The quality of higher education through MOOC penetration and the role of academic libraries

Flora Charles Lazarus; Rajneesh Suryasen

doi:10.1629/uksg.577

Abstract

The governments of emerging economies have realized the potential of massive open online courses (MOOCs) for enhancing the quality of higher education, but MOOC penetration is still very low in countries like India. This article explores the issues relating to MOOC integration and attempts to identify the key drivers for the adoption of a MOOC-based curriculum. Integration into the curriculum, the MOOC services of the academic library and the Indian Ministry of Human Resource Development’s (MHRD) policy and support are identified as the key drivers for increasing MOOC penetration. The article also suggests a direct relationship between the level of MOOC penetration and the quality of higher education in emerging economies. The practical implications for practice and policy are classification of the MOOC services of the academic library and a decision-making model that chooses a hybrid learning strategy for higher educational institutions.

References

1Devon Haynie, “5 reasons international students should consider MOOCs,” US News & World Report, 2013, https://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/articles/2013/06/25/5-reasons-international-students-should-consider-moocs (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
2Thomas Friedman, “Revolution hits the universities,” New York Times, January 26, 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/friedman-revolution-hits-the-universities.html (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
3Souhem Badi and Manal Elsayed Ahmed Ali, “Massive open online courses (MOOC) Their Impact on the full quality in higher education institutions ‘Rwaq: Saudi educational platform for MOOC’,” Journal of Library and Information Sciences 4, no. 1 (2016): 73–101, DOI: 10.15640/jlis.v4n1a6 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
4Nour Awni Albelbisi, “The role of quality factors in supporting self-regulated learning (SRL) skills in MOOC environment,” Education and Information Technologies 24, no. 2 (2019): 1681–1698, DOI: 10.1007/s10639-018-09855-2 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
5Asoke Nath, Karmakar Abhijit, and Totan Karmakar. “MOOCs Impact in higher education institution: A pilot study In Indian context,” International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications 4, no. 7 (2014): 156–163, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276176439_Moocs_Impact_in_Higher_Education_Institution_A_Pilot_Study_In_Indian_Context (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
6Jyoti Chauhan and Anita Goel, “An overview of MOOC in India,” International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology 49, no. 2 (2017): 111–120, DOI: 10.14445/22312803/IJCTT-V49P117 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
7SWAYAM, (2016 a, July 19). https://storage.googleapis.com/swayam1-pub-data/wqimgtest_4b7e7943-c324-486b-b1fb-ddd036afc64e.pdf (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
8SWAYAM. (2016 b, August 17). https://storage.googleapis.com/swayam1-pub-data/wqimgtest_9da02ba8-bdd8-409c-afdb-645e6dbc544f.pdf (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
9Paul Morrow Nissenson and Angela C. Shih, “MOOC on a budget: Development and implementation of a low-cost MOOC at a state university,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (2015): 26–1168, https://peer.asee.org/mooc-on-a-budget-development-and-implementation-of-a-low-cost-mooc-at-a-state-university (accessed 4 May 2022).
Back to article
10Parag Chatterjee and Asoke Nath, “Massive open online courses (MOOCs) in education – A case study in Indian context and vision to ubiquitous learning,” 2014 IEEE International Conference on MOOC, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE) (2014): pp. 36–41, DOI: 10.1109/MITE.2014.7020237 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
11Mar Pérez-Sanagustín et al., “H-MOOC framework: reusing MOOCs for hybrid education,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education 29, no. 1 (2017): 47–64, DOI: 10.1007/s12528-017-9133-5 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
12Aicha Marrhich et al., “A Khan Framework-Based Approach to Successful MOOCs Integration in the Academic Context,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) 15, no. 12 (2020): 4–19, DOI: 10.3991/ijet.v15i12.12929 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
13Pérez-Sanagustín et al., “H-MOOC framework,” 47–64.
Back to article
14Yazhong Deng, “Construction of higher education knowledge map in university libraries based on MOOC,” The Electronic Library (2019). DOI: 10.1108/EL-01-2019-0003 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
15Xiumei Luan, “Research on service innovation of university library under MOOCs,” International Conference on Education, Management and Computing Technology (ICEMCT) (2015): 1496–1, DOI: 10.2991/icemct-15.2015.315 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
16Chatterjee and Nath, “Massive Open,” 36–41.
