Conceptual models of development

MOOCs were originally categorised by Downes (2012) as one of two distinct forms: the

‘cMOOC’ and the ‘xMOOC’. The former has its roots in the educational theory of

connectivism (Downes, 2005; Siemens, 2005), emphasising “learner autonomy, peer-to-peer

learning, and social networking” (Butcher, Hoosen & Mawoyo, 2015: 12) within a distributed,

student-centred learning model that may use multiple learning technology tools and online

pedagogic approaches. The latter, meanwhile, is now the dominant form and bears closer

resemblance to traditional academic delivery in which a tutor-centred, one-to-many model is

employed in order to reach large numbers of learners and predominantly via a single course

learning environment (Rodriguez, 2013; Butcher, Hoosen & Mawoyo, 2015). However, while

these two terms shed light on the historic and early pedagogic underpinning of what might

have been distinct forms of delivery, it is now suggested that the dichotomy is mostly

superficial and overly simplistic (Conole, 2013; Czerniewicz, et al., 2014; Yuan, Powell, &

Olivier, 2014). Indeed, the growing complexity of the open online course offering, with higher

education institutions’ multifarious rationale for delivering such learning opportunities and the

increasingly diverse forms available, spanning MOOCs, SPOCs, and microcredentialing

approaches, calls for alternative and more nuanced categorisation of what can and is being

produced.

Some authors, such as Grover, et al. (2013) and DeBoer, et al. (2014) indicate that current

discussions about the effectiveness of open online courses are based on assumptions of

previous learning environments and that there is a need to reframe the discussions and re-

conceptualise them. As such, researchers have now sought to better categorise MOOC

design and delivery as a means of more competently theorising their position and

contribution to pedagogy in the online learning space. Hollands & Tirthali (2014) frame their

categorisations in the context of an institution’s aims for developing, delivering, and/or using

MOOCs, with goals including extending reach and access, building and maintaining brand,

improving economics, improving educational outcomes, innovation, and research on

 13

teaching and learning. Czerniewicz, et al. (2014) are conscious of learners in developing

contexts being underserved by courses from overseas institutions while those more local to

their region may not yet be able to respond to demand. Their categorisation thus seeks to

clarify the place of MOOCs within the broader online learning ecosystem as a way to

promote effective strategic engagement with their development and address specific local

issues, such as a general lack of developing country input in international MOOC provision

and learning problems that are linked with poor graduation rates. Their five MOOC

categorisations are informed by “institutional rationale, participant interest, and local context”

(Czerniewicz, et al., 2014: 128) and are titled “teaching showcase”, “research showcase”,

“gateway skills (undergraduate)”, “graduate literacies (postgraduate)”, “professional skills”,

and “advocacy”.

2.2 The position and reach of open online courses

2.2.1 Open online courses as part of the open education movement

It is difficult to tightly define the concept of openness in education because it can involve a

very wide range of activities, outputs, policies, pedagogies, and scholarly characteristics. It is

said that scholars engaged with openness may conduct open research, publish in open

access journals, create, use, and contribute to educational resource development, and

comment openly on the work of others whilst building open professional and social networks

(Anderson, 2009). Cronin & MacLaren (2018: 127) further highlight the intricacy of

openness, noting that performance of open scholarly activities can additionally embody the

associated values bound within each task, asking the question, “[is] open education a slogan

or a philosophy, a metaphor, model, or movement?”.

In spite of this complexity and the long history of openness in higher education, in recent

years the progression of open education has begun to converge with other modern and

technologically innovative movements such as open source software and open access

publishing (Kernohan & Thomas, 2012; Weller, 2014). One key aspect and potentially the
 14

greatest focus of the open education movement during this time has been the provision of

open educational resources (OER), with delegates of a UNESCO global forum having

originated the term in 2002. The OECD (2007: 31) later provided a practical definition, as

“digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators, students, and self-learners to

use and reuse for teaching, learning and research”. Although OER have gained recognition

internationally (European Commission, 2011; UNESCO, 2011) and traction as a

demonstrable activity of the open scholar, there have continued to be tensions in the

discussion of their value (Wiley & Hilton, 2009) and whether mere access to information can

be enough to achieve “the goals of universal education and economic prosperity often

promised by the open education movement” (Knox, 2013: 22). Indeed, as indicated by

Havemann (2016: 6), “a resource-focused vision of education can only see pieces of a larger

puzzle.” Improved access to content is undoubtedly a positive step, but it is necessary to

recognise that this cannot be equated with education as a whole, being one part of the

broader movement and not an end in itself. As a result, there are many who now argue that

there must be a shift towards promotion of open educational practices (OEP; Beetham, et

al., 2012; Hegarty, 2015; Andrade, Caine, & Carneiro, 2016) and acknowledgement of the

expansive values, pedagogies, and human efforts that go into making academic practice

more open and transparent (Open Society Institute, 2007; Cronin, 2016).

There are also those who affirm that open online courses are plainly rooted within the open

education agenda and may act as a potential progression of the open educational resource

movement (Daniel, 2012; Nkuyubwatsi, 2016), embodying the ideals of freely shared

knowledge in which a desire to learn should not be limited by social, economic, and

geographical position (Yuan & Powell, 2013). Furthermore, the first courses, predominantly

cMOOCs, represented a strong example of open educational practices in action (Havemann,

2016), having built communities of practice, utilised and produced OER, and having explored

new and innovative pedagogies through the lens of connectivism (McAuley, et al., 2010).

From this perspective, it can undoubtedly be argued that MOOCs form part of educational
 15

provision in such a way that strengthens the position of higher education as a public good

(Laurillard & Kennedy, 2017). However, the extent to which MOOCs are genuinely open has

been much debated (Daniel, 2012; Weller 2014; Alevizou, 2015; Nkuyubwatsi, 2016), with

the vast number of courses available today each occupying different positions in relation to

cost, licensing, entry requirements, and pedagogy, all of which may call into question their

openness. Laurillard & Kennedy (2017) counter their first point by suggesting that

universities could achieve the opposite effect if the private, for profit providers with whom

they are partnered to deliver courses reduce access to high quality material and

accreditation opportunities based on cost.

2.2.2 Populations served by open online courses

Outside of the proposed disruptive impact on higher education and delivery as a means of

effecting institutional change, MOOCs have also been touted as a vehicle by which access

to higher education can be extended to disenfranchised communities or those who might

otherwise lack the opportunity to attend university (Koller, 2012; Lewin, 2012; Kanani, 2014).

Being initially lauded as a way of democratising education through promotion of equity and

global social mobility, it was suggested that they could return to the notion of the university

as a public good at a time when the sector was experiencing a period of intense

marketisation (Lewin, 2012; Dillahunt, Wang, & Teasley, 2014).

However, early analyses of hundreds of thousands of MOOC learners conducted by leading

US colleges (Christensen, et al., 2013; Dillahunt, et al., 2014; Goldwasser, et al., 2014; Ho,

et al., 2014) considered and identified the typical MOOC learner and found something

different. The research demonstrated that while there can be considerable demographic

differences depending on the institution, course discipline, and MOOC platform provider,

those accessing and taking part in MOOCs are, in the main, predominantly male, aged 26 to

30, relatively wealthy, and well-positioned to access higher education, whether online or on

campus (Dillahunt, Chen, & Teasley, 2014; Ho, et al., 2014). Learners are also well
 16

educated, with Christensen, et al. (2013) indicating that 83% of surveyed course participants

reported holding a bachelor’s degree, while 44% had undertaken graduate level study.

Similarly, most are already employed (Dillahunt, Chen, & Teasley, 2014).

There is less participation in countries that are not part of the Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD), but the numbers are not insignificant. The 2014

analysis by Ho, et al. identified that 2.7% of learners were from the world’s least developed

countries (LDCs; United Nations Committee for Development, 2018), but approximately 13%

of learners were from a quickly developing economy, India. Nevertheless, where learners in

developing contexts do engage, the typical profile mirrors that found elsewhere, with

individuals being concentrated in countries, communities, or urban locations with greater

overall affluence or access to higher education (Kolowich, 2013; Koutropoulos, et al., 2013;

Liyanagunawardena, et al., 2013). As such, it is now known that those who were originally

proposed as being the greatest beneficiaries of open online courses, such as those with less

access to formal education through basic opportunity or financial limitation, women, and

older adults, are underrepresented in enrolments (Guo & Reinecke, 2014).

The literature also states that MOOCs are most frequently university-level study

opportunities (Christensen, et al., 2013; Ho, et al., 2014). The argument for MOOCs as an

educational solution for students in contexts with poor higher education coverage persists,

but there are those who argue that such courses ignore educational complexities and

instead serve to increase inequality between population groups by widening the gap

between information rich and poor (Bayne, Knox, & Ross, 2015, Rohs & Ganz, 2015; Bali &

Sharma, 2017). McCowan (2016: 519), for example, speculates that:

“…in resource-constrained countries in which there are problems of quality at

primary and secondary levels, students are unlikely to have the learner

autonomy necessary to navigate and learn effectively from a MOOC.”

 17

This illustrates the challenge for promoting engagement with MOOCs in many parts of the

world. While care may be taken to design and develop a course in such a way that is

cognisant of the practical barriers to access which may exist in a particular setting, it is

significantly more difficult to navigate the greater structural issues that may impinge upon

certain groups’ ability to learn in a new environment like a MOOC. Nevertheless, while

meeting such challenges may be impractical it remains that there are clear supplementary

benefits to open online courses, even if they’re not strictly the ones that were originally

envisaged. Schmid, et al. (2015) argue that democratisation of education isn't just about

make learning accessible to everyone but can also be concerned with catering to different

student needs across the learning continuum. MOOCs may not attract and educate the

same quantities of learners in low- and middle-income settings as they have in high income

contexts, but this doesn’t represent a failure. The now-clumsy proposition of educating the

globally disenfranchised with MOOCs is today underscored with knowledge of what does

work. Authors such as Laurillard (2016), Milligan & Littlejohn (2014), and Nkuyubwatsi

(2016) propose that learning at scale can address educational problems through targeting of

educated professionals, such as teachers or healthcare workers in impoverished or

displacement contexts, offering indirect benefits to the underprivileged people they serve.

2.2.3 Delivering professional development opportunities

Within the literature professional development is treated and theorised along the same lines

as adult learning (Brookfield, 1995; Cranton, 1996), with authors such as King (2002)

arguing that many of the fundamental tenets of adult learning theory, or andragogy, can be

readily applied to the design of continuing professional development (CPD) activities. In a

posthumous edition of Knowles’s seminal text on adult learning, Knowles, Holton, &

Swanson (2015) encapsulate the work of Lindeman (1926) to suggest that: adults’ learning

is driven by a requirement to satisfy personal and professional needs and interests; direct

experience is a rich and possibly the most effective source of their learning; adults need to

be offered learning experiences in which they have the opportunity to be both self-directed
 18

and self-regulated; and that as individuals mature their motivations to learn become more

oriented towards their social roles and functions.

Learning within a CPD context can take many forms, but the varied educational and social

needs described within the literature may affect adults’ subsequent desire and ability to

engage with available opportunities (Cross, 1981). In some cases, CPD may represent

learning as a means of growth and satisfaction in a specialised role, but for others such

activity can also form a systematised obligation (Boud & Hager, 2011) that maintains their

ability to practise in a specific field, for example as in clinical, teaching, or legal professions.

A framework developed by Cross (1981) which outlines the characteristics of adult learners

and the subsequent implications for both their participation in and facilitation of their learning

draws upon two distinct areas of consideration for any activity. The first is the individual’s

personal situation, in which their social or life-related factors are considered in the context of

their ability or motivation to learn, while the second concerns the situational characteristics of

the opportunity itself, including factors such as the time required for study, mode of delivery,

and whether it is a compulsory or optional activity. This diversity of needs and motivations

must not only be recognised but properly addressed through the learning design choices

made and tools employed when developing professional learning opportunities.

It seems apparent that the overarching educational philosophies, pedagogies, and simple

technologies of open online course platforms allow learning designers to address the

requirements of the professional adult learner. Several researchers have proposed that

MOOCs offer solutions to a number of professional education problems and across varied

disciplines, such as collaborative, co-learning opportunities for teachers’ continuing

professional development (Laurillard, 2016) and linking of formal and informal ‘on the job’

learning for healthcare professionals (Milligan & Littlejohn, 2014). The enduring models of

open online course design are generally comprised of asynchronous learning activities with

light touch facilitation that encourages self-directed learning through loosely structured

learning pathways. This means that, much like more established forms of distance learning,
 19

the learner is not constrained by the time and pace of their participation (Carswell &

Venkatesh, 2002; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). Flexibility can also be considered in

the context of course length. As a result of increased and better engagement throughout

their duration, shorter MOOCs now dominate the offering (Jordan, 2014), with this finding

addressing older literature around barriers to adults undertaking further study, including lack

of time and competing commitments.

There is also evidence from industry (Towards Maturity Industry Benchmark Report, 2015;

Bersin by Deloitte, 2016) of online courses, notably MOOCs, continuing to increase in

popularity as a means of delivering professional learning and targeting skills gaps. While

more traditional, face-to-face training continues to be the primary mode of delivery, online

learning has increased its share of the total time spent on professional development every

year since 2009 (Bersin by Deloitte, 2016). Microcredentials are also gaining popularity, with

thinking around their utilisation building on prior research into competency-based learning in

professional or work-based learning contexts. In this sense competency-based education is

often focused on acquisition of professionally-relevant skills, centred around explicit

assessment criteria, and student-centred, with learners being able to set their own pace and

depth of study (Tuxworth 1989; Gonczi, 2000). Although the traditional university degree

continues to confer both a particular social standing and a uniformly understood currency

within the labour market (Brown, Hesketh, & Williams, 2003; Barnett, 2014), there is now

increasing dialogue and commentary regarding the skills gaps that exist between university

graduates and the requirements of their later employers (Barber, Donnelly, & Rizvi, 2013;

YouGov, 2013). Researchers such as Milligan & Kennedy suggest that microcredentials,

which although competency-based are generally devised and backed by universities, may

have greater or clearer utility in the labour market because they “provide more detailed,

specific, and easily communicated information about what learners know and can do” (2017:

51). There remain, however, uncertainties this new form of qualification and they will need to

be subjected to the same quality assessments as traditional academic programmes to

 20

answer questions about their educational standing (QAA, 2014; Commonwealth of Learning,

2016; Will, 2017) and worth to employees and employers (Olsson, 2016).

Open online courses are, for the most part, pitched at adult learners who have achieved a

specific level of education. While work to extend technology-supported learning opportunities

to underserved populations will undoubtedly continue and is explored more in the next

section, what is known about the demographics currently served has led to increased use of

the open online course format for adult learners in professional development contexts. It

seems that industry and educational providers have recognised that the flexibility of the open

online course format and richness of their materials and cohorts can offer professional

development opportunities designed to, but also capable of meeting the needs of, working

learners.

