Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Insight into MOOCs Research: A Meta-trend Analysis of Publications (2009–2018)

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Learning, Design, and Technology

  • 15 Accesses

Abstract

Despite the proliferation of research focused on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), the debate continues about whether MOOCs are a viable educational method and what the future holds. Like many emerging technologies, the excitement for what MOOCs could do to affect the educational landscape was promising to early adopters. However, after several years of experimentation, MOOCs are still finding their place in the ranks of educational disruptors. This chapter is organized by a brief history of MOOCs, bibliometrics, and trends in MOOCs research published in the Scopus database for the period of 2009–2018, followed by a discussion of how the research offers insight into practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 1,999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abeles, T. P. (2014). The university - the shifting past. On The Horizon, 22(2), 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T., & McGreal, R. (2012). Disruptive pedagogies and technologies in universities. Education, Technology and Society, 15(4), 380–389. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/15_4/32.pdf

  • Annabi, C. A., & Muller, M. (2016). Learning from the adoption of MOOCs in two international branch campuses in the UAE. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(3), 260–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aparicio, M., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2016). An e-learning theoretical framework. Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 292–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, D., & Vassilvitskii, S. (2007). k-means++: The advantages of careful seeding. In Eighteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms (pp. 1027–1035). Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bali, M. (2014). MOOC Pedagogy: Gleaning good practice from existing MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 19(1), 44–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J. A., & Haycock, J. (2014). Roles and student identities in online large course forums: Implications for practice. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 20–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayeck, R. Y., & Choi, J. (2018). The influence of national culture on educational videos: The Case of MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(1), 186–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayne, S. (2015). Teacherbot: Interventions in automated teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(4), 455–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkhin, P. (2006). A survey of clustering data mining techniques. In Grouping multidimensional data (pp. 25–71). Berlin, Germany/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28349-8_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bozkurt, A., & Keefer, J. (2018). Participatory learning culture and community formation in connectivist MOOCs. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(6), 776–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breslow, L. P., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying and learning in the worldwide classroom research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8(1), 13–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.-C., Lee, C.-H., & Hsiao, K.-L. (2018). Comparing the determinants of non-MOOC and MOOC continuance intention in Taiwan: Effects of interactivity and openness. Library Hi Tech, 36(4), 705–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Journal of Online Education, 4(5). http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=innovate

  • Costello, E., Brown, M., Mhichíl, M. N., & Zhang, J. (2018). Big course small talk: twitter and MOOCs – A systematic review of research designs 2011–2017. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curinga, M. (2016). The MOOC and the multitude. Educational Theory, 66(3), 369–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3, 18. https://doi.org/10.5334/2012-18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, J., Ho, A., Stump, G., & Breslow, L. (2014). Changing “course”: Reconceptualizing educational variables for Massive Open Online Courses. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 74–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, G., & Guattari, R. (1987). A thousand plateaus. University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellarocas, C., & Van Alstyne, M. (2013). Money models for MOOCs. Communications of the ACM, 56, 25–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deWaard, I., Abajain, S., Gallagher, M. S., Hogue, R., Keskin, N., Koutropoulos, A., & Rodriguez, O. C. (2015). Using mlearning and MOOCs to understand chaos, emergence, and complexity in education. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 12(7), 94–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodson, M. N., Kitburi, K., & Berge, Z. L. (2015). Possibilities for MOOCs in corporate training and development. Performance Improvement, 54, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downes, S. (2008). Places to go: Connectivism & connective knowledge. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(1). Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=innovate

  • Ebben, M., & Murphy, J. S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: A review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(3), 328. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.878352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsevier. (2019). Retrieved from Scopus: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus

  • Feldman, R., & Dagan, I. (1995). Knowledge discovery in textual databases (KDT). In Proceedings of the first international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD-95) (pp. 112–117).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fini, A. (2009). The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08 course tools. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(15). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i5.643

  • Freitas, A., & Paredes, J. (2018). Understanding the faculty perspectives influencing their innovative practices in MOOCs/SPOCs: A case study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner. (2016). Gartner Hype Cycle. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from Gartner: http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp

  • Gaševic, D., Kovanovic, V., Joksimovic, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Where is research on massive open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC research initiative. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15, 134–176. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godwin-Jones, R. (2012). Emerging technologies: Challenging hegemonies in online learning. Language, Learning & Technology, 16(2), 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Google. (n.d.). Google Scholar. Retrieved May 24, 2019, from Google Scholar Metrics: https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/metrics.html#metrics

  • Gul, S., Mahaja, I., Shafiq, H., Shafi, M., & Shah, T. (2018). Massive open online courses: Hype and hope. Journal of Library and Information Technology, 38(1), 63–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, P. (2017). MOOC and SPOC, which one is better? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 5961–5967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haber, J. (2014). MOOCs. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harting, K., & Erthal, M. (2005). History of distance education. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 23(1), 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Review: Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 43(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewlett Packard. (2015). HP 2015 sustainability report. Palo Alto, CA: Hewlett Packard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, P. (2014, August 13). MOOC mania: Stanford AI course creates media sensation two years ago. Retrieved from e-Literate: http://mfeldstein.com/mooc-mania-stanford-ai-course-creates-media-sensation-two-years-ago/