Back to article
17Patient Rambe and Mamello Moeti, “Disrupting and democratising higher education provision or entrenching academic elitism: towards a model of MOOCs adoption at African universities,” Educational Technology Research and Development 65, no. 3 (2017): 631–651, DOI: 10.1007/s11423-016-9500-3 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
18Joel Macharia, “Internet access is no longer a luxury: Fibre-optics could leap-frog Africa into the future,” Africa Renewal 28, no. 1 (2014), DOI: 10.18356/34eaf284-en (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
19Rambe and Moeti, “Disrupting and democratising higher education provision,” 651.
Back to article
20Anna Kaushik and Ashok Kumar, “MOOC-ing through the libraries: Some opportunities and challenges,” International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology 6, no. 1 (2016): 21–26, https://ijidt.com/index.php/ijidt/article/view/6.1.5/268 (accessed 4 May 2022).
Back to article
21S. M. Pujar, R. K. Kamat, and M. N. Savadatti, “Library as a change agent in liberation and deliberation of higher education through MOOCs,” in Recent trends in Library and Information Science: A Way Forward for the Future (Naples: LIS Academy International, 2014), 251–261.
Back to article
22Sangeeta Trehan et al., “Critical discussions on the massive open online course (MOOC) in India and China,” International Journal of Education and Development using ICT 13, no. 2 (2017): 141–165, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1153318.pdf (accessed 4 May 2022).
Back to article
23Youdan Zhang, “Benefiting from MOOC,” in EdMedia+ Innovate Learning, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2013: 1372–1377 https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/112136/ (accessed 4 May 2022).
Back to article
24Nour Awni Albelbisi and Farrah Dina Yusop, “Systematic review of a Nationwide MOOC initiative in Malaysian higher education system,” Electronic Journal of e-Learning 18, no. 4 (2020): 287–298, DOI: 10.34190/EJEL.20.18.4.002 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
25Albelbisi and Yusop, “Systematic review,” 298.
Back to article
26Mansor Fadzil, Latifah Abdol Latif, and Tengku Amina Munira Tengku Mohd Azzman Shariffadeen, “MOOCs in Malaysia: A preliminary case study,” in E-ASEM forum: Renewing the lifelong learning agenda for the future (2015), http://library.oum.edu.my/repository/1022/ (accessed 4 May 2022).
Back to article
27Gérard Escher, Dimitrios Noukakis, and Patrick Aebischer, “Boosting higher education in Africa through shared massive open online courses (MOOCs),” Education, learning, training: Critical issues for development (2014): 195, DOI: 10.1163/9789004281158_011 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
28Vahid Zamanzadeh et al., “Design and implementation content validity study: development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication,” Journal of caring sciences 4, no. 2 (2015): 165, DOI: 10.15171/jcs.2015.017 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
29Don A. Dillman, Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method – 2007 Update with new Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide (John Wiley & Sons, 2011).
Back to article
30Richard P. Bagozzi and Youjae Yi, “Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models,” Journal of the academy of marketing science 40, no. 1 (2012): 8–34. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
31Claes Fornell and David F. Larcker. “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error,” Journal of marketing research 18, no. 1 (1981): 39–50, DOI: 10.1177/002224378101800104 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
32Fornell and Larcker, “Evaluating structural equation models,” 50.
Back to article
33Wynne W. Chin, “Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling,” MIS quarterly (1998): vii–xvi, https://www.jstor.org/stable/249674 (accessed 4 May 2022).
Back to article
34Chin, “Commentary: Issues,” xvi.
Back to article
35Luan, “Research on service,” 1496.
Back to article
36Vincenzo Lombardo, Fabrizio Piana, and Dario Mimmo, “Semantics–informed geological maps: Conceptual modeling and knowledge encoding,” Computers & Geosciences 116 (2018): 12–22, DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2018.04.001 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
37Luan, “Research on service,” 1496; Yong Chen, “Investigating MOOCs through blog mining,” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15, no. 2 (2014), DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1695 (accessed 29 April 2022); Khe Foon Hew and Wing Sum Cheung, “Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges,” Educational research review 12 (2014): 45–58, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
38Steven Ackerman et al., “Libraries, massive open online courses and the importance of place: Partnering with libraries to explore change in the Great Lakes,” New Library World (2016), DOI: 10.1108/NLW-08-2016-0054 (accessed 29 April 2022); Rita Kop, Hélène Fournier, and John Sui Fai Mak, “A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses,” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 12, no. 7 (2011): 74–93, DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i7.1041 (accessed 29 April 2022); Janet Sit et al., “Experiences of online learning: students’ perspective,” Nurse Education Today 25, no. 2 (2005): 140–147, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2004.11.004 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
39A. Yu. Mazurov, “Massive open online courses in the context of modern educational processes within universities,” Open Distance Educ 1, no. 57 (2015): 20–26, http://journals.tsu.ru/uploads/import/1169/files/57_020.pdf (accessed 4 May 2022); Luan, “Research on service,” 1496; Qi Ning et al., “Research on the College Library Information Literacy Education in MOOC Environment” Advances in Computer Science Research 37 (2016): 782–784, https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/emcs-16/25848727 (accessed 4 May 2022).