2.3 Open online courses as a tool for global learning

2.3.1 MOOCs in developing contexts

Many countries are technically designated as ‘developing’ on the basis of their rank within

the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Human Development Index (2016).

However, while there are undoubtedly gaps in socio-economic infrastructure, living

conditions, and educational coverage and quality between ‘developing’, ‘in transition’ and

‘developed’ nations (United Nations, 2017), development is not itself a straightforward

continuum or goal to be achieved. Educational researchers including Saheb (2005) and

Gulati (2008) acknowledge that whatever their designation today, all countries can be said to

have rich, detailed histories and educational approaches that hold a fundamental place

within a nation’s society and must be preserved.

With MOOCs, SPOCs, and other forms of open online courses’ ability to democratise

education having been promoted by platform leaders and the press (Koller, 2012; Lewin,

2012; Thrun, 2012), it is important to reflect upon some of the issues that may arise from

Western-led development and delivery of courses (Liyanagunawardena, Adams, & Williams,

 21

2013a; Liyanagunawardena, Williams, & Adams, 2013b). As a form of delivery aligned to the

open education movement the problems of OER are likely to be perpetuated, with Knox

(2013: 25) stating that the:

“dominant discourse of open access has contributed to an over-emphasis on

content at the expense of context…open education initiatives frequently appear

to fetishise knowledge as a consumable object.”

There is indication that the predominant xMOOC format places great emphasis on content

(Daniel, 2012; Daradoumis, et al., 2013, Altbach, 2014; Bali, 2014), and in recognition of this

Bali and Sharma (2017) offer a postcolonial critique on the open online course format using

prior work on curriculum and ideology by Apple (1990). They note that the decisions made

around what content to include or exclude can “perpetuate inequalities and reproduce

dominant ideologies while further disadvantaging the marginalised” (Bali & Sharma, 2017:

30). Furthermore, Czerniewicz & Naidoo (2013) propose that whether materials are openly

licensed or not, open online courses are routinely built around constructs of Western culture

and knowledge, led by Western academics, and delivered on Western-designed, developed,

and funded platforms. It is then possible to contend that MOOCs could be termed an elitist

invention or even neo-colonial educational tools, and several authors in both the Global

North and South have done so (Altbach, 2014; Wildavsky 2014; Rambe & Moeti, 2017). In a

guide for MOOC development aimed at policymakers in developing countries, Patru & Balaji

state that the almost exclusive development of MOOCs by top universities in the Global

North is viewed by many as “a one-way transfer of knowledge from the developed countries

to the developing world” (2016: 11), and there is, at present, little empirical evidence to

refute such an idea. As movements centred around the decolonisation of education achieve

prominence internationally, such as the Rhodes Must Fall (2014) student protests, it

becomes even more necessary to listen and address claims of cultural imperialism in a

broader educational sense. For open online courses, this means employing design

approaches that are genuinely collaborative, considering local requirements and cultural
 22

perspectives, and enabling alternative voices to be heard so that they can assert their own

epistemologies in the global sphere (Altbach, 2014; Patru & Balaji, 2016; Latchem, 2018).

2.3.2 Barriers to engagement

Barriers to engaging with online learning opportunities in any form are described as more

complex than being given a device and internet connection, spanning:

“a complex array of factors encompassing physical, digital, human and social

resources and relationships. Content and language, literacy and education, and

community and institutional structures must all be taken into account if

meaningful access to new technologies is to be provided.” (Warschauer, 2003:

6)

However, infrastructure and technological limitations are described in a number of prominent

reviews and reports as the principle barriers to engagement with open online courses in low-

and middle-income settings (Christensen, et al., 2013, Liyanagunawardena, Williams, &

Adams, 2013b). Preceding even internet access, electrification is still not fully widespread,

with marked differences between countries on the same continent and between urban and

rural areas within those same countries (Rohs & Ganz, 2015). Such disparity means that

there are repeated examples of prospective students, such as a Sri Lankan female

undergraduate noted by Liyanagunawardena, et al. (2013b), completing multiple long

distance bus journeys to reach an internet access centre in order to take part in an online

course. Download speeds and page load times are also cited (Williams, et al., 2012;

Liyanagunawardena, Williams, & Adams, 2013b) as being outside of broadly accepted times

in the West, inhibiting the ability of learners to engage with prevalent content delivery

methods utilised by MOOCs, such as video lectures and synchronous webinars. If educators

are looking to engage learners in these kinds of settings, the apparent technical barriers

must influence the pedagogic decisions employed at the learning design stage. Some point

to the rapid growth and increasing ubiquity of mobile technology in low- and middle-income
 23

settings as a tool with which to lift such barriers to access (Boga & McGreal, 2014).

However, while it is said that mobile phone ownership in countries such as Ghana,

Cameroon, Nigeria, and Tanzania has already reached 80% in 2015 (Wildavsky, 2015), it

remains that internet access itself remains wildly variable (Liyanagunawarden et al., 2013;

Rambe & Moeti, 2017). While access constraints may be declining and there is undoubtedly

promise in mobile learning approaches, they must still be treated with some caution.

Language presents similar obstacles. The overwhelming majority of courses are delivered in

an international language, with this on occasion inviting comparison to the installed

languages of colonisation (Nkuyubwatsi, 2014). Even commonly spoken second languages,

like English, prove to be “an insurmountable barrier for the underprivileged” (Rohs & Ganz,

2015: 9) that further disadvantages those that lack access to more basic education and

learning support methods (Gulati, 2008). Comparisons are drawn to the problems faced by

those developing open educational resources, in that regardless of translation to other

languages (although this is seen as good practice) the resources and learning and teaching

methods employed may still poorly fit the needs of learners from varied cultural backgrounds

(Richter & McPherson, 2012; Adams, et al., 2013).

In a similar challenge, it is suggested by some authors that the very openness of MOOCs

may in fact hinder their ability to effect meaningful learning in varied settings (Daniel, 2012;

Wildavsky 2014) because the difficulty of offering material with cross-cultural relevance is

compounded in very large, global cohorts (Nkuyubwatsi, 2014). However, some initiatives

have sought to address some of the sustainability and contextual challenges faced by those

who wish to use MOOCs and SPOCs in developing contexts by repurposing and combining

courses with a more traditional teaching setup. The Kepler Program (2016), for example,

utilises material from US-produced MOOCS as part of a blended provision that offers both

face-to-face instruction and learner accommodation. Such approaches not only seek to

contextualise the course material in a local setting but provide enhanced social opportunities

for learners (Kepler, 2016; McCowan, 2016). The MOOCs for Development (MOOC4D)
 24

project instead sought to tackle both cultural and technical barriers by “unbundling and re-

engineering a branded practice” (Balaji & Kanwar, 2015: 2). This approach involved stripping

openly licensed content from existing MOOCs and their subsequent processes, procedures,

and technological approaches, before re-developing the materials with a specific local

context in mind, being wary of likely capabilities of prospective learners. Other more general

approaches cited include the formation of local study groups, based on either geographic or

cultural context in order to promote collaborative learning (Blom, et al., 2013; Nkuyubwatsi,

2014).

One further issue is that of licensing. The OER movement’s championing of open licensing

(UNESCO, 2011) clearly aids the kind of adaptation needed for promoting cross-cultural

usefulness (Nkuyubwatsi, 2014). In their OER Adoption Pyramid, Trotter & Cox (2016)

consolidate a number of factors that either enable or limit the ability of individuals and

institutions to offer OER into a hierarchical structure of (bottom to top): access, permission,

awareness, capacity, availability, and volition. They indicate that it is only possible to engage

in such activity if all attributes are possessed at once. However, significant external

influences over access and permission, whether from academic institutions or platform

providers, can make open licensing more complicated. It can be said that many MOOC

platforms house courses for consumption over adaptation (Czerniewicz, et al., 2014) and

implement copyrighting of content that bars these practices. Higher education institutions

themselves may also operate strict policies relating to intellectual property of content created

by their staff. Such limitations often mean that course material can only be used in its original

layout and form within the course and for the period of time allowed by the platform provider,

hindering the ability to offer OER as supplement to the course experience.

2.4 Conclusion

This review of the literature has looked to provide a summary of the open online course

landscape and interrogate some of the claims that were originally made with regard to their

delivery. It has furthermore sought to situate aspects of current practice alongside some of
 25

the key issues relating to their use as tools for delivering education to groups of global

learners.

Use of the term MOOC, which carries heavy and often inaccurate connotations as to the

numbers of learners present within each cohort, the pedagogic methods employed within

them, and rationale for their development, is perhaps now inappropriate as the umbrella

descriptor for all types of open online course. Such courses take varied forms, having

changed rapidly over a very short period of time and with the rate of development remaining

strong, year-on-year. Researchers’ criticism has also developed quickly, becoming more

measured and aligned with wider practice in educational research as scholars seek to

identify the affordances, limitations, and potential utility of the format rather than simply

debunk the hype of their inception. The majority of MOOC-specific studies cited as part of

the review were theoretical or drew their data from the perspective of learners, making use

of platform-delivered surveys and automatically-produced analytics or designing new tools

and instruments with which to survey or evaluate their interactions. There is a relative

paucity of research into the approaches taken by or perspectives of educators who have

developed open online courses.

It can be contended that the practical and pedagogic flexibilities offered by the format likely

contribute to its continuing popularity as a means of accessing education and research from

universities across the world. It is also possible to suggest that some of these functions may

be of stronger benefit to those in low-resource contexts, but these same benefits could be

concomitant with a greater burden of barriers. There are undoubtedly difficulties in the

current landscape related to educational inequality and the cross-cultural relevance of the

opportunities available, and while some of the issues could be addressed through fairly

straightforward practical measures at the design stage, others will require more considered

and culturally-sensitive analysis. There is no reason to suggest that institutions in the Global

North should not continue to make use of courses that can enable them to disseminate

knowledge across the world, and learners should evidently be able to choose which courses
 26

to study if their environment enables their participation. There is, however, a need to

investigate the kinds of design strategies that promote an open and engaging learning

experience for global learners and the ability to both access and adapt material in diverse

international contexts, and this will form the basis of the study.
 27

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Study objective and research questions

The overall objective of the study is to explore the perspectives, experiences, and strategic

approaches of educators who have produced open online courses and seen stronger

participation across diverse international contexts than is demonstrated by the existing

literature. The analysis aims to apply a critical lens to benefits that some claim to be

universal and takes particular interest in the utility of open online courses in low-resource

settings. Efforts have been made to draw out experience and design choices pertaining to

these contexts. The project will investigate such matters using three distinct research

questions:

- What opportunities do educators think open online courses offer global learners?

- What do educators see as the primary challenges to delivering open online courses

to global learners?

- What strategies are being used to promote global learners’ engagement with open

online courses?

This chapter will define and explain the project’s overarching research methodology,

identifying the rationale for its qualitative approach, its selected research methods,

approaches to data collection and analysis, issues relating to its quality, ethical

considerations, and limitations.

3.2 Research paradigm

In contrast to positivism, which seeks to explain the social world and its phenomena using

the scientific method and with the understanding that there is a single, objective reality in any

given situation (Oldroyd, 1986; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015), interpretivism looks for multiple and

“culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social life-world” (Crotty,

1998: 67). This involves employing research approaches that are more open and flexible but

also responsive to the diverse meanings present within human communication and
 28

interaction. Research guided by the interpretivist paradigm is thus a social and changeable

construct rather than an objective determination of fact (Berger & Luckman, 1967;

Denscombe, 2002).

Interpretivism thus seems the most appropriate paradigmatic lens with which to approach

the research questions. There will be no single way to design open online courses, with

diverse disciplines, topics, learners, and the teams of people engaged in development all

having an impact on what does and does not constitute effective design. It would therefore

not be appropriate for the study to draw definitive inferences or identify a single model of

development, and will rather try to explain some of the choices that may have produced or

influenced success. While an aim of the project is to influence future practice this can only

be in the form of recommendation or guidance.

As described in the preceding literature review, much of the research into open online

courses to date has utilised quantitative platform data focusing on metrics such as

completion rates and attainment, while others have conducted qualitative research with

learners to investigate issues including motivation and learning behaviours. There is a

scarcity of research from the educator or course developer’s perspective, and little dialogue

and reflection on the choices made to meet specific aims, such as promoting engagement in

the low-resource settings identified as a key beneficiary of the format. As such, while an

interpretivist perspective affords the kind of flexibility needed to draw out the rich and vivid

perspectives of experienced open online course developers, there is additionally pragmatic

reasoning behind the decision to employ qualitative methods to investigate the issues at

hand.

3.3 Study context

3.3.1 Sampling

The courses used in the study were selected using a purposive sampling method, an

approach that is commonly employed within the context of qualitative research. This is
 29

chiefly because it enables the selection of participants that are related or pertinent to the

overall study objectives and are thus more likely to offer the opportunity to collect relevant

data (Given, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).

The purposive approach involved use of strategic sampling criteria that would inform the

choices made. The first criterion was that the course had been delivered on the FutureLearn

platform, with this decision made due to the author’s professional experience of and

proximity to the development of open online courses in this environment and access to the

company’s partnership network. FutureLearn partners are drawn from varied educational

settings, spanning higher education institutions, centres of disciplinary excellence within

larger institutions, and specialist organisations with education forming at least one aspect of

their broader mission. University partners are typically from the top tier of higher education

institutions internationally and with representation from each continent, although there are

greater concentrations in the United Kingdom, Europe, and Oceania.

The second criterion was that the courses had attracted a significant proportion of their

learners from diverse international settings and with a focus on representation in developing

or low-resource contexts. It is acknowledged that judgement of a nation’s development

status is a highly subjective and often contested process, with measurement indicators

spanning a country’s economy, health and educational outcomes, position on the Human

Development Index, and rates of modernisation (World Bank, 2017). There exist on this

basis a number of classifications from a range of separate international bodies, all of which

make use of different nomenclature. For the purposes of this study, courses and participants

were selected on the basis of their having reached learners across a specific geographic

distribution based on either the United Nations (UN) World Economic Situation and

Prospects (WESP; 2018) report’s terminology of nations classified as developed economies,

economies in transition, and developing economies, or the UN Committee for Development’s

list of least developed countries (LDCs; 2018) list. To be included, courses must have

attracted more than one third (33%) of their active learners from developing country contexts
 30

or from the LDCs to a greater degree than is identified in the limited research available

(2.7% by Ho, et al., 2014).

To identify courses that fulfilled these criteria, the author requested that the FutureLearn

Content Team deliver a message to the primary contacts of FutureLearn partner

organisations. The message (see Appendix B) outlined the rationale for and objectives of the

study, including the criteria for inclusion and the subsequent methods of data collection.

Those who felt they may fulfil these criteria were asked to make contact with the author and

supply the relevant demographic information for each run of their course to date in order to

assess whether coverage in the required contexts was at the level required.

3.3.2 Courses and participants

The courses volunteered and verified were delivered across reasonably similar social

scientific disciplinary areas: public health, education, and international development. The

organisations responsible for their delivery were split between the Global North and South,

with two from Europe, one from Africa, and another in South America (see Table 1).