  • Holmberg. (1995). Theory and practice of distance education. London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, J. (2012). Trends of e-learning research from 2000 to 2008: Use of text mining and bibliometrics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01144.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, J. L., & Zhang, K. (2012). Examining mobile learning trends 2003–2008: A categorical meta-trend analysis using text mining techniques. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9044-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jafari, E., Vajarah, K. F., Arefi, M., & Rezaeizadeh, M. (2018). MOOC-based curriculum model validation in higher education in Iran. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 112–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, T. C. (2015). Lessons from MOOCs: Video lectures and peer assessment. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 19(2), 91–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, K. (2015). Massive open online course completion rates revisited: Assessment, length, and attrition. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(3), 341–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keegan. (1990). Foundations of distance education. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keshaval, G. A., & Gowda, M. P. (2008). ACM transaction on information systems (1989–2006): A bibliometric study. Information Studies, 14(4), 223–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Learning Registry.org. (n.d.). Retrieved from learningregistry.org: http://www.learningregistry.org

  • Lee, J., Hong, A., & Hwang, J. (2018). A review of massive open online courses: MOOC’s approach to bridge the digital divide. In 22nd Biennial conference of the international telecommunications society. Seoul, South Korea.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., & Cranton, P. (2015). Informal and self-directed learning in the age of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). In O. Mejiuni, P. Cranton, & O. Taiwo (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing informal learning in the digital age (pp. 91–104). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liyanagunawardena, T. (2013). MOOC experience: A participant’s reflection. SIGCAS Computers and Society, 44(1), 9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14, 202–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenthal, P., & Hodges, C. (2015). In search of quality: Using quality matters to analyze the quality of massive, open, online courses (MOOCs). International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(5), 83–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, O., & Christensen, E. L. (1971). The changing world of correspondence study: International readings. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackness, J., & Bell, B. (2015). Rhizo 14: A rhizomatic learning cOOC in sunlight and shade. Open Praxis, 7(1), 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magaña-Valladares, L., Rosas-Magallanes, C., Montoya-Rodríguez, A., Calvillo-Jacobo, G., Alpuche-Arande, C. M., & García-Saisó, S. (2018). A MOOC as an immediate strategy to train health personnel in the cholera outbreak in Mexico. BMC Medical Education, 18(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangan, K. (2012, October 1). MOOC mania [Special report: Online learning]. Retrieved from The Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/article/Massive-Excitement-About/134678/

  • Martindale, T., & Dowdy, M. (2010). Personal learning environments. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 177–193). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. SSHRS Knowledge Synthesis Grant on the Digital Economy. Retrieved from http://www.edukwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/MOOC_Final.pdf

  • Nayak, T., Prasad, S., & Senapiti, M. (2015). A survey on web text information retrieval in text mining. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 10(10), 1164–1174. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.10.1884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Brighton, UK: Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pappano, L. (2012, November 2). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html?_r=0

  • Paton, R., Fluck, A. E., & Scanlan, J. (2018). Engagement and retention in VET MOOCs and online courses: A systematic review of literature from 2013 to 2017. Computers & Education, 125, 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pence, H. E. (2012). When will college truly leave the building: If MOOCs are the answer, what is the question? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 41(1), 25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford, A. W., Coningham, B., & Horn, L. (2015). MOOCs: Not just for college students-How organizations can use MOOCs for professional development. Employment Relations Today, 41(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.21469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapid Miner. (2017). Rapid Miner. Retrieved from https://rapidminer.com/products/studio/

  • Rodriguez, O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for Massive Open Online Courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning (1). Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/?article=516

  • Rodriguez, O. (2013). The concept of openness behind c and x-MOOCs. Open Praxis, 5(1), 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohs, M., & Ganz, M. (2015). MOOCs and the claim of education for all: A disillusion by empirical data. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 16(6), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Gordon, S., & Luján-Mora, S. (2013). Web accessibility of MOOCs for elderly students. In International conference on information technology based higher education and training. Antalya, Turkey: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangrà, A., & González-Sanmamed, M. (2015). Meta-analysis of the research about MOOCs during 2013–2014. Educación XX1, 18(2), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm

  • Skiba, D. J. (2012). Disruption in higher education: Massively open online courses (MOOCs). Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(6). http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2143/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA313344873&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=txshracd2679&it=r&p=HRCA&sw=w&asid=dec1c9928f6dca2ca0e700a1437549e7

  • Soyemi, O., Ojo, A., & Abolarin, M. (2018). Digital literacy skills and MOOC participation among lecturers in a private University in Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2008). Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 605–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2011, November 8). Departments of Education and Defense to Launch “Learning Registry” Tools and Community [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/departments-education-and-defense-launch-learning-registry-tools-and-community

  • UNESCO. (2002). Forum on the impact of open courseware for higher education in developing countries: Final Report. Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001285/128515e.pdf

  • van de Oudeweetering, K., & Agirdag, O. (2018). MOOCS as accelerators of social mobility? A systematic review. Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G., Collier, A., & Schneider, E. (2015). Digging deeper into learners’ experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of MOOCs, notetaking and contexts surrounding content consumption. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 570–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2015). Who studies MOOCs? Interdisciplinary in MOOC research and its changes over time. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 16(3), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoram, M. K. (2014). A race to the bottom: MOOCs and higher education business models. Open Learning, 29(1), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Digital Learning, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Austin, TX, USA

    Gwendolyn M. Morel

  2. Liberty University, School of Education, Lynchburg, VA, USA

    Heather L. Keahey

Authors
  1. Gwendolyn M. Morel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather L. Keahey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwendolyn M. Morel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning Technologies, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

    J. Michael Spector

  2. Instructional Design and Technology, Virginia Tech School of Education, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    Barbara B. Lockee

  3. Department of Learning Technologies, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

    Marcus D. Childress

Section Editor information

  1. College of Education, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Drew Polly Ph.D., M.Ed., B.S.

  2. Psychiatry, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    Robert Doyle

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Morel, G.M., Keahey, H.L. (2023). Insight into MOOCs Research: A Meta-trend Analysis of Publications (2009–2018). In: Spector, J.M., Lockee, B.B., Childress, M.D. (eds) Learning, Design, and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17461-7_72

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation