In recent years there has been a significant growth in the number of online courses known as MOOCs available via online providers such as edX and Coursera. The result has been a marked reduction in the clarity around the different course offerings and this has created a need to reconsider the classification schemes for MOOCs to help inform potential participants. Many classifications have been proposed which cover the needs of academics and providers but may not be suitable for learners choosing a course. In this paper, the various classifications used by MOOC providers and aggregator services to categorise MOOCs in presenting information to prospective learners are gathered and analysed. As a result, 13 different categories are identified, which cover information provided to learners before entering a course. These categories are then compared and combined with classifications from the literature to create a taxonomy centred round eight terms: Massive (e.g. enrolments), Open (e.g. pre-requisites), Online (e.g. Timings), Assessment, Pedagogy (e.g. instructor-led), Quality (e.g. reviews), Delivery (e.g. educators), Subject (e.g. Syllabus). Thus, producing a taxonomy capable of categorising MOOCs from a wider perspective.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Bansal, S. K., & Kagemann, S. (2015). Integrating big data: A semantic extract-transform-load framework. Computer, 48(3), 42-50. doi: 10.1109/MC.2015.76
2. Bozkurt, A., Keskin, N. O., & de Waard, I. (2016). Research Trends in Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Theses and Dissertations: Surfing the Tsunami Wave. Open Praxis, 8(3), 203-221. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1112556
5. Conole, G. (2015). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 39. Retrieved from http://www.um.es/ead/red/39/conole.pdf
10. Ferguson, R., & Clow, D. (2015). Examining engagement: analysing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses (MOOCs). Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 16–20 March 2015, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA, ACM, 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1145/2723576.2723606
12. Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651
14. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202-227.
15. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K. Ø., & Williams, S. A. (2015a). Who are with us: MOOC learners on a FutureLearn course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 557-569.
16. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K. Ø., & Williams, S. A. (2015b). Massive Open Online Courses and Economic Sustainability. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning. 18(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2015-0015
17. Mohamed, M. H., & Hammond, M. (2017). MOOCs: A Differentiation by Pedagogy, Content and Assessment. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(1). http://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-07-2017-0062