The participants who were then selected for interview had been actively involved in the

development of each course and held one of two positions as part of the process. Within the

FutureLearn development process, a Project Lead holds responsibility for the operational

aspects of course development. Individuals who perform this role may have a project

management focus but are frequently individuals with a background in educational projects

or pedagogy in online and blended contexts. The other key role is the Educational Lead,

who is usually an academic member of staff. They will define the subject matter of the

course from the curriculum level down to individual course components, perhaps with input

from an academic steering committee. They are likely to be visible within the course as its

‘Lead Educator’, being the ‘face’ of the course and potentially taking an active role in its

facilitation and marketing materials. Those interviewed occupy both of the roles and are

identified as such in Table 1.

 31

Participant Course Course

Organisation Location Participant code
roles discipline code
Project Lead &
Course C1P1
Educational Public health HEI Europe
1 C1P2
Lead
Project Leads Course C2P3
Education HEI Africa
(2) 2 C2P4
Educational International South Course
IGO C3P5
Lead development America 3
Educational International Course C4P6
HEI Europe
Leads (2) development 4 C4P7

Table 1. Overview of study participants

3.4 Data collection and analysis methods

3.4.1 Platform demographic data

Data relating to course demographics, including the geographic spread of learners, is

available for automatic download as part of each course run and in comma-separated values

(CSV) format. The CSV files contain a breakdown for the run that includes the country name,

country code, country continent, and the joiner and active learner count for each entry.

Joiners are the individual learners who have signed up to a course, while active learners are

those who have participated in the course once it has formally begun.

The CSV files for each run of the courses selected were obtained from the relevant

organisation’s primary contact, which in all but one case (C4) were the participants who

subsequently took part in the interview stage of data collection. Once this information had

been received, the geographic spread of each course run was clarified and analysed

according to its representation across countries, continents, the UN WESP categorisations

and LDC list (see Appendix F). The files’ data were collated in a Microsoft Excel workbook,

with cumulative totals calculated for each course’s total number of joiners, active learners,

and countries represented, and averaged totals for the percentages of learners from

developing, in transition, and developing countries, and from the least developed countries

list. The breakdown for each course is highlighted in section 4.1: course profiles.
 32

3.4.2 Semi-structured interviews

Interviews were selected as the primary tool for data collection because they offer a flexible,

multi-sensory, yet systematic means of gathering highly detailed and in-depth information

about a particular topic (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2015). Although undoubtedly a social

exchange that enables freedom of expression and spontaneity, they are not ordinary

conversations (Dyer, 1995) and are instead systematised in the sense of having unique

purpose and constructed with specific participants and outcomes in mind.

The interviews were conducted on a semi-structured basis, incorporating a standardised

interview schedule that was supplied to the participants in advance (see Appendix D).

Questions were open-ended to allow participants to decide how to situate themselves in

regard to the research topic and highlight the information that felt most relevant to them

(Roulston, 2008), with this approach permitting follow-on questions and prompts to gain

more detail on salient comments (Spradley, 1979). The interview schedule was structured

into four sections with the first being an introductory segment, which, in recognition of the

interview being a social encounter (Kvale, 1996), sought to build rapport between the

interviewer and participants. Participants were asked to offer general information regarding

their own background, their organisation’s history with open online courses, and an overview

of the course in question.

The three latter sections comprised questions drawn from key points and knowledge gaps

within the literature review and were grouped according to the study’s research questions,

which were at first to be included as part of the schedule document provided to participants.

The schedule was then piloted with a professional colleague engaged in development of

open online courses at a separate higher education institution to that of the author. Piloting

offered guidance against inclusion of the study’s main research questions, advice which was

found to correspond with that of Silverman (2013) and with the reasoning that if participants

were aware of the study’s primary interests their responses could be affected.
 33

The subjects participated in one of two ways based on their location, with the two

participants from Course 1 being interviewed face-to-face while the remainder were

conducted remotely via Skype. Participants were interviewed separately with the exception

of those for Course 3, who took part in a Skype-based interview together. Each interview

lasted for approximately 1 hour and was recorded and saved as an MP3 audio file that could

then be used with a transcription tool.

3.4.3 Thematic coding and analysis

The ensuing data analysis was conducted in accordance with Braun & Clarke’s phases of

thematic analysis (2006). Thematic analysis had previously been located as a process within

long-established forms of analysis, such as grounded theory, but Braun & Clarke now argue

for its recognition as a method in its own right (2006: 4). They suggest that while the goal of

a grounded theory approach is to produce plausible theories with a basis in data, the

approach is often not employed with the full scope of its theoretical requirements due to its

rigidity and is therefore more often used as a procedural tool that focuses on coding.

Thematic analysis can offer similar procedures and outcomes but as an organic and

reflexive process (Braun, Clarke, & Terry, 2012: 107) that requires its researcher to be fluid

and intuitive as they engage with data to produce theory (Finlay & Gough, 2003). For this

study the thematic analysis has been conducted from an inductive standpoint (Boyatzis,

1998), in which patterns relating to the research questions were observed from the data

collected both during and after the interviews, relationships drawn through phases of

analysis, and hypotheses formed on the basis of this engagement. An overview of the

phases (Braun & Clarke, 2006) with practical detail is provided as follows.

Phase 1: Familiarisation with the data

Immersion in the data occurred through notetaking during the interviews themselves and

later transcription of the recorded files. The transcription process was completed using a tool

called oTranscribe which enables upload of an audio file and incorporates controls to play,
 34

pause, and timestamp files. Further notes, often in the form of casual observations, were

taken throughout the transcription and readings of the completed transcripts. The full and

unedited transcripts are not provided as part of the Appendices in order to maintain

participants’ anonymity.

Phase 2: Coding the data

The coding process was viewed as a heuristic or exploratory problem-solving technique

(Saldaña, 2008 p8). The researcher’s experience and production of the literature review

influenced the codes devised, with transcripts reviewed multiple times during this phase.

Both descriptive codes, which summarised the content of individual excerpts, and

interpretive codes, whereby interpretations and assumptions were drawn from the

participant’s testimony, were applied to the transcripts as comments upon being

encountered. Although the entire dataset was reviewed for coding, only the data excerpts

relevant to the research questions were coded. These codes were added to an initial mind

map where they were very loosely grouped according the sections applied in the interview

schedule (See Appendix D).

Phase 3: Searching for themes

The focus then shifted from codes to development of potential themes, with codes being

reviewed and re-grouped according to any patterns or concepts that were apparent when

positioned together. It was found at this stage that several themes could be interrelated. The

original groupings were separated from the first mind map and condensed into the high level

themes (See Appendix G).

Phase 4: Reviewing themes

Braun, Clarke, & Terry (2012) suggest that this phase offers the researcher an opportunity

for quality control in shaping of the analytical narrative, and it was here that some themes

were discarded or condensed because they did not sufficiently contribute to answering the

research questions. It also became clear that in some instances data was expansive and
 35

available in sufficient depth to warrant individual codes becoming higher level themes

themselves, as was the case with open educational practices. For this theme, the data was

reviewed again to draw out more distinct sub-codes that would contribute to analysis of the

dominant theme.

Phase 5: Defining and naming themes

During this phase the focus shifted toward more incisive analysis of the themes. Themes

were outlined within a separate document that is not included in the Appendices in order to

maintain participants’ anonymity. The tabulated information includes:

- the dominant themes, the names of which were finalised and designed to be

informative for the reader

- the theme definitions, whereby the theme was described conceptually and aligned to

the appropriate research question

- the code(s) that were applicable to or present within the theme

- the references made in relation to or within each code by participant

- the total incidence within transcripts by number, and

- vivid or descriptive excerpts from participants that illustrated the concepts embodied

by the theme.

With the completed table the researcher then sought to produce the analytical narrative by

drafting an expanded account of each theme, its relationship to others, and overall

contribution to the relevant research question.

Phase 6: Producing the report

The final phase involved structured definition of the overall report in the form that it would

take in Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion. This involved two stages as described by Braun,

Clarke, & Terry (2012). First, the analysis itself, in which the narrative of the data is clearly

defined alongside commentary of what is most telling, significant, or interesting in the context

of the topic and research questions. Second, the more polished report, which contextualises
 36

this narrative alongside the existing body of research. The approach taken here was to

employ participant extracts as both illustrative examples of particular arguments, but also as

a focus of analysis within the narrative itself, whereby particular features are scrutinised to

form argument.

3.5 Ethics

Once individuals had responded to the initial call for participants delivered by FutureLearn, a

written consent agreement form was distributed to them (see Appendix C). This document

outlined information about the project and its aims, the process for participants, detail of the

data that they would consent to release, and the proviso of their being able to opt out at any

time should they want or need to.

The courses used to inform the study are openly accessible to the general public and outline

educator information on their sign up pages. In some cases this would include the individuals

who took part in the study. Although the interviews were unlikely to cover any particularly

sensitive topics, the decision was taken that the participants, institutional affiliations, and

course titles would be anonymised and coded to prevent their identification.

3.6 Quality

In quantitative research, validity represents the degree to which the “‘the truth’ is accurately

identified and described” (Miller, 2008: 909) through adherence to the stated methodology.

Reliability, meanwhile, is designated as the “extent to which the same measurement

technique or strategy produces the same result on different occasions, for example when

used by different researchers” (Hammersley, 2008: 43). Through an interpretivist lens,

qualitative research considers these concepts more loosely, identifying more varied criteria

against which to assess research quality and with alternative terms such as credibility and

dependability (Miller, 2008).

There is acceptance that the depth of focus employed in qualitative studies comes at the

expense of being able to investigate very large numbers of subjects (Denscombe, 2002).
 37

Nevertheless, there is a need to demonstrate that the participants and the environments in

which they operate are typical of others in order to promote the credibility of findings and

their potential for application in other contexts (Jensen, 2008). This ties to transferability,

which in the qualitative sense is more concerned with the ‘usefulness’ of findings

(Donmoyer, 2008). For this study, the sampling criteria employed to select courses and

participants is judged to be sufficiently detailed that the recommendations made can be of

value to those engaged with development of open online courses for at least the

FutureLearn platform but likely also via other platform providers. The process of securing

interviewees also leaves the researchers with no reason to believe that their responses

would be anything other than open or truthful. As per good practice guidelines (Denscombe,

2002), participants’ time was volunteered, the author was precise about the information and

level of involvement required, they were provided with guarantees of both confidentiality and

access to the finished study, and were given a choice of the manner in which they would be

interviewed, i.e. alone or alongside another individual.

There is, however, the question of objectivity on the side of both the researcher and the

participants. It can be said (Baker & Johnson, 1998) that interviews are a tool with which to

explore people’s knowledge or experience of specific activities, acting as a reflection of how

the interview and participant interpret their worlds and each other. In that sense, there is

capacity for both questions and responses to inherit a natural bias that affects the credibility

and dependability of the research. In this case, both the researcher and the participants

were professionally engaged with development of open online courses and in most cases

through choice. It is therefore possible that the questions asked and perspectives offered

could be swayed by this, and most likely in the direction of promoting a more positive

narrative around their utility. To respond to these issues the researcher has attempted to

take a reflexive stance as part of the research, disclosing information relating to their prior

experiences and potential biases in such a way that will allow the reader to develop their

own interpretation of the findings (Creswell & Miller, 2000).

 38

3.7 Limitations of present research

The research faces some limitations. One is that there is a single, primary data source.

Although a large amount of data was collected from this source, it is likely possible that

triangulation of interview narratives with additional data sources could offer further insight

and add credibility to the findings. This could take the form of step completion statistics

produced by the platform or a learner-focused survey that seeks to investigate the effects of

certain design choices in specific learning contexts.

A further limitation is that each stage of the research was completed by the researcher, and

their lack of experience in conducting interviews may have affected the data collected. While

the semi-structured format afforded the flexibility needed to enable detailed recollections of

practice, it was often difficult to manage the interview schedule, use appropriate language

and prompts, and promote consistency (Wilson, 1996) between participants in light of their

different roles and diverse backgrounds. As implied by Guest, et al. (2012), variability in the

interview structure can have bearing on the ability to draw parallels and conclusions between

participants when analysed collectively and may have reduced the comparability of

responses.

The breadth of data is another factor, with the total number of courses (4) and participants

(7) representing a small sample size. However, this is expressed with recognition of the

increased depth that the qualitative method selected was available to offer. Although it is

thought that the recommendations made as a result of the research will be of value to other

open online course developers, there is no claim that educators’ perspectives of the potential

barriers faced by unseen learners will always be correct or generalisable across broad and

highly diverse international contexts. Such a claim is recognised as impossible both by the

author and within participants’ transcribed testimonies.

 39

Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion

This chapter is structured with one section dedicated to profiling the courses from which the

resulting participants were selected, followed by three others targeting the study’s individual

research questions.

4.1 Course profiles

The following course profiles are presented to illustrate the relevant experience possessed

by each of the participants in delivery of courses with broad geographic reach and good

representation in low-resource contexts. The percentages of learners across the UN WESP

definitions (2018) and LDC list (UN Committee for Development, 2018) are highlighted in

accordance with both platform joiners (those who signed up to the course) and active

learners (those who have completed a proportion of learning steps within the course). While

the proportion of active learners is the sampling requirement, both are included to

demonstrate that there can be differences between joiner and active learner numbers. There

is, however, no investigation of why these numbers may differ within the scope of this study.

4.1.1 Course 1

Course 1 is concerned with planning and management of eye health services to treat and

halt the spread of a neglected tropical disease that is prevalent in low- and middle-income

countries. It has been delivered three times since its launch in 2016 and the primary

organisation involved in its development is a European higher education institution.

The course’s target audience is identified as being anyone who is or may in future be part of

a professional eye health team delivering services at the district and community level,

although there is suggestion that those who work in the expanded fields of public health or

medicine may also be interested in its subject matter. The course is delivered primarily in
 40

English, although downloadable content has been translated into Spanish and Portuguese.

A separate, facilitated version of the course is available in French.

The total number of joiners across the three runs is 5003, the total active learners is 1860,

and the total countries represented is 163. The average enrolment totals across each run of

the course can be found in Table 2. Participants C1P1 (Project Lead) and C1P2

(Educational Lead) led the development of this course.

Course 1 UN WESP
Developing Transition Developed Unknown LDC
Joiners (%) 51 1 44 4 13
Active (%) 57 1 38 5 15

Table 2. Course 1 geographic distribution of learners

4.1.2 Course 2

Course 2 focuses on inclusive educational provision for children, offering practical

opportunities to engage with relevant issues and design more equitable learning

environments. Since its launch in 2015 it has been delivered 7 times, with the lead

organisation being a higher education institution based in Africa.

The course indicates that its target audience is educational professionals, parents, and

community groups who wish to lead or support the development of inclusive educational

opportunities. The course is delivered in English and there is suggestion that there may be

additional materials and support available for those based in low-resource settings.

