“The fun they had” or about the quality of MOOC

The present paper regards a systematic review of the published literature about the quality of MOOC. It dwells upon some background questions: we have to evaluate MOOC in different ways from e-learning?; what about the difference between MOOC quality assurance and MOOC quality enhancement?; what are the parameters the universities shall use to certificate the acquired MOOC credits? The paper then analyzes the published scientific literature with the goal to answer the following question: which are the most significant studies about the quality of MOOC and particularly those dedicated to quality enhancement? The conclusion is that the MOOC’s evaluation literature is still uncertain between the need to adopt a quality enhancement framework specifically created for MOOC (not many at the moment) or reuse the e-learning quality models available online. The impression is that we are in a transition phase and that MOOC are not yet a disruptive innovation, but the questions they rise (about pedagogy, assessment procedure, credits, technology, etc.) certainly will contribute to transform the quality of higher education for the generation to came.

[1]  Yves Punie,et al.  An assessment-recognition matrix for analysing institutional practices in the recognition of open learning , 2015 .

[2]  Gráinne Conole,et al.  MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs Los MOOC como tecnologías disruptivas: estrategias para mejorar la experiencia de aprendizaje y la calidad de los MOOC. , 2016 .

[3]  C. Raban,et al.  Assurance versus enhancement: less is more? , 2007 .

[4]  Andrew P. Kelly.  Disruptor, Distracter, or What? A Policymaker's Guide to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). , 2014 .

[5]  Allison Littlejohn,et al.  Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[6]  Min Yuan,et al.  Not All Rubrics Are Equal: A Review of Rubrics for Evaluating the Quality of Open Educational Resources , 2015 .

[7]  P. Ghislandi.  A tale about Zen philosophy and a motorcycle (that is: OER & MOOC quality) , 2015 .

[8]  Keith Williams,et al.  Quality Assessment for E-learning: a Benchmarking Approach (2nd ed.) , 2012 .

[9]  Ulrik Schroeder,et al.  What Drives a Successful MOOC? An Empirical Examination of Criteria to Assure Design Quality of MOOCs , 2014, 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.

[11]  M. David Merrill,et al.  First principles of instruction , 2012 .

[12]  B. Glaser.  Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory , 1978 .

[13]  Donatella Persico,et al.  Supporting Self-regulated Learning Through Digital Badges: A Case Study , 2014, ICWL Workshops.

[14]  Keith Williams,et al.  Incorporating quality assurance criteria for OER and Social Networking in the E-xcellence QA methodology , 2011 .

[15]  Paul Kawachi.  Quality Assurance Guidelines for Open Educational Resources: TIPS Framework , 2014 .

[16]  Paula Peres,et al.  B-learning Quality: Dimensions, Criteria and Pedagogical Approach , 2014 .

[17]  Sarah Hayes,et al.  MOOCs and quality: a review of the recent literature , 2015 .

[18]  Jonathan Rosewell,et al.  The OpenupEd quality label: benchmarks for MOOCs , 2014 .

[19]  M. Crotty.  The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process , 1998 .

[20]  Diego Matricano,et al.  The business model , 2020, Entrepreneurship Trajectories.

[21]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave , 1995 .

[22]  Ebba Ossiannilsson,et al.  Perspectives on MOOC quality : An account of the EFQUEL MOOC Quality Project , 2014 .

[23]  Patrick R. Lowenthal,et al.  In Search of Quality: Using Quality Matters to Analyze the Quality of Massive, Open, Online Courses (MOOCs) , 2015 .

[24]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .