The Grounds for Higher Education Teachers to Engage in MOOC Development Projects

Open access


The conditions for higher education teachers operating in a technology-enhanced education setting and an open educational context – such as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) – are different when compared to traditional teaching methods (e.g. in a lecture hall). This study investigates the grounds for 20 teachers at Swedish Higher education institutions to be involved in MOOC development projects. Six categories are found and described; including curiosity, merits, teaching development, flexibility, as well as the possibility to disseminate their research and expand their professional networks. Interviewees believed that the work was a viable way to strengthen their research portfolio, while also making a limited effort for teaching, enhancing the dissemination possibilities and strengthening their research networks.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Acker F. van Buuren H. van & Kreijns K. (2013). Resources : A Social Exchange Perspective Sharing OER as a Social Exchange Process. In R. McGreal W. Kinuthia & S. Marshall (Eds.) Open Educational Resources: Innovation Research and Practice (pp. 177-192). Commonwealth of Learning Athabasca University. Retrieved from

  • 2. Arcos B. de los Faems B. Comas-Quinn A. & Pulker H. (2017). Teachers’ Use and Acceptance of Gamification and Social Networking Features of an Open Repository. European Journal of Open Distance and E-Learning 20(1).

  • 3. Bachy S. & Louvain U. de. (2014). TPDK a new definition of the TPACK model for a University. European Journal of Open Distance and e-Learning 17(2) 15–39.

  • 4. Belikov O. M. & Bodily R. (2016). Incentives and barriers to OER adoption: A qualitative analysis of faculty perceptions. Open Praxis 8(3) 235–246.

  • 5. Bozkurt A. Akgün-Özbek E. & Zawacki-Richter O. (2017). Trends and Patterns in Massive Open Online Courses: Review and Content Analysis of Research on MOOCs (2008-2015). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 18(5).

  • 6. Brown M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on instructors’ adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. Internet and Higher Education 31 1–10.

  • 7. Çakıroğlu Ü. Gökoğlu S. & Öztürk M. (2017). Pre-service Computer Teachers’ Tendencies towards the Use of Mobile Technologies: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. European Journal of Open Distance and e-Learning 20(1) 176–191.

  • 8. Cox G. (2016). Explaining the relations between culture structure and agency in lecturers’ contribution and non-contribution to Open Educational Resources in a Higher Education Institution. Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the School of Edu. University of Cape Town.

  • 9. Cronin C. (2017). Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 18(5) 15–34.

  • 10. Cronin C. I. (2018). Openness and Praxis: A Situated Study of Academic Staff Meaning-making and Decision-making with Respect to Openness and Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education. Retrieved from

  • 11. Evans S. & Gall J. (2015). How MOOC instructors view the pedagogy and purposes of massive open online courses. Distance Education 36(3) 295–311.

  • 12. Hew K. F. & Cheung W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review 12 45–58.

  • 13. Goodfellow R. & Lea M. R. (2007). Challenging e-learning in the university : a literacies perspective. McGraw Hill Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

  • 14. Hammersley M. (2011). Methodology : who needs it? Los Angeles: SAGE.

  • 15. Karunanayaka S. P. Naidu S. Rajendra J. C. N. & Ariadurai S. A. (2018). Designing Continuing Professional Development MOOCs to promote the adoption of OER and OEP. Open Praxis 10(2) 179.

  • 16. Kilis S. Gülbahar Y. & Rapp C. (2016). Exploration of Teaching Preferences of Instructors’ use of Social Media. European Journal of Open Distance and E-Learning 19(1) 1-18.

  • 17. Kolowich S. (2013 March 18). The Professors behind the MOOC. The Chronicle of Higher Education [Blog post]. Retrieved from

  • 18. Kreber C. (2010). Academics’ teacher identities authenticity and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education 35(2) 171–194.

  • 19. Kvale S. & Brinkmann S. (2014). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

  • 20. Liyanagunawardena T. R. Lundqvist K. Mitchell R. Warburton S. & Williams S. A. (2019). A MOOC Taxonomy Based on Classification Schemes of MOOCs. European Journal of Open Distance and E-Learning 22(1) 85-103.

  • 21. McNaughton S. M. & Billot J. (2016). Negotiating academic teacher identity shifts during higher education contextual change. Teaching in Higher Education21(6) 644–658.

  • 22. Nascimbeni F. & Burgos D. (2016). In search for the open educator: Proposal of a definition and a framework to increase openness adoption among university educators. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 17(6) 1–17.

  • 23. Olsson U. (2017). Higher Education Lecturers Lived Experience of Going Public in MOOCs. Open Praxis 9(3) 287–297.

  • 24. Price D. (2015 April 16). What Will Education Look Like in a More Open Future? | MindShift | KQED News [Blog post]. Retrieved February 21 2019 from

  • 25. Pundak D. & Dvir Y. (2014). Engineering College Lecturers Reluctance to Adopt Online Courses. Retrieved September. European Journal of Open Distance and E-Learning 17(1) 210–226.

  • 26. Rolfe V. (2012). Open educational resources: Staff attitudes and awareness. Research in Learning Technology 20(1) 1–13.

  • 27. Ross J. Sinclair C. Knox J. Bayne S. & Macleod H. (2014). Teacher Experiences and Academic Identity: The Missing Components of MOOC Pedagogy. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 10(1) 57–69.

  • 28. Roth M. (2013). My Modern Experience Teaching a MOOC. Chronicle of Higher Education 59(34) B18–B21. Retrieved from

  • 29. Salmon G. (2014). Learning Innovation: A Framework for Transformation. European Journal of Open Distance and E-Learning 17(2) 219–235.

  • 30. Schneckenberg D. (2009). Understanding the real barriers to technology-enhanced innovation in higher education. Educational Research 51(4) 411–424.

  • 31. Siemens G. (2008). Learning and Knowing in Networks: Changing roles for Educators and Designers.

  • 32. Stöhr C. Stathakarou N. Mueller F. Nifakos S. & McGrath C. (2019). Videos as learning objects in MOOCs: A study of specialist and non-specialist participants’ video activity in MOOCs. British Journal of Educational Technology 50(1) 166–176.

  • 33. Wannemacher K. & Jungermann I. (2015). MOOCs from the Instructors’ Perspective Klaus. Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2015 81–85.

  • 34. Weller M. & Anderson T. (2013). Digital resilience in higher education. European Journal of Distance and E-learning 2013(I). Retrieved from

  • 35. Zheng S. Wisniewski P. Rosson M. B. & Carroll J. M. (2016). Ask the Instructors: Motivations and Challenges of Teaching Massive Open Online Courses. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing – CSCW’ 16 205–220.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 13 13 10
PDF Downloads 9 9 7