The total number of joiners across the seven runs is 26520, the total active learners is 8875,

and the total countries represented is 197. The average enrolment totals across each run of

the course can be found in Table 3. Participants C2P3 (co-Project Lead) and C2P4 (co-

Project Lead) were engaged in development of this course.

 41

Course 2 UN WESP
Developing Transition Developed Unknown LDC
Joiners (%) 40 5 53 2 4
Active (%) 43 4 52 2 5
Table 3. Course 2 geographic distribution of learners

4.1.3 Course 3

Course 3 interrogates the issues that cause and stem from inequality in Central and South

America, encouraging dialogue around research and policy to identify how to address the

most common issues facing populations. The course has been delivered once since its

launch in late 2017 and the organisation leading its development is an intergovernmental

organisation (IGO) and international project with a base in South America.

The target audience is stipulated as being broad with material intended to provoke public

debate, but the professional roles highlighted are within the civil service and policy-related

fields. The course is offered in both English and Spanish.

The total number of joiners is 3466, the total active learners is 1277, and total countries

represented is 77. The average enrolment totals across each run of the course can be found

in Table 4. Participant C3P5 (Educational Lead) was the primary individual leading

development of the course.

Course 3 UN WESP
Developing Transition Developed Unknown LDC
Joiners (%) 88 0 10 2 0
Active (%) 86 0 12 2 0
Table 4. Course 3 geographic distribution of learners

4.1.4 Course 4

Course 4 considers inclusive and sustainable development on the African continent,

assessing the progress made and challenges faced by some countries in relation to key
 42

development indicators. The course was delivered three times since its launch in early 2015

and its developing organisation is a European higher education institution.

The course suggests that its target audience is anyone with an interest in international

development, though students of or professionals working in aligned disciplinary areas are

likely to be interested in its subject matter. The course is available in English.

The first run of the course precedes collection of learner data that is split by country and is

thus excluded from the profile. The total number of joiners across the two other runs is 9649,

the total active learners is 3757, and the total countries represented is 174. The average

enrolment totals across each run of the course can be found in Table 5. Participants C4P6

(co-Educational Lead) and C4P7 (co-Educational Lead) led the development of this course.

Course 4 UN WESP
Developing Transition Developed Unknown LDC
Joiners (%) 49 2 43 6 15
Active (%) 46 1 47 6 14
Table 5. Course 4 geographic distribution of learners

4.2 What opportunities do educators think open online courses offer

global learners?

The interview process began with questions centred around the opportunities that educators

felt were offered by open online courses to learners in diverse international contexts. Their

responses were clustered around three themes: access to more flexible and open study

opportunities, exposure to new experiences and diverse learning spaces, and the courses’

broader societal and professional benefits.

4.2.1 Flexible, open study opportunities

Definitions of openness that were found in the literature and applied to the open online

course format concerning economic, social, and geographic freedoms (Yuan & Powell,

2014) were confirmed by the interviewees. Nearly all participants noted that the majority of

courses being offered as free to study was likely the factor with greatest impact in low-
 43

resource settings. This is offered with the caveat that the degree to which courses and their

associated features remain free is also a potential limitation, with this being discussed in

more detail in a later section. The lack of pre-requisites for access to courses, where there is

“no need to show your background to register” (Participant C3P5) and no process of

“selecting out people” (Participant C4P6) was clearly one unique aspect of the format that

could both improve access and enrich the learning environment itself. As suggested by

previous research (Christensen, et al., 2013; Ho, et al., 2014), it was broadly agreed

(Participants C1P1, C1P2, C2P3, C3P5, C4P6, C4P7) that the online context offers greater

flexibility to the individual learner by removing geographic restriction and the financial

implication of having to move to pursue studies. However, in an interesting extension to

these points, attention was also drawn to the fact that in some cases the indirect impact of

an individual’s absence would be felt in their wider community:

“The flexibility means that they don't move out of their workplaces to do the

training or to get the knowledge. It is undoubtedly very important. We're talking

about often one ophthalmologist for a million population. And if that

ophthalmologist goes away to study, that means nobody is doing the work.”

(Participant C1P2)

Although not relevant to every course or profession, this type of opportunity cost will chiefly

be felt in low-resource settings or locations with poor access to higher education and is thus

an important benefit of open online courses. Flexibility extended to the ability of learners to

self-direct their progression through content, while the “short period of commitment”

(Participant C4P6) seen from courses was positioned as another accommodating feature of

the mode of delivery. For those in developing country contexts these functional aspects of

course availability and delivery were cited as supporting the principles of openness, learner

freedom, and a “democratic opportunity to open knowledge to the wider audience in these

countries” (Participant C3P5).

 44

In a related point, several participants contended that the opportunity for learners and

educators to repurpose and adapt material as part of an alternative learning approach was

an affordance of the format that is not typically seen with traditional and closed academic

courses. Participant C2P3 noted in response to learners’ use of material that “we’ve been

quite surprised and delighted by the fact people do things that we don't expect”. Participants

C1P1 and C1P2 also recounted instances of their openly-licensed material being re-used

elsewhere with this being something that they had encouraged. Participant C2P3 was able

to recall a specific anecdote to this effect:

“We know another lovely story of a woman who was heading up a physiotherapy

division at a public hospital in a rural area and was finding it very difficult to do

professional development with her younger rehab staff, so she downloaded

material from one of our MOOCs and used that in her staff training. I wouldn't

call that… Lesser use of the MOOC…They would be benefiting from material

that's been created in the MOOC and the person whose idea it was to take

things out of it to use…”

There was agreement that while these learners would not necessarily be categorised as

having found and completed the open online course, the alternative delivery context was

nevertheless a very useful and valid outcome for its development and the organisation was

supportive of such activities wherever possible. Participant C2P4 recalled separate

instances whereby a course had been used with its prescribed learning pathway, but

subsequently run by a facilitator in a blended context, a use which was termed a “wrapper”.

These examples make it possible to construe a desire to move beyond open online course

delivery as a content-focused or very prescriptive exercise. The support that was and can

potentially be made available for alternative forms of facilitation is demonstrative of the types

of open practice outlined by researchers (Andrade, Caine, & Carneiro, 2016; Cronin, 2016).
 45

4.2.2 Diversity in learning spaces and experiences

Divergence from the traditional academic context, whereby students are assembled in fairly

analogous groups according to experience, ability, and routinely other factors such as age

and nationality, was praised as a key benefit and opportunity of the open online course

format. Participant C4P6 spoke generally to this effect, commenting that “we had people

from all walks of life, all age groups, numerous countries”, while Participant C3P5 stated

that: “the diversity of cultures, languages, styles, codes of conduct, etc., is very much a

richness…It's an asset in this kind of learning experience.”

They went on to expand upon the opportunities they saw to bring mixed ability and

experience groups together, and this appeared to be of particular consequence to courses

with a civic value. Participant C3P5 had observed that in the environment you could engage

high level, national decision makers, civil servants, NGOs, community leaders, and youth in

the same space to debate issues of inequality that affect each of them and their communities

in different ways. Participant C1P1, meanwhile, noted that in their area, international health

agencies and policy leaders advocated for a whole-team training approach, but this was

hard to achieve across multiple contexts and usually for logistical reasons. Their course,

however, had offered an opportunity for everyone to come together: “it does boundary

crossing, so you might learn locally but hear about things from other situations, see other

practices, and ideally make new network connections…” (Participant C1P1). Participant

C1P2 elaborated, indicating that the environment had made it possible to take a more

holistic and expansive approach to training:

“I think we can target the practitioners and when I say that I mean everybody,

and that is from the ophthalmologists right up to the technicians; whoever

contributes to that eye health service can be targeted.”

Participant C4P6 noted that the teaching methodologies employed within their course were

in stark contrast to the “talk and chalk” approaches that had been the norm in most low- and
 46

middle-income countries they had previously worked in. Both staff from this organisation

viewed the opportunity to adopt an alternative, more autonomous learning approach

positively: “that's part of the idea…to get people to think, and to question rather than

necessarily giving them definitive answers” (Participant C4P7). There was then suggestion

that open online courses promote learner voice in relation to local, national, and international

level issues, giving “many in low- and middle-income countries…alternative ways of

questioning what is happening” (Participant C4P7).

4.2.3 Broader societal and professional benefits

Despite compelling criticisms (Patru & Balaji, 2016; Rambe & Moeti, 2017) of open online

courses’ ability to democratise education in developing contexts, most participants remained

enthusiastic and were broadly supportive of their capacity to at least expand access to

higher education. Some used personal experience to inform their perspective on this,

indicating that in many of the countries they had worked in there was a significant lack of

capacity or access to higher education, with open online courses making “learning and

access to knowledge and information much more accessible” (Participant C4P6). Participant

C3P5, meanwhile, remarked that for their course, which aimed to bring together a far more

diverse cohort than is typically seen in the region’s universities, “this MOOC has offered the

opportunity to have a very large round table…” that they could not otherwise have hoped for.

Others drew upon the open features of courses to comment that “access to higher education

is, except in exceptional circumstances…limited to the middle class elite” (Participant C4P7),

but no fee or low cost innovations could contribute to growth for other social groups.

For some, facilitation of online courses that are fee-free and without pre-requisites offered a

practical solution to some of the difficulties they had experienced in attracting learners from

low-resource settings to existing on-campus courses:

“Each year to bring in masters students we have to secure scholarship

funding…The most we can bring is maybe 15, maximum 20 students from low-
 47

and middle-income countries and the need is greatest in low- and middle-

income countries. This has been our model for all these years. We've

supplemented the model by doing workshops whereby our teaching team would

go out to different countries…” (Participant C1P2)

Having identified that those who most needed specific training and education internationally

were not receiving it, these educators saw that the features of an open online course may be

able to address the barriers and extend their provision to not only more, but the right groups

of people. This is closely linked to a separate point made in the context of professional

development, with some suggesting (Participants C1P1, C2P3, and C4P6) that, in line with

the literature (Milligan & Littlejohn, 2014; Olsson, 2016), the short, targeted, and often

competency-focused opportunities offered by open online courses could be used to address

particular professional skills gaps. In a continuation of the previous quote, Participant C1P2

stated that:

“The challenge we faced was that we can only target this type of learning to

ophthalmologists, having a sort of a criteria for applications. Occasionally we

can get in an optometrist and almost never the nurses. And yet the delivery of

eye care in most countries is done by the nurses.” (Participant C1P2)

Participant C1P1 expanded the point, revealing that the current professional development

offering available from national and international bodies is delivered exclusively face-to-face

and such approaches are often unsuitable for community-level staff based in rural or poorly

resourced facilities. However, those with the infrastructure needed to engage with an online

course are afforded considerably greater flexibility and thus opportunity to access training in

subjects that are of immediate practical value to them. The responses offered by participants

here therefore represent good examples of the indirect benefits to populations alluded to by

authors such as Laurillard (2016) and Nkuyubwatsi (2016). The interviewees’ examples did

not illustrate an attempt to use an open online course as means of educating vast swathes of

a population, but the knowledge brought to and potentially used by even a small number of
 48

individuals in their local context may have far-reaching benefits to much greater numbers of

people.

4.3 What do educators see as the primary challenges to delivering open

online courses to global learners?

When questioned about the delivery challenges they faced, educators’ comments can be

grouped into three distinct themes: the practical or tangible barriers faced by learners when

attempting to access courses, the educational or cultural complexities that must be both

acknowledged and navigated when developing courses, and the relative unknowns the

educators had experienced in relation to the mode of delivery and the learners who joined

their courses.

4.3.1 Practical barriers to access

Participants’ reports of the tangible barriers that may prevent individuals from accessing

open online courses were broadly in line with the existing literature gathered from the learner

perspective (Christensen, et al., 2013, Liyanagunawardena, Williams, & Adams, 2013b), with

many focusing on the issues that are most common in low-resource settings. While it was

acknowledged that many have never “had the chance to have a device in their hands”

(Participant C3P5), the primary practical barrier raised by all participants was connectivity.

Some (Participants C1P2 & C2P3), however, submitted that those with both the desire and

drive to study would navigate their resource limitations to participate:

“I have seen some amazing examples of the lengths that people would go

to…They would go at weekends to internet cafes, download the material, and

come back and do the quizzes…when they can get back to the Internet.”

(Participant C1P2)

Local infrastructure, including access to electricity, was also cited by multiple participants as

an obstacle to engagement, being reported as a particular issue in remote settings. For

 49

those who do have access to devices with the necessary capabilities, shortages or

intermittent electricity supplies can disrupt engagement with a cohort-based learning

pathway or prevent access to it altogether.

Others broadened the scope of the challenges faced by learners, alluding to issues such as

time: “it doesn't really actually matter whether you're living in Paris or Kinshasa, it's time”

(Participant C2P3), and the wider set of circumstances that permit someone to participate in

an online course:

“…although MOOCs are very flexible…they're more flexible than a workshop,

say... You've still got to have a bit of time to get to them… You've got to have

this whole sort of world... Environment around you that lets you and gives you

the room to be able to do it.” (Participant C1P1)

This concept of an enabling environment, in which multiple needs must be met in order to be

able to engage is in line with both the sentiments of Warschauer (2003) and Garrison &

Cleveland-Innes (2005) in the context of access to online learning, but also components of

adult learning theory (Cross 1981; Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2015). Several participants

offered this information with the caveat that such barriers can affect those in a wide array of

local situations and in both low-, middle-, and high-income settings, warning against making

generalisations for those in resource constrained contexts. Awareness of the practical issues

facing many is nevertheless of clear importance and is reflected in the design strategies that

were later employed by each participant interviewed.

Although the free to study aspect of these courses was noted as a clear benefit to learners in

low-resource contexts, it was noted that the costs for additional course features may

negatively and disproportionately affect those in these same settings, limiting their ability to

participate to the fullest extent and reap their much-vaunted benefits. Participants C1P1 and

C1P2, for example, noted that even comparatively small fees for course certificates can be

beyond the reach of those with limited monthly income. Besides the costs, it was also said
 50

that the technical payment methods available presented difficulties for those in regions

without wide-scale access to bank accounts and the ability to pay with credit or debit cards.

With such limitations forming part of platforms’ construction, it is inevitable that some people,

particularly those in developing contexts, are placed at an immediate disadvantage and are

excluded from opportunities by the intended platform functionality.

4.3.2 Educational and cultural barriers

Several participants noted that the overwhelming majority of open online courses were

offered in English only and thus of primary benefit to Anglophone countries or those with

sufficient educational opportunity to have learned English as a second language. It was said

(Participant C4P6) that there were those who would read original material in English but

subsequently respond to discussion tasks in their native language, and while this wasn’t

strictly a problem to the course team there was little to no opportunity to engage those

learners further. This situation underscores the weaknesses and inequities proposed by

Nkuyubwatsi (2014) and Rohs & Ganz (2015). Each participant who referenced language as

a limitation (Participants C1P1, C1P2, C3P5, C4P6 & C4P7) had planned or made the

attempt to translate into alternative languages relevant to their target audiences or countries

of focus, such as French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Mandarin. This had been achieved to

varying degrees of success, with the difficulties of achieving cross-contextual relevance in

spite of translation (Richter & McPherson, 2012; Adams, et al., 2013) referenced by both

Participant C4P6 and C4P7, with the former stating that a translation would be “a different

course”, with alternative, contextually-relevant case studies and activities.