Back to article
40Chatterjee and Nath, “Massive Open,” 36–41; Christina Mune, “Massive open online librarianship: Emerging practices in response to MOOCs,” Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning 9, no. 1–2 (2015): 89–100, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2014.946350 (accessed 29 April 2022); Ning et al., “Research on the,” 784; Yingpei Wang, “Current Situation, Problems and Countermeasures of MOOC Service in University Library,” in 2017 International Conference on Humanities Science, Management and Education Technology (HSMET 2017): 602–606, (Atlantis Press, 2017) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/hsmet-17.2017.118 (accessed 29 April 2022); Jie Sun, “Innovative Work of University Libraries for Assisting MOOC Instruction,” Cross-Cultural Communication 15, no. 1 (2019): 7–12, http://flr-journal.org/index.php/ccc/article/view/10879/0 (accessed 4 May 2022).
Back to article
41Yong Chen, “Investigating MOOCs through blog mining,” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15, no. 2 (2014), DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1695 (accessed 29 April 2021).
Back to article
42Sarah M North, Ronny Richardson, and Max M. North, “To Adapt MOOCs, or Not? That Is No Longer the Question,” Universal Journal of Educational Research 2, no. 1 (2014): 69–72, DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2014.020108 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
43Wang, “Current Situation,” 606.
Back to article
44Marrhich et al., “A Khan Framework,” 19.
Back to article
45Marrhich et al., “A Khan Framework,” 19; Chatterjee and Nath, “Massive Open,” 36–41.
Back to article
46Pérez-Sanagustín et al., “H-MOOC framework,” 47–64.
Back to article
47Saijing Zheng et al., “Understanding student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs,” in Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (2015): 1882–1895, https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675217 (accessed 29 April 2022); Jie, “Innovative work,” 12.
Back to article
48Anna Kaushik, “Five laws of library science in MOOCs environment,” Library Hi Tech News 38, no. 1 (2021): 6–8, DOI: 10.1108/LHTN-12-2019-0094 (accessed 29 April 2022); Khaled M. Alraimi, Hangjung Zo, and Andrew P. Ciganek, “Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation,” Computers & Education 80 (2015): 28–38, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.006 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
49Chatterjee and Nath, “Massive Open,” 36–41; Marrhich et al., “A Khan Framework,”19.
Back to article
50Amy C. York and Jason M. Vance, “Taking library instruction into the online classroom: Best practices for embedded librarians,” Journal of library administration 49, no. 1–2 (2009): 197–209, DOI: 10.1080/01930820802312995 (accessed 29 April 2022); Starr Hoffman and Lilly Ramin, “Best practices for librarians embedded in online courses,” Public services quarterly 6, no. 2–3 (2010): 292–305, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2010.497743 (accessed 29 April 2022); Luan, “Research on service,” 1496.
Back to article
51Jie, “Innovative work,” 12.
Back to article
52Luan, “Research on service,” 1496; Li Yuan and S. J. Powell, “Partnership model for entrepreneurial innovation in open online learning,” E-learning Papers 41 (2015), https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/619528/ (accessed 4 May 2022).
Back to article
53Chatterjee and Nath, “Massive Open,” 36–41; Antonio Fini, “The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08 course tools,” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 10, no. 5 (2009), DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v10i5.643 (accessed 29 April 2022); Yuwanuch Gulatee and Prachyanun Nilsook, “MOOC’s barriers and enables,” International Journal of Information and Education Technology 6, no. 10 (2016): 826–830, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.800 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
54Mune, “Massive open,” 100.
Back to article
55Lombardo et al., “Semantics-informed,” 22.
