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.
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). https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2017-0008
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.
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). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3080
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001
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. https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2017-0011
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. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096
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 https://aran.library.nuigalway.ie/handle/10379/7276
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001
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. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.2.826
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. https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2016-0001
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.
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. https://doi.org/10.19173/IRRODL.V17I6.2736
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. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2014-0014
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12623
33. Wannemacher, K., & Jungermann, I. (2015). MOOCs from the Instructors’ Perspective Klaus. Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2015, 81–85.
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. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820082