Each participant’s experience was limited to design of courses at the higher education level.

It was stated (Participants C1P2, C2P4, C4P6 & C4P7) that learners’ prior educational

attainment was undoubtedly a factor in whether they sought or were able to participate in

open online courses. This was potentially more problematic in very diverse, global cohorts

where the prior attainment and disciplinary knowledge of learners could differ significantly
 51

from that being offered by the developing organisation. Beyond the limitations faced in terms

of meeting standards of subject knowledge, the pedagogies and teaching methodologies

may also prove unfamiliar, with Participant C2P3 noting that there may be those for whom

“there hasn't been a tradition or culture of opportunities for self-directed learning”. While the

open online course format addresses the theoretical needs (Lindeman, 1926; Knowles,

Holton, & Swanson, 2015) of the resource-rich adult learner through its promotion of learner

autonomy and self-regulation, these limitations emphasise the potential for exclusion based

on educational or cultural background, supporting the concerns of Rohs & Ganz (2015) and

McCowan (2016).

Some participants further implied that despite the lack of financial and educational

restrictions to accessing such courses there exists within the global community a simple lack

of awareness of the opportunities available, with this being cited as likely the principle barrier

to access by Participant C2P3. Participants C2P4 and C4P6 noted the complexities of

addressing such a problem, however, stressing the fact that universities do not typically

possess either the resource or consolidated approach needed to effect targeted marketing

campaigns in local country contexts. This is not an issue that was discovered as part of the

reviewed literature, but this seems reasonable given that the problem is not an obvious focus

of educational research and would be better investigated by those with expertise in localised

marketing and communications approaches.

4.3.3 Unknowns relating to the course format and learners

The open online course format itself and the audience for each that is delivered were broadly

termed as unknown quantities, with this proving to be a challenge for educators at each

stage of development and delivery.

It is, to an extent, possible for educators to predict the general makeup of cohorts for

traditional academic programmes, and any subsequent contact time will provide some

confirmation of students’ individual contexts. No such opportunity exists for open online
 52

courses, and contextual assumptions about learners that are made by educators and

platform providers alike were cited as a fundamental challenge to offering courses with

global value and something that must be avoided where possible. It was said that platforms

can serve to exclude learners from specific cultural contexts before a course has truly

begun, with Participant C1P1 highlighting a case of female Bangladeshi health workers who

would not engage with any course or activity where their name was publicly visible. When

this is forced as part of a platform’s peer and social learning philosophy and subsequent

user interface, such learners are less likely to participate and thus receive the full benefit of

their experience.

While Participant C4P7 acknowledged debates around imperialism, they did not believe that

courses were produced with any form of ideological framing that actively promotes the

knowledge of the Global North over others. However, Participant C3P5 advised caution for

course designers from an epistemological perspective:

“One of the risky, the most dangerous things…is believing that knowledge is not

situational. Developing, producing knowledge in the North is not a guarantee of

truth. The same as developing or producing knowledge in the South is not

guarantee of truth. Indeed, we have different schools, different perspectives,

different cultures of knowledge production.” (Participant C3P5)

Several participants presented the idea that it is ultimately impossible to understand the

context of individuals, groups, and entire nations of learners, such are the dissimilarities that

exist between and within them. Conversely, Participant C1P2 indicated that “…we may be

assuming that there are vast differences between high- and low-income settings…when in

reality they are not that different.” Regardless, these unknowns serve to complicate the

design process and at the very least should influence educators’ approach to it.

One issue cited by multiple participants is the experimental nature of the format which,

despite rapid growth, change, and maturation in some areas, is still not fully understood.
 53

Participant C3P5 stated that the structure of open online courses, often being very large and

diverse learning cohorts, can present difficulties to those who are more used to learning in

close physical proximity with other people, with this having been stated as a difficulty for

cross-cultural relevance by Nkuyubwatsi (2016). They had observed, however, that although

the learning context would be unfamiliar and experimental for many, small but diverse

communities of learners would quickly and readily form. Coupled with an anecdote in which

their nephew played online, smartphone-based games with people from Japan, Australia,

and Brazil without any recognition of this being unusual, the participant affirmed that open

online courses were simply another facet of “this new technological and global culture of

communications.” Participants C2P3 and C2P4 were keen to stress that their own open

online course project was “to some extent… An exploration” (Participant C2P3) and that

courses were not designed as a solution to any particular problem but rather as just one of

several tools that might investigate and further elucidate an educational or social issue.

The types of open online courses available remain highly varied, spanning general interest

learning, training with a professional focus, and courses that are both accredited and entirely

informal. Some participants insinuated that whether intentional or not, learners may seek to

assess the opportunity cost of participating in an open online course when its resulting value

is generally unknown. Participant C2P4, for example, noted that:

“Sometimes people are a little more sceptical about whether it would be

valuable for them to work through a MOOC given all of these data and time

constraints.”

If the value of a course is made clear by its designers, either through expression of its

benefits, such as access to new research and international networking or explicit recognition

of participation through CPD accreditation or institutional credit, it seems likely that a positive

assessment of its opportunity cost would affect a learner’s motivation to study. For learners

in low-resource settings this may manifest as the decision to plan around other potential

practical barriers to access material.

 54

4.4 What strategies are being used to promote global learners’

engagement with open online courses?

The final portion of each interview focused on the strategies employed by educators to foster

global engagement with their courses. The approaches highlighted by participants were

categorised according to three themes: reflexive methods employed when developing

content, the attempts made to reach learners, and engagement with open educational

practices.

4.4.1 Reflexive content development

It was clear that several courses had looked to achieve a practical setup that ensured course

materials were accessible to as many people as possible in consideration of varied learning

styles, device configurations, and availability of relevant infrastructure. Although it is difficult

to ensure that courses are completely inclusive in a technical sense, many had employed

design approaches that embodied the principles of Universal Design (Connell, et al., 1997)

as a means of mitigating some of the aforementioned practical barriers. Some participants

(C1P1/C4P6) acknowledged that the platform itself required developers to meet online

accessibility standards, for example with subtitling of video material, but it fell to them to

decide whether to offer additional ways of accessing content. This included promoting

equitable access by opting to offer suitably chunked, short videos that placed less strain on

bandwidth (Participant C1P2), flexibility in use via downloadable video transcripts, articles,

and supplementary material for those with intermittent connectivity (Participants C1P1,

C4P6), and simple and intuitive use with consistent pathways, informative signposting, and

simple language (Participant C1P1). Others, recognising the potential limitations of their

target learners, assessed the tools available and adjusted the medium by which content was

delivered: “in one course we also stripped the…audio out of the videos and made

downloadable audio versions to make it less heavy [to] download” (Participant C2P3).
 55

Finally, visual imagery was something to which Participant C1P1 had paid explicit attention

in order to promote inclusivity:

“I always forget to mention the effort we put in to creating…imagery that’s

generic enough to work across multiple contexts but specific enough to be

meaningful to most health workers in those contexts… We try to stay away from

stock imagery, especially of white Americans or Europeans doing stuff which is

the vast majority of what’s findable on Google, Flickr, etc. I don’t think we’re

always successful. There’s no truly neutral middle path, but we’ve felt it’s

important to try.”

Another practical intervention was in open licensing. As suggested in the literature, some

participants indicated that licensing of material could be problematic, due to both institutional

policies but also in terms of what could be used within a course: “I totally respect copyright

but it is also limiting” (Participant C4P6). However, in contrast to other findings, participants

here (Participants C1P1, C1P2 & C2P3) had typically sought to apply open licences, such as

Creative Commons, to their material to promote its use and adaptation outside of the original

course context: “we made a very strong effort to openly license them because we wanted

them to be broken apart” (Participant C2P3). While FutureLearn makes no claim to course

content as intellectual property and the decision to openly license materials is thus left to the

developing organisation, it is unclear whether the same opportunities exist on other

platforms. Nevertheless, such action pays close attention to the provision of OER and

affirms the position of the open online course within at least this part of the open education

movement.

Participants were split equally between organisations in the Global North and South, and

while the disciplinary areas of the courses selected could be linked to the resulting

participants’ perspectives, it seemed that all were perceptive to matters of “academic

tourism” (Participant C4P6) or even potential imperialism. The majority stated that it is

imperative for courses with any specific local or contextual focus to be produced by teams
 56

with significant real life, in-country, or regional experience in order to have relevance or

validity with global audiences: “I feel very, very strongly that the people who are designing

the courses need to have experience of living and working in those countries” (Participant

C4P6). Several (Participants C1P1, C1P2, C4P6 & C4P7) also asserted that they should

additionally feature commentary from those who continue to be based in or have close ties

to those regions, with these participants stating that they entered co-design or partnership

arrangements with relevant actors to outline or review the course curriculum and structure,

as was the case for Laurillard’s (2016) example of teacher CPD.

Similarly, it was said (Participants C1P2, C2P4, C3P5 & C4P6) that to further foster

credibility it was important for content to draw upon concrete examples of practice.

Participant C1P2 stated that despite a focus on healthcare provision in low-resource

contexts, the course utilised examples from a diversity of settings. This not only

demonstrated how things could be done differently with the same benefits, but was received

favourably by learners because they could easily relate to the concepts illustrated by

tangible cases. Participant C2P4 also drew upon the richness of real world content, noting

that “authentic cases really do appeal to people…They have to think through these and then

relate them to their own context and make sense of them”.

Finally, many of the participants indicated that their subject matter and target audience made

them conscious of the need to promote multiple voices as a foundation of the course

narrative. There was again appreciation of how the dominance of Western institutions in the

open online course or simply international academic space could be viewed, with

participants keen to emphasise that courses did not “come from the assumption that we

know it all” (Participant C1P2), were “not just what [organisation] thinks” (Participant C1P1),

and “isn't just Westerners saying, what is, or what they think is, or what should be”

(Participant C4P7). For those in the Global South, there was suggestion (Participant C2P3)

that the very act of developing courses was part of a conscious effort to enter the global

conversation of learning and offer an African “flavour” on educational issues. If the discipline
 57

is one that recognises international standards it was also suggested that these can be a

useful tool at the design stage, with Participants C1P1 and C1P2 stating that they clearly

align content to the policies and guidelines defined by intergovernmental organisations such

as the United Nations and its specialised agencies. While such an approach could on one

hand be a pragmatic decision that aims to increase material’s authority on the international

scale, it could also be seen to foster a more diplomatic, diverse, and less institutionally-

driven perspective on what content is of most value to global learners.

4.4.2 Reaching learners

In accordance with the challenge identified, there were repeated warnings against making

cultural or contextual assumptions about learners’ individual circumstances, but participants

were clear that for a course to be successful its developers must think very carefully about

the audience they do wish to attract:

“If you don't take care principally of the audience, to identify who will be there

when you're in your course, you will fail in communicating what you want to

do…” (Participant C3P5)

Some (Participants C1P1 and C2P4) said that at the very outset it was necessary to ask

questions to this effect, such as ‘who is the target audience’, ‘what do they need’, ‘upon what

information is this based’, and ‘have they communicated this in the past?’ Although

problematic, it is important that such investigation is actively built into the planning stage as

teams must “consider how to be inclusive of a much broader audience” (Participant C2P4).

In a similar sense, other participants referred back to the barrier of awareness, stating that

the in-country experience that should be possessed by course educators is not solely

applicable to course content, but can also be used to promote and disseminate the course to

those who may need it:

 58

“I [promoted] in East Africa, where at the time I had a lot of contacts, and I know

[Participant C4P6] had quite a lot of contacts through the UN and I think

probably contacted country offices.” (Participant C4P7)

Experience of regional setups and potential communication channels is undoubtedly of great

value when aiming to promote a course internationally, but this was tempered with the need

for greater links to and more involved leadership from internal student recruitment and

marketing and communications teams (Participant C4P6). There is additionally a need to

keep systematic records of who has been contacted and in what fashion (Participant C4P7).

4.4.3 Open educational practices

Despite the benefits communicated and agreed upon by participants, there continued to be

recognition of the associated challenges and suggestion that any attempt to directly cater to

manifold learning contexts within one course would be unsuccessful (Participants C1P1,

C2P3, & C2P4). Nevertheless, Participant C3P5 posited that the opportunity to reach so

many through delivery of open online courses is a task that is coupled with significant

responsibility and requires a reflexive approach to learning design:

“The MOOC [is] so ambitious in terms of impact. We must be humble and

responsible for our actions much more than ever…We must develop an

anthropology, vision, perspective, meaning that we can't use a jargon that won't

be understood. We must have in mind that we are global, but diverse.”

It seems reasonable to suggest that in spite of the challenges present in development of

inclusive learning opportunities, they could in theory be at least partially mitigated through

adoption of open educational practices and open design approaches, with participants

demonstrating this in several ways.

Having witnessed the alternative ways in which learners would repurpose material either for

their own ends or to teach others, several participants described adopting the principles of
 59

openness from a more common angle, making courses that promoted reuse and adaptation

through provision of OER. Participants C1P1, C1P2, C2P3, and C2P4 each highlighted that

courses were designed with this opportunity in mind, offering alternative formats, and, in

some cases, making the entirety of a course available for download outside the platform

context via an OER repository or similar service. Participants C1P1 and C1P2 noted that

their course explicitly identified and encouraged the opportunity to download and repurpose

material in supporting statements throughout the course. However, Participant C1P2

qualified facilitation of OER adoption in low-resource contexts, stating that:

“…you need more than just the local champion. You need local technological

abilities. We've experimented with this. It's all possible and it's all doable...but

it's technically a challenge…We realised that without us financing it wouldn't

have happened.”

This sentiment was echoed by Participant C4P6, who commented that a lack of local funding

had halted efforts to facilitate alternative deliveries of their course in Malawi and Nigeria.

There were further practical strategies for promoting openness within courses, such as the

previously described mechanisms for designing and delivering accessible content through

employment of Universal Design principles and open licensing. Others, recognising that

many learners would have no prior experience of certain theories, technical concepts, or

professional environments due to their background would use more relatable or familiar

material to illustrate their meaning. Participants C1P1 and C2P4 broadly remarked upon the

importance of storytelling and the need for learners to be able to relate content to their own

contexts. Participant C4P6 described the use of examples rooted in art and music to offer a

common language through which diverse learners could reflect on particular learning points.

Participant C3P5 noted that each week would include both an offline ‘game’ in which

everyone could participate and close with examination of a folk tale that embodied the

central message or theme of the week’s learning. Such examples represent pedagogic

design strategies that advocate for openness and inclusivity but could furthermore be termed
 60

as transformative (Mezirow, 1991) because material is positioned to adapt to an individual’s

unique frame of reference, wherever they are in the world and whatever prior experience

they possess.

Participant C2P3 outlined an alternative and more open design strategy that is not explicitly

defined within the literature but is perhaps better aligned to those employed for the

development of cMOOCs rather than the now more common xMOOC format:

“Our initial approach was to try and design for things, like oh let's make

people…Or try to encourage people to meet in groups. Now we say let's not

encourage them to do anything, it's to offer them options… As many as you can

to respond in a way that seems most appropriate to them.”

The approach is thus to move away from conceiving and prescribing a specific learning

pathway and to instead design for maximum flexibility. Like the cMOOC, connectivist

principles of choice and the process of learning itself is prioritised over a calculated and

linear route of study that is provided with the assumption that all material will be of value to

all learners (Bali & Sharma, 2017). Parallels can also be drawn to the emergent forms of

open teaching outlined by Couros & Hildebrandt (2016), in which an educator advocates for

open, transparent, and social learning experiences whilst providing support for critical

engagement with material. It is possible that the increased openness of this design approach

could not only liberate the educator from the need to make assumptions about learner

contexts that are, in any case, likely to be wrong, but additionally allow learners to make their

own interpretations of content, create networks of local peer support, and improve capacity

for self-directed learning.

Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations

The final chapter will conclude the study, providing a summary of the key findings, the

subsequent recommendations to developers of open online courses, and possible avenues

for future research.

 61

5.1 Summary of findings

5.1.1 What opportunities do educators think open online courses offer global

learners?

Flexibility was the principal and perhaps predominant opportunity identified within the data,

with this being broadly aligned to the open features bound within the mode of delivery and

explored by the associated literature. Course traits, such as being free or low cost, the lack

of pre-requisites, and absence of geographic restriction were foregrounded as the primary

benefits for learners everywhere, but which held particular advantage to those in low-

resource settings. It can also be asserted that courses have utility beyond their original

context, whether that is through use of OER or learner-initiated facilitation of the course in

either a face-to-face or blended context. This demonstrates that, in spite of the debate

around the true openness of open online courses in an analytical or academic sense, they

can still be used flexibly.

Diversity of cohorts also highlighted courses’ value as a tool for delivering global learning,

and this can again be drawn back to the course traits. This was viewed by some as a

previously impossible means of promoting educationally driven, cross-cultural dialogue

across mixed ability or experience groups, but for others with practical benefit in the sense of

meeting training needs and promoting new learning and teaching approaches.

The courses undoubtedly expand access to higher education opportunities, but perhaps not

in the sweeping sense proposed at their inception. Instead, the flexibilities of the format may

address issues faced in attracting students, notably those from low- and middle-income

country contexts, to potentially vital training opportunities that could have significant impact

on wider communities. It was agreed that short, competency-based courses likely have

value in a professional context and are attuned to the needs of adult learners, but the ability

to adopt this approach may be discipline-specific.

 62

5.1.2 What do educators see as the primary challenges to delivering open online

courses to global learners?

Challenges drawn from the data were loosely split between what the educators saw as

barriers faced by learners in accessing courses and difficulties they themselves faced during

their development. As in the literature, practical barriers such as infrastructure, connectivity,

and time dominated discussion around access, but while it is clear that those in resource-

constrained settings are chiefly affected by these, they nevertheless represent the essential

requirement for participation in open online courses and can be present in any context. An

issue which may precede such barriers is a fundamental lack of awareness that open online

courses exist.

While features such as the course language are easy to identify as an educational or cultural

barrier to engagement, it is far less straightforward to interrogate their potential mitigations to

promote cross-cultural relevance. It is apparent that simple translation of course material

does not represent a solution and does little to refute claims of inequality. It does not seem

reasonable or viable to suggest that course developers should be responsible for translation,

but engagement with open licensing would make localisation of material an optional activity

for others to undertake.

Despite swift advances, the often experimental environment of open online course

development and lack of understanding of the learners who participate in them present

distinct challenges to educators. Although large and diverse cohorts can promote a rich

experience for some, this same diversity is not always conducive to inclusive design, and

choices made without the necessary information to support them can have unintended

cultural or epistemological effects upon learners. There is thus acknowledgement that an

element of exclusion is innate to both the design process and platform delivery of open

online courses and it is not possible to address the needs of every learner within a single

course.
 63

5.1.3 What strategies are being used to promote global learners’ engagement with

open online courses?

Data analysis revealed that a range of practical design approaches, pedagogies, and

broader attitudes had been adopted in support of making courses more accessible and

inclusive for globally diverse learners.

Due to the facilitative limitations present when faced with large cohorts, open online courses

naturally place greater emphasis on content than traditional academic modules. The data

reflected this, with detailed approaches to content development that sought to promote

technical inclusivity through adherence to global web accessibility standards, employment of

Universal Design principles, and sensitive consideration of the semiotics of images

employed. The process through which curricula were set and devised was also open and

inclusive. There was a marked desire to deliver material with global relevance and credibility,

with these aims pursued by involving staff with in depth, contextually-relevant experience of

issues, entering co-design arrangements with local actors, and actively promoting a diversity

of voices and cases.

While the difficulties posed by attempting to cater to multiple contexts at once were clearly

recognised, there was indication that the act of planning for a desired audience should

inform both the learning design and the mechanisms through which courses are promoted.

On the subject of awareness it is necessary, as with content, to make use of staff knowledge

and contacts when promoting courses internationally as the depth of expertise is unlikely to

exist within university marketing teams.

Whether consciously or not, engagement with open educational practices was demonstrated

by all participants, albeit in different ways. There were philosophical perspectives in which

reflexivity was championed alongside appreciation of the format’s limitations and the

responsibility assumed when delivering courses to international audiences. Adoption of this

position would require reflective, collaborative, and transparent behaviours at each stage of
 64

development. There were also pragmatic standpoints, and advocacy for open licensing was

common to all participants. Several had sought to implement this strategically to facilitate

alternative uses of content, providing OER alongside the defined learning pathway and with

explicit encouragement of learners to reuse and adapt material, offering additional support

where at all possible. However, while these activities are unquestionably positive in their

attempt to extend the reach and value of courses across multiple global contexts, they do

not address the deficits in skills or funding which will likely affect the prospect of their being

fully adapted for localised use.

Open pedagogies were another sense in which participants embodied open educational

practices, with design approaches including the use of tangible case studies, substitution of

technical concepts for familiar metaphors, and learner-focused storytelling. Each of these

choices served as an attempt to open channels of communication, tap into unique frames of

reference, and create a common language in environments where there were many. A

contrasting perspective to this inclusive but calculated design approach is to remove

prescription of a pathway altogether and enact a method which prioritises choice over

anything else, returning to a connectivist vision of an open online course.

5.2 Recommendations for developers of open online courses

If educators aim to deliver an engaging and valuable open online course experience to a

globally diverse cohort they must enter the process with some cognisance of the format’s

opportunities and design challenges. Awareness of either aspect is inherently linked to the

choices that are subsequently made at each stage of development. However, it is

additionally important to recognise that regardless of the extent to which a team engages

with the literature and best practice guidelines, open online courses are not a panacea in

which the world can be given access to higher education or indeed the solution to any single

problem. It is exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to cater to remarkably diverse learners

within one course.

 65

Simple but effective technical measures can serve to foster inclusive and accessible learning

experiences, while a reflective approach to content development that advocates for diversity

will likely produce courses that hold greater relevance for learners. Although developers may

be restricted by the policies of their home organisation or platform provider in terms of

practical matters such as licensing, it is nevertheless possible to engage with and enact the

principles of openness as part of the development process. Practising reflexive or open

learning design, whereby decisions are made through a continuous process of cause and

effect, can promote the pedagogic flexibility that is necessary to even attempt to engage

learners from varied cultural, educational, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

5.3 Future research

The study limitations outlined in section 3.7 can provide some insight into where the study

could be extended or improved upon, with additional data sources, an expanded sample of

courses and participants, and the involvement of more researchers all likely to increase the

breadth, depth, and potential transferability of its findings.

Although several participants in the study had attempted to support alternative forms of

facilitation of open online course material, the logistics of doing so and detail of support

provided were both unclear. On that basis a further study to identify potential mechanisms or

frameworks within which openly-licensed materials could be repurposed and adapted for use

in local contexts would likely be of merit to open online course developers.

As implied within the open education literature, access to content does not equate to access

to high quality education. The quality of educational opportunity available via open online

courses is beyond the scope of this study, but it is a topic that must be investigated in the

context of promoting equitable provision in low-resource contexts using the mode of delivery.
 66

References

Adams, A. A., Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Rassool, N., & Williams, S. 2013. Use of open
educational resources in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology. 44(5);
149-150.
Alevizou, G. 2015. From OER to MOOCs: Critical perspectives on the historical mediation
trajectories of open education. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics. 11(2);
203-224.
Altbach, P. G. 2013. MOOCs as neocolonialism: Who controls knowledge? The Chronicle of
Higher Education. 4th December, 2013. [online] Retrieved from:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/moocs-as- neocolonialism-who-controls-
knowledge/33431
Anderson, T. 2009. ALT-C Keynote. ALT-C 2009: “In dreams begins responsibility” – choice,
evidence, and change. 8-10 September 2009, Manchester, UK. [online] Retrieved from:
http://www.slideshare.net/terrya/terry-anderson-alt-c-final
Anderson, T. 2013. Promise and/or Peril: MOOCs and Open and Distance Education.
Unpublished manuscript. British Columbia: Commonwealth of Learning. [online] Retrieved
from: http://www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/MOOCsPromisePeril_Anderson.pdf
Andrade, A., Caine, A., & Carneiro, R. 2011. Beyond OER: Shifting Focus to Open
Educational Practices. Open Educational Quality Initiative (OPAL). [online] Retrieved from:
https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/OPAL2011.pdf
Baker, C.D., & Johnson, G. 1998. Interview Talk as Professional Practice. Language and
Education. 12(4); 229-242.
Balaji, V., & Kanwar, A. 2015. Changing the Tune: MOOCs for Human Development - A
Case Study. In: Bonk, C.J., Lee, M.M., Reeves, T.C., & Reynolds, T.H. (eds.) MOOCs and
Open Education around the World. New York: Routledge.
Bali, M. 2014. MOOC Pedagogy: Gleaning Good Practice from Existing MOOCs. MERLOT
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 10(1).
Bali, M., & Sharma, S. 2017. Envisioning postcolonial MOOCs. In: Bennett, R., & Kent, M.
(eds.) Massive Open Online Courses: What went right, what went wrong, and where next?
Ney York: Routledge.
Barber, M., Donnelly, K., & Rizvi, S. 2013. An avalanche is coming: Higher education and
the revolution ahead. Institute for Public Policy Research report. London: IPPR. [online]
Retrieved from: https://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2013/04/avalanche-
is-coming_Mar2013_10432.pdf
Barnett, R. 2014. Thinking about Higher Education. In: Gibbs, P., & Barnett, R. (eds.)
Thinking about Higher Education. London: Springer.
Bayne, S., Knox, J., & Ross, J. 2015. Open education: the need for a critical approach.
Learning, Media and Technology. 40(3); 247–250.
Beetham, H., Falconer, I., McGill, L. & Littlejohn, A. 2012. Open practices: briefing paper.
JISC reports. [online] Retrieved from:
https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/58444186/Open%20Practices%20briefing%20pap
er.pdf.
Berger, P. L., and Luckman, T. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in
Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Irvington Publishers.
 67

Bersin, J. 2016. Use Of MOOCs And Online Education Is Exploding: Here's Why. Forbes
Leadership. [online] Retrieved from:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2016/01/05/use-of-moocs-and-online-education-is-
exploding-heres-why/#2ea968a37649
Blom, J., Verma, H., Li, N., Skevi, A., & Dillenbourg, P. 2013. MOOCs are more social than
you believe. Barcelona: eLearning Papers. [online] Retrieved from:
https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/190099?ln=en
Boga, S., & McGreal, R. 2014. Introducing MOOCs to Africa: New economy skills for Africa
programme - ICT. British Columbia: Commonwealth of Learning. [online] Retrieved from:
http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/613.
Boyatzis, R. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boud, D., & Hager, P. 2011. Re-thinking continuing professional development through
changing metaphors and location in professional practices. Studies in Continuing Education.
34(1); 17-30.
Bower, J., & Christensen, C. 1995. Disruptive technologies: catching the wave. Harvard
Business Review. 73(1); 41-53.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology. 3(2); 77-101.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Terry, G. 2012. Thematic analysis. In: Rohleder, P., & Lyons, A.
(eds.) Qualitative Research in Clinical and Health Psychology. London: Palgrave.
Brookfield, S. 1995. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, P., Hesketh, A., & Williams, S. 2003. Employability in a Knowledge-driven Economy.
Journal of Education and Work. 16(2); 107–126.
Butcher, N., Hoosen, S., & Mawoyo, M. 2015. Open Practices in Higher Education: Trends
and Possibilities for Africa. OER Africa Report. Nairobi: OER Africa. [online] Retrieved from:
https://www.oerafrica.org/resource/open-practices-higher-education-trends-and-possibilities-
africa.
Carswell, A.D. & Venkatesh, V. 2002. Learner outcomes in an asynchronous distance
education environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 56(5); 475-494.
Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B., Bennett, A., Woods, D., & Emmanuel, E. J. 2013.
The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why? Working
paper.
ClassCentral. 2017. By the numbers: MOOCs in 2017. [online] Retrieved from:
https://www.class-central.com/report/mooc-stats-2017/.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K. 2011. Research Methods in Education. 7th Ed. London:
Routledge.
Commonwealth of Learning. 2016. Guidelines for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of
MOOCs. Commonwealth of Learning report. British Columbia: Commonwealth of Learning.
[online] Retrieved from: http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/2362.
Connell, B. R., Jones, M.L., Mace, R.L., Mueller, J.L., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J.,
Steinfeld, E., Story, M., Vanderheiden, G. 1997. The Principles of Universal Design. Version
2. Raleigh: Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University. [online] Retrieved
from: https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm
 68

Conole, G. 2013. MOOCs as disruptive technologies: Strategies for enhancing the learner
experience and quality of MOOCs. RED - Revista de Educación a Distancia. 39; 1-17.
[online] Retrieved from: http://eprints.rclis.org/19388
Coughlan, S. 2013. Harvard plans to boldly go with 'Spocs'. BBC News. 24th September
2013. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24166247.
Couros, A., & Hildebrandt, K. 2016. Designing for open and social learning. In: Veletsianos,
G. (ed.) Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. 143-
161. Alberta: AU Press.
Cranton, P. 1996. Professional development as perspective transformation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. 2000. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
Practice. 39(3); 124-30.
Cronin, C., & MacLaren, I. 2018. Conceptualising OEP: A review of theoretical and empirical
literature in Open Educational Practices. Open Praxis. 10(2); 127-143.
Cross, K. P. 1981. Adults as learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crotty, M. 1998. The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. London: SAGE.
Czerniewicz, L., & Naidoo, U. 2013. MOOCless in Africa. Cape Town: OpenUCT. [online]
Retrieved from: https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/2373
Czerniewicz, L., Deacon, A., Small, J., & Walji, S. 2014. Developing world MOOCs: A
curriculum view of the MOOC landscape. Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and
Emerging Pedagogies. 2(3); 122-139.
Daniel, J., 2012. Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and
Possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. 3, p.Art. 18.
Daradoumis, T., Bassi, R., Xhafa, F., & Caballé, S. 2013. A Review on Massive E-Learning
(MOOC) Design, Delivery and Assessment. Eighth International Conference on P2P,
Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing. 28-30 October 2013, Compiegne, France. 208-
213.
DeBoer, J., Ho, A. D., Stump, G. S., & Breslow, L. 2014. Changing "course":
Reconceptualizing educational variables for massive open online courses. Educational
Researcher. 43(2); 74-84.
Denscombe, M. 2002. Ground rules for good research. Open University Press.
Dillahunt, T., Chen, B., & Teasley, S.D. 2014. Model thinking: demographics and
performance of mooc students unable to afford a formal education. L@S '14 proceedings of
the first ACM conference on learning @ scale. 21–30. New York: ACM.
Dillahunt, T., Wang, Z., & Teasley, S.D. 2014. Democratizing higher education: Exploring
MOOC use among those who cannot afford a formal education. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 15(5).
Donmoyer, R. 2008. Generalizability. In: Given, L. M. (ed.) The Sage encyclopedia of
qualitative research methods. London: SAGE.
Downes, S. 2005. An Introduction to Connective Knowledge. Stephen Downes: Knowledge,
Learning, Community. Weblog. [online] Retrieved from: https://www.downes.ca/cgi-
bin/page.cgi?post=33034
 69

Downes, S. 2012. Massively open online courses are ‘here to stay’. Stephen Downes:
Knowledge, Learning, Community. Weblog. [online] Retrieved from:
http://www.downes.ca/post/58676
Dyer, C. 1995. Beginning research in psychology: A practical guide to research methods and
statistics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
EdX. 2018. MicroMasters: Advance your career. Accelerate your Master's Degree. Faster,
flexible, free to try. [online] Retrieved from: https://www.edx.org/micromasters.
European Commission. 2011. Public consultation on opening up education—a proposal for a
European initiative. Directorate-General for Education for Culture public consultation. [online]
Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/documents/consult/open_en.pdf
Finlay, L. and Gough, B. 2003. Introducing reflexivity. In: Finlay, L. and Gough, B. (eds.)
Reflexivity: a practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Futurelearn. 2015. FutureLearn delivers the largest MOOC ever as more than 440,000
learners convene for English language learning. Press release. [online] Retrieved from:
https://about.futurelearn.com/press-releases/futurelearn-delivers-the-largest-mooc-ever-as-
nearly-400000-learners-convene-for-english-language-learning
Garrison, D.R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. 2005. Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online
Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough. American Journal of Distance Education. 19(3); 133-
148.
Gazi, Y. 2016. Alternative, Stackable, and Microcredentials: Where Are We Headed?
Educause Review. 19th October 2016. [online] Retrieved from:
https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2016/10/alternative-stackable-and-microcredentials-where-
are-we-headed.
Given, L. M. 2008. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Glance, D. G., Forsey, M., & Riley, M. 2013. The pedagogical foundations of massive open
online courses. First Monday. 18(5).
Goldwasser, M., Mankoff, C., Manturuk, K., Schmid, L., & Whitfield, K. 2014. Who is a
student: Completion in Coursera courses at Duke University. Current Issues in Emerging e-
Learning. 3(1); article 8. Boston: University of Massachusetts Boston.
Gonczi, A. 2000. Competency-based learning: a dubious past – an assured future? In: Boud,
D., & Garrick, J. (eds.) Understanding learning at work. London: Routledge.
Grover, S., Franz, P., Schneider, E., & Pea, R. 2013. The MOOC as Distributed Intelligence:
Dimensions of a Framework & Evaluation of MOOCs. In: Rummel, N., Kapur, M., Nathan,
M., & Puntambekar, S. (eds.) To See the World and a Grain of Sand: Learning across Levels
of Space, Time, and Scale: CSCL 2013 Conference. 15-19th June 2013, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Wisconsin: International Society of the Learning Sciences. 42-45.
Gulati, S. 2008. Technology-Enhanced Learning in Developing Nations: A review.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 9(1).
Guo, P., & Reinecke, K. 2014. Demographic differences in how students navigate through
MOOCs. L@S '14 proceedings of the first ACM conference on learning @ scale. 21–30.
New York: ACM.
Hammersley, M. 2008. Questioning Qualitative Inquiry Critical Essays. UK: Open University
Press.
 70

Havemann, L. 2016. Open Educational Resources. In: Peters, M. (ed.) Encyclopedia of

Educational Philosophy and Theory. Singapore: Springer.
Hegarty, B. 2015. Attributes of open pedagogy: A model for using open educational
resources. Educational Technology. 4; 3-13. [online] Retrieved from:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Ed_Tech_Hegarty_2015_article_attrib
utes_of_open_pedagogy.pdf
Hill, A., & Waters, R. 2014. Online ‘Mooc’ courses are too big to work, says Stanford head.
Financial Times. 2nd February 2014. [online] Retrieved from:
https://www.ft.com/content/e711c690-8c2a-11e3-bcf2-00144feab7de
Ho, A. D., Reich, J., Nesterko, S., Seaton, D. T., Mullaney, T., Waldo, J., Chuang, I. 2014.
HarvardX and MITx: The first year of open online courses. HarvardX and MITx Working
Paper No. 1. [online] Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2381263
Hollands, F., & Tirthali, D. 2014. MOOCs: Expectations and Reality Full Report. New York:
Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.
[online] Retrieved from:
http://cbcse.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2014/05/MOOCs_Expectations_and_Reality.
pdf.
Jensen, D., 2008. Credibility. In: Given, L. M. (ed.) The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative
research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Jordan, K. 2014. Initial Trends in Enrolment and Completion of Massive Open Online
Courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 15(1).
Kanani, R. 2014. EdX CEO Anant Agarwal on the future of online learning. Forbes. 21st
June 2014. [online] Retrieved from:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rahimkanani/2014/06/21/edx-ceo-anant-agarwal-on-the-future-
of-online-learning/
Kepler. (2016). Kepler: Higher education for all. [online] Retrieved from:
http://www.kepler.org/.
Kernohan, D., & Thomas, A. 2012. Open Educational Resources – a historical perspective.
JISC report. [online] Retrieved from: http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/4915/
Knowles, M.S., Holton III, E.F., & Swanson, R.A. 2015. The Adult Learner: The definitive
classic in adult education and human resource development. 8th Ed. London and New York:
Routledge.
Knox, J. 2013. The Limitations of Access Alone: moving towards open processes in
education technology. Open Praxis. 5(1); 21-29.
Koller, D. 2012. What we’re learning from online education. TED Talk. Video. [online]
Retrieved from:
http://www.ted.com/talks/daphne_koller_what_we_re_learning_from_online_education.html
Kolowich, S. 2013. MOOCs Are Largely Reaching Privileged Learners, Survey Finds. The
Chronicle of Higher Education: Wired Campus. [online] Retrieved from:
https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/moocs-are-reaching-only-privileged-learners-
survey-finds/48567
Koutropoulos, A., Gallagher, M. S., Abajian, S. C., Waard, I., Hogue, R. J., Keskin, N. O.
2013. Emotive Vocabulary in MOOCs: Context & Participant Retention. European Journal of
Open, Distance and E-Learning.
 71

Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Latchem, C. 2018. Open Education Resources and Massive Open Online Courses. In:
Latchem, C. (ed.) Open and Distance Non-formal Education in Developing Countries. UK:
Springer.
Laurillard, D. 2016. The educational problem that MOOCs could solve: professional
development for teachers of disadvantaged students. Research in Learning Technology. 24:
29369.
Laurillard, D., & Kennedy, E. 2017. The potential of MOOCs for learning at scale in the
Global South. Centre for Global Higher Education working paper series. Working Paper
no.31.
Lewin, T. 2012. Instruction for masses knocks down campus walls. The New York Times. 4th
March 2012. [online] Retrieved from: https://nyti.ms/2oqSJeC
Lindeman, E. 1926. The meaning of adult education. New York: New Republic, Inc.
Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. 2013a. MOOCs: a Systematic
Study of the Published Literature 2008-2012. The International review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning. 14(3).
Liyanagunawardena, T., Williams, S. and Adams, A. 2013b. The impact and reach of
MOOCs: a developing countries’ perspective. eLearning Papers (33). Open Education
Europa. [online] Retrieved from: http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/32452/
McAuley, A., Stewart B., Siemens G., Cormier D. 2010. The MOOC model for digital
practice. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf
McCowan, T. 2016. Universities and the post-2015 development agenda: an analytical
framework. Higher Education. 72(4);505-523.
Merriam, S.B. & Tisdell, E.J. 2015. Qualitative research: a guide to design and
implementation. 4th Ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Miller, P. 2008. Validity. In: Given, L.M. (ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative
Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. 2014. Supporting Professional Learning in a Massive Open
Online Course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning.
15(5).
Mozilla. 2011. Mozilla Launches Open Badges Project. Weblog. [online] Retrieved from:
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2011/09/15/openbadges/
Nkuyubwatsi, B. 2014. Cultural translation in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).
eLearning Papers Issue 37. Open Education Europa. [online] Retrieved from:
https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/28554/1/Cultural%20translation%20in%20MOOC%20Edit
ed.pdf.
Nkuyubwatsi, B. 2016. Positioning Extension Massive Open Online Courses (xMOOCs)
Within the Open Access and the Lifelong Learning Agendas in a Developing Setting. Journal
of Learning for Development – J4LD. 3(1); 14-36.
OECD. 2007. Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of Open Educational Resources.
OECD/CERI Reports. [online] Retrieved from:
 72

http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/givingknowledgeforfreetheemergenceofopeneducationalresour
ces.htm
Oldroyd, D. 1986. The Arch of Knowledge: An Introductory Study of the History of the
Philosophy and Methodology of Science. New York: Methuen.
Olsson, U. 2016. Open courses and MOOCs as professional development – is the openness
a hindrance? Education + Training. 58(2); 229-243.
Open Society Institute. 2007. The Cape Town Open Education Declaration. Cape Town:
Open Society Institute - Shuttleworth Foundation. [online] Retrieved from:
http://www.capetowndeclaration.org
Patru, M., & Balaji, V. 2016. Making sense of MOOCs: A guide for policy-makers in
developing countries. Commonwealth of Learning report. British Columbia: Commonwealth
of Learning. [online] Retrieved from: http://dspace.col.org/handle/11599/2356
Quality Assurance Agency. 2016. Statement on Massive Open Online Courses. QAA
Report. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/QAA-
position-statement-MOOCs.pdf
Rambe, P., & Moeti, M. 2017. Disrupting and Democratising Higher Education Provision or
Entrenching Academic Elitism: Towards a Model of MOOCs Adoption at African Universities.
Educational Technology Research and Development. 65(3); 631-651.
Richter, T. & McPherson, M. 2012. Open educational resources: Education for the world?
Distance Education. 33(2); 201-219.
Rodriguez, O. 2013. The concept of openness behind c and x-MOOCs (Massive Open
Online Courses). Open Praxis. 5(1); 67–73.
Rohs, M., & Ganz, M. 2015. MOOCs and the claim of education for all: A disillusion by
empirical data. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning.
16(6).
Roulston, K.J. 2008. Open-Ended Question. In: Ed: Given, L.M. The SAGE Encyclopedia of
Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Saheb, T. 2005. ICT, education and digital divide in developing countries. Global Media
Journal. 4(7).
Saldaña, J. 2016. An introduction codes and coding. In: Saldaña, J. (ed.) The Coding
Manual for Qualitative Research. 3rd Ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Schmid, L., Manturuk, K., Simpkins, I., Goldwasser, M., & Whitfield, K.E. 2015. Fulfilling the
promise: do MOOCs reach the educationally underserved?, Educational Media International.
52(2); 116-128.
Shah, D. 2013. MOOCs in 2013: Breaking Down the Numbers. EdSurge. 22nd December
2013. [online] Retrieved from: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2013-12-22-moocs-in-2013-
breaking-down-the-numbers.
Siemens, G. 2005. Connectivism: Learning as Network-Creation. Elearnspace: everything
elearning. Weblog. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.downes.ca/post/58676
Silverman, D. 2013. Doing qualitative research. 4th Ed. London: SAGE.
Spradley, J. 1979. The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Towards Maturity Industry Benchmark Report. 2015. Embracing Change: Improving
Performance for Business, Individuals and the L&D Team. [online] Retrieved from:
 73

https://towardsmaturity.org/2015/11/05/embracing-change-improving-performance-
benchmark
Tuxworth, E. 1989. Competence based education and training: background and origins. In:
Burke, J. (ed.) Competency Based Education and Training. London: Falmer.
Udacity. 2018. Get Job Ready With Udacity's Online Courses. [online] Retrieved from:
https://eu.udacity.com/nanodegree.
United Nations Committee for Development. 2018. Least Developed Countries (LDCs).
Economic Analysis & Policy Division. [online] Retrieved from:
https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/least-developed-country-category.html
United Nations Development Programme. 2016. Human Development Index (HDI). [online]
Retrieved from: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi.
UNESCO. 2002. Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in
Developing Countries: Final Report. [online] Retrieved from:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001285/128515e.pdf
UNESCO 2011. Commonwealth of Learning Guidelines for Open Educational Resources
(OER) in Higher Education. [online] Retrieved from:
http://www.col.org/PublicationDocuments/Guidelines_OER_HE.pdf
United Nations. 2018. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2018. [online] Retrieved
from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-
content/uploads/sites/45/publication/WESP2018_Full_Web-1.pdf
Universities UK 2013. Massive open online courses: higher education’s digital moment?
Universities UK report. [online] Retrieved from: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-
analysis/reports/Pages/massive-open-online-courses.aspx
Warschauer, M., 2003. Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Watters, A. 2012. Unbundling and Unmooring: Technology and the Higher Ed Tsunami.
Educause Review. [online] Retrieved from:
http://er.educause.edu/articles/2012/9/unbundling-and-unmooring-technology-and-the-
higher-ed-tsunami
Weller, M. 2011. The Digital Scholar: How Technology Is Transforming Scholarly Practice.
London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Weller, M. 2014. The Battle for Open: How openness won and why it doesn't feel like victory.
London: Ubiquity Press.
Wildavsky, B. 2014. Evolving toward significance or MOOC ado about nothing. International
Educator. May + June 14, 74–79.
Wildavsky, B. 2015. MOOCs in the Developing World: Hope or Hype? International Higher
Education. 80; 23-25.
Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. 2009. Openness and the Future of Higher Education. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 10(5); 1-16.
Will, M. 2017. Teachers Customize Professional Development Through Microcredentials.
Education Week Special Report: Smart Strategies for Teacher Professional Development.
[online] Retrieved from: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/04/26/customizing-
professional-development-through-microcredentials.html.
 74

Williams, S., Spiret, C., Dimitriadi, Y., & McCrindle, R., (2012). Auditing Technology Uses
within a Global Voluntary Organisation. Conference proceedings of Global TIME: Global
Conference on Technology, Innovation, Media & Education. 7-9th February, 104-109.
Wilson, M. 1996. Asking questions. In: Sapsford, R. & Jupp, V. (eds.) Data collection and
analysis. Sage Publications: London, pp94-120.
World Bank. 2017. World Development Indicators 2017. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Yuan, L., Powell, S., Olivier, B. 2014. Beyond MOOCs: Sustainable Online Learning in
Institutions. JISC CETIS Publications. [online] Retrieved from:
http://publications.cetis.org.uk/2014/898.
Yuan, L., & Powell, S. 2013. MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for Higher
Education: A white paper. JISC CETIS Publications. [online] Retrieved from:
http://publications.cetis.org.uk/2013/667
 75

Appendices

Appendix A: Dissertation proposal

MA in Education - Dissertation Proposal Form

Name: (Removed)

Supervisor: Mary Fargher

Date of submission of first draft of proposal: 11/12/17

Date of submission of revised proposal: 07/03/18

Date of approval:

Supervisor’s signature/confirmation of approval:

The approved form should be included as an appendix in the final dissertation.

Dissertation Proposal

Provisional title:

Education in development contexts: MOOCs as a delivery vehicle for contextually

appropriate learning

Rationale/context/definition of your topic/problem/issue:

You should explain what your topic is and why it is an interesting or important topic
to research. This should be based on your prior knowledge either from your
experience and/or from your reading.
Delivery of MOOCs, or massive open online courses, is now a widespread practice across
the top tier of universities globally. However, despite the intense publicity at their
inception, the strategic approach of such development is not always clear, nor whether the
unique qualities and constraints of the format have been fully realised and applied to the
situations in which such delivery may benefit the most people.
 76

Ensuring that there are valuable but also sustainable learning opportunities for those in
low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is a topical issue. When MOOCs first appeared
it was suggested that new, flexible, and collaborative forms of learning and knowledge
sharing may be key to expanding access to higher education in such settings. However,
despite some engagement it seems clear that Western-led development of courses can
be both problematic and not entirely successful in attracting LMIC learners. As such, a
change of approach may be required to capitalise on the delivery format. While MOOCs
may be a tool in expanding access to higher education, this should likely occur through
co-design, production, and implementation in order to ensure their success and validity in
local settings.

Relevant Literature:

You should summarise some key points from literature you have read on your topic. You
should refer to and cite between 2 and 5 texts you have read. Include a reference list of
the books you have cited after your summary of key points.

Educational researchers and commentators have described MOOCs as a disruptive force

within higher education (Barber, Donnelly, & Rizvi 2013), although to date most MOOC
learners have tended to be well-educated, relatively wealthy, and employed (Hill 2012).
Research around use of MOOCs in development and displacement contexts is limited but
growing, although there is suggestion (Laurillard 2014) that they could serve to improve
outcomes for disadvantaged learners. This may occur either directly or indirectly
(Nkuyubwatsi 2016) through scaled and expanded access to higher educational
opportunities.

In a space where higher education has faced increased marketisation and been sold as a
means of forming human capital for private benefit, the open study opportunities offered
by MOOCs were vaunted as a broader social and public good (Koller 2012). It is clear that
while there are pockets of success this has not been fully realised for many reasons, both
technical and epistemological (Nkuyubwatsi 2016). In a development context it has been
seen that in other sectors, such as health, participatory, community-led practice is
essential to action and sustainability (Carroll & Hills 2015), and this may have implications
for educational design in development contexts.

Refs
Barber, M., Donnelly, K., & Rizvi, S. 2013. An avalanche is coming: Higher education and
the revolution ahead. Institute for Public Policy Research.

Carroll, S., & Hills, M. 2015. Health promotion, health education, and the public’s
Health. Eds: Detels, R., Guilliford, M., Karim, Q.A., Tan, C.C. Oxford Textbook of Global
Public Health. 6th ed. Oxford University Press.

Hill, P. 2012. Online Educational Delivery Models: A Descriptive View. EducauseReview:

Editors’ Pick.

Koller, D. (2012). What we’re learning from online education. TED. Retrieved May
4, 2015, from hWp://
www.ted.com/talks/daphne_koller_what_we_re_learning_from_online_ education.html

Laurillard, D. 2016. The educational problem that MOOCs could solve: professional
development for teachers of disadvantaged students. Research in Learning Technology.
24(1).
 77

Nkuyubwatsi, B. 2016. Positioning Extension Massive Open Online Courses (xMOOCs) 


Within the Open Access and the Lifelong Learning Agendas in a Developing Setting.
Journal of Learning for Development. 3(1).

Research aims/questions:

A research aim can be quite general and usually relates to what you hope to

understand better after you have done the research. The research questions need

to be more specific and focussed on the specific context or data that you will be

able to collect and analyse.

Research aim: The primary aim of this research is to explore the approaches

taken by staff to ensure that MOOCs can be utilised or are valuable in LMIC

settings.

OR

Research question(s): By doing the research I will try to answer the following

questions:

- In what ways can MOOCs be used to deliver educational opportunities that

address social problems?

- How can educators create sustainable learning opportunities using

MOOCs?

- How can the use, reuse, and adaptation of MOOCs be encouraged for

different cultural contexts?

 78

Methods:

Here you need to specify how you will collect your data OR the specific texts or
documents you will use to answer your research questions. You should be as specific as
possible about:
a) The setting/participants/documents you will have access to for your study
b) The kinds of observations/interview/survey/analysis or other methods you will use

The participants will be academic staff who have already acted in a project lead capacity
for development of a FutureLearn MOOC that addresses issues and targets learners in
low- and middle-income settings.

The primary aim of the dissertation will be to develop exploratory case studies which
investigate and examine the educators’ approach to development of courses for such
audiences and learning contexts. The case studies will be informed by qualitative data that
is gathered through semi-structured interviews and simple quantitative data produced by
the FutureLearn MOOC platform in relation to learner demographies and courses’
pedagogic construction.

PLEASE NOTE: This document provides a basis for your further reflection and it is
highly likely that you will want to modify parts of it (in discussion with your
dissertation tutor) as you proceed.
 79

Appendix B: Initial approach to FutureLearn institutional partner contacts

Approach letter for IOE MA Education dissertation research project

**The following text is to be distributed to FutureLearn course Project Leads via their
individual partnership managers. **
Subject: Research project on use and design of courses in development contexts
Dear Project Leads,
I am currently undertaking MA Education at the UCL Institute of Education and am now in
the process of writing my dissertation. The focus of my research is the use and design of
open online courses in development contexts, whereby low- and middle-income countries
(LMICs) serve as either of the focus of course content or form part of the target audience for
the learning opportunity.
The project's aim is to develop exploratory case studies for a series of courses that have, by
means of fairly simple performance indicators, engaged learners in such contexts to a
greater extent than is generally known within the current literature, whether intentional or
otherwise. These will be broadly informed by the output of semi-structured interviews that I
hope to conduct with the lead educator(s) and/or project lead(s) of these courses.
If you believe that any of your organisation’s courses may fit this profile please do get in
touch. I would like to discuss access to demographic information and course statistics for the
course(s) in advance of making more detailed contact with regards to consent for an
interview and access to relevant course metrics.
If you could get in touch with me directly at [EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED] to discuss this in
greater detail I can answer any further questions that you might have. Any and all help is
very much appreciated!
Many thanks,
[NAME REMOVED]
Project Lead at [REMOVED]
 80

Appendix C: Research participant consent form

Project information

Project title: Open online courses in low- and middle-income settings: opportunities,
challenges, and design approaches
Investigator: Joanna Stroud
Participant name:
Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed as part of the above research project. Ethical
procedures for academic research undertaken at UK institutions require that interviewees
must provide explicit consent to be interviewed and given information with regard to how the
information gathered from their interview will subsequently be used. This consent form is
necessary for us to ensure that you understand the purpose of your involvement and that
you agree to the conditions of your participation. Please read the following information, enter
the prompted information, and submit this form to certify that you are willing to consent.
The interview will take approximately 1 hour to complete and will take place either in person
or via telephone/Skype, geography permitting. It is not anticipated that there are any risks
associated with your participation, but you will have the right to stop the interview or
withdraw from the research at any time.
As part of your participation:
- An interview with you will be recorded and a transcript produced
- You will be sent the transcript and given the opportunity to correct any errors
- The transcript will be analysed by Joanna Stroud as the research investigator
- Access to the interview transcript will be limited to Joanna Stroud and supervisory
academic colleagues with whom she will collaborate as part of the research process
- Any interview content, including direct quotations, that are made available via
academic publication will be anonymised so that you cannot be identified, and care
will be taken to ensure that other information in the interview that could identify you is
not revealed
- The interview recording will be kept securely on UCL research data management
servers for a period of two years prior to being destroyed
Any variation on the conditions above will occur only with your further explicit approval.

Interview consent

By completing this form I agree that:

1. I am voluntarily taking part in this project. I understand that I don’t have to take part
and can stop the interview at any time
2. The interview transcription or extracts from it may be used as described above
3. I don’t expect to receive any benefit or payment for my participation
4. I can request a copy of the transcript of my interview and may make edits or
corrections to ensure the effectiveness of any agreement made about confidentiality
5. I have been able to ask any questions I might have, and I understand that I am free
to contact the researcher with any questions I may have in the future.
Printed name:
Date:
 81

Researcher name: [NAME REMOVED]

Date:
Contact Information
This research has been reviewed and approved by the University College London Institute of
Education ethical committee. If you have any further questions or concerns about this study,
please contact:
Researcher
[NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION REMOVED]

Research supervisor
Dr Mary Fargher
m.fargher@ucl.ac.uk
 82

Appendix D: Interview schedule

The interview will begin with some introductory questions about yourself, your organisation,
and the courses you have worked on. It will then be broken into three parts, each of which
comprises a series of questions that loosely correspond to one of the project’s research
questions.
Introductory questions

- Can you tell me a little about yourself and your organisation?

- Was there any specific rationale/reasoning behind your organisation’s decision to
begin developing open online courses?
- What courses have you worked on or produced to date, and give me an overview of
their subject matter and target audience?
Open online courses as a mode of delivery

- What do you consider to be the benefits of the open online course format for learners
in diverse international contexts?
- Where do they fall short?
- Who do you think it’s possible to teach with open online courses?
- What are your views on the creation of courses by elite institutions for delivery in
LMIC contexts?
Barriers to engagement with open online courses

- What do you consider to be the greatest barriers to use and access of open online
courses and particularly in low-resource settings?
- Who do you think these barriers limit most?
- In what ways do these barriers limit the engagement of learners?
Design strategies and approaches

- Did use and access of your course in low-resource contexts influence your design
approach? (If so, how? If not, why?)
- How did you seek to address practical/technical barriers in your course design?
- How did you seek to address cultural/educational barriers in your course design?
- What would you say are the three most important things for educators to do/consider
if they want their course to be used and accessed in low-resource settings?
 83

Appendix E: Sample interview transcription extract

Participant C1P2

Researcher: OK so I’ll now move on to the more targeted questions. The first of these is
what do you consider to be the broad benefits of open online courses in low- and middle-
income settings?
C1P2: I think the first thing I would say is having it online and on a platform which is easy to
sign up to is one of the biggest benefits. It breaks down these barriers of who is eligible for
the knowledge that we have. So anybody who needs it can sign up and get the knowledge.
That is the first benefit. The flexibility means that they don't move out of their workplaces to
do the training or to get the knowledge. It is undoubtedly very important. We're talking about
often one ophthalmologist for a million population. And if that ophthalmologist goes away to
study, that means nobody is doing the work. So this does not change that whole scenario.
And the third thing is when we have it as 'open', the benefit is that the individual can take the
knowledge, download the content and use it within their local context. And I think that's an
important way to empower people to apply that knowledge locally.
Researcher: Where do you think they tend to fall short… Or not do quite so well?
C1P2: From my experience the first place they fall short is in their connectivity. It is patchy.
So it does require an additional determination on their part to do it. And I have seen some
amazing examples of the lengths that people would go to in order to get the course because
they do value it. So they would go at weekends to internet cafes, download the material, and
come back and do the quizzes back online when they can get back to the Internet. And so
people have gone to all sorts of lengths. Some of the things they've come back and told us is
that intermittent electricity is a problem, particularly in the remote settings, but at the same
time they're all telling us that it's all changing and they are becoming very reliant on their
mobile phones and online materials. So I believe this is a transient problem which will get
resolved quite quickly. They have invested a lot in solar power and that is going to get
addressed. So I'm very optimistic that this is a transient problem, they will get online, and I
think when you go from having no access to having access why would you want to go
through the books? Traveling out and living in London for a year when you can go straight to
the online. It makes no sense to do the intermediary, you know? So I think that's a big thing
that that is... Needs to be addressed. The second thing is understanding of 'open'. I think
sometimes it's not clearly understood what... What is meant by 'open'? What are the
parameters of open and how can they get involved? And I think many of them have never
even given copyright a thought. They've always taken the knowledge and used anyway. So
what's the big deal. This is really changing. And I think getting that message across that yes,
actually now they're doing it legally is better, is a positive for doing so.
 84

Appendix F: Geographic distribution of courses

Course 1

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Total active countries developed transition developing Total developed transition developing Total LDC LDC
sign ups learners represented joiners joiners joiners unknown active active active unknown joiners active
5003 1860 162 2184 58 2542 219 702 12 1062 84 642 284
44% 1% 51% 4% 38% 1% 57% 5% 13% 15%

Course 2

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Total sign active countries developed transition developing Total developed transition developing Total LDC LDC
ups learners represented joiners joiners joiners unknown active active active unknown joiners active
26520 8875 197 13938 1272 10726 584 4571 346 3787 171 1184 477
53% 5% 40% 2% 52% 4% 43% 2% 4% 5%

Course 3

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Total sign active countries developed transition developing Total developed transition developing Total LDC LDC
ups learners represented joiners joiners joiners unknown active active active unknown joiners active
3466 1277 76 354 4 3039 69 151 3 1096 27 5 2
10% 0% 88% 2% 12% 0% 86% 2% 0% 0%
 85

Course 4

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Total sign active countries developed transition developing Total developed transition developing Total LDC LDC
ups learners represented joiners joiners joiners unknown active active active unknown joiners active
9649 3757 174 4195 176 4720 558 1756 49 1718 234 1415 511
43% 2% 49% 6% 47% 1% 46% 6% 15% 14%
 86

Appendix G: Data analysis mindmaps

Initial mind map

Thematic map: opportunities

 87

Thematic map: barriers

Thematic map: challenges

 88

Thematic map: strategies