Back to article
56York and Vance, “Taking library,” 209; Hoffman and Ramin, “Best practices,” 305; Junying Yang, “Study on the Development Strategy of the Future Library under Information Environment,” in 2015 International Conference on Industrial Technology and Management Science, pp. 964–966, (Atlantis Press, 2015), DOI: 10.2991/itms-15.2015.232 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
57Ackerman et al., “Libraries massive,”; Heather B Shapiro et al., “Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers,” Computers & Education 110 (2017): 35–50, DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003 (accessed 29 April 2022); Carolyn Hart, “Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature,” Journal of interactive online learning 11, no. 1 (2012), http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/11.1.2.pdf (accessed 4 May 2022).
Back to article
58Jie, “Innovative work,” 12.
Back to article
59York and Vance, “Taking library,” 209; Lu Yanxiang, “Service innovations of university libraries in the MOOC Era,” in 2016 8th International Conference on Information Technology in Medicine and Education (ITME), (IEEE, 2016): 744–747, DOI: 10.1109/ITME.2016.0173 (accessed 29 April 2022); Hoffman and Ramin, “Best practices,” 305.
Back to article
60Jie, “Innovative work,” 12; Wang, “Current Situation,” 606.
Back to article
61Yanxiang, “Service innovations,” 744–47; Yang, “Study on the,” 966.
Back to article
62Jie, “Innovative work,” 12.
Back to article
63Curtis L. Kendrick and Irene Gashurov, “Libraries in the Time of MOOCs,” Educause Review Online 48, no. 6 (2013), https://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/11/libraries-in-the-time-of-moocs (accessed 4 May 2022); Mune, “Massive open,” 100; Yanxiang, “Service innovations,” 744–47.
Back to article
64Lombardo et al., “Semantics-informed,” 22.
Back to article
65Luan, “Research on service,” 1496; Yang, “Study on,” 966.
Back to article
66Ackerman et al., “Libraries massive,”; Ning et al., “Research on the,” 784; Jie, “Innovative work,” 12; Luan, “Research on service,” 1496.
Back to article
67Wang, “Current Situation,” 606.
Back to article
68Laura Pappano, “The Year of the MOOC,” The New York Times 2, no. 12 (2012), https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html (accessed 4 May 2022).
Back to article
69Bert De Coutere, “To MOOC, or not to MOOC,” Training Journal 1, no. 4 (2014):18–22, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html (accessed 4 May 2022).
Back to article
70Marrhich et al., “A Khan Framework,”19.
Back to article
71Rory McGreal et al., Open educational resources: Innovation, research and practice, (Canada: Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University, 2013).
Back to article
72Jane Sinclair et al., “Massive open online courses: a review of usage and evaluation,” International Journal of Learning Technology 10, no. 1 (2015): 71–93, https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1504/IJLT.2015.069450 (accessed 4 May 2022); Kop, Fournier, and Mak., “A pedagogy,” 74–93; Gulatee and Nilsook, “MOOCs barriers,”826–30.
Back to article
73Lucy Barnard et al., “Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments,” The internet and higher education 12, no. 1 (2009): 1–6, DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.005 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
74Marcel S. Kerr, Kimberly Rynearson, and Marcus C. Kerr, “Student characteristics for online learning success,” The Internet and Higher Education 9, no. 2 (2006): 91–105, DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.03.002 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
75Pérez-Sanagustín et al., “H-MOOC framework,” 47–64; Arnab Kundu and Tripti Bej, “Perceptions of MOOCs among Indian State University students and teachers,” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education (2020), DOI: 10.1108/JARHE-08-2019-0224 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
76Chen, “Investigating MOOCs,”; Hew and Cheung, “Student’s and instructor’s use,” 45–58.
Back to article
77Wang, “Current Situation,” 606.
Back to article
78Marrhich et al., “A Khan Framework,” 19.
Back to article
79Long Ma and Chei Sian Lee, “Understanding the barriers to the use of MOOCs in a developing country: An innovation resistance perspective,” Journal of Educational Computing Research 57, no. 3 (2019): 571–590, DOI: 10.1177/0735633118757732 (accessed 29 April 2022); Chatterjee and Nath, “Massive Open,” 36–41.
Back to article
80Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior, (Boston: Springer Science & Business Media, 2013).
Back to article
81Michael Beaudoin, “The instructor’s changing role in distance education,” American Journal of Distance Education 4, no. 2 (1990): 21–29, DOI: 10.1080/08923649009526701 (accessed 29 April 2022); Catherine McLoughlin and Mark J.W. Lee, “Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software,” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26, no. 1 (2010), DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1100 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
82Zhang, “Benefitting from,” 1377.
Back to article
83Zhang, “Benefitting from,” 1377.
Back to article
84Gary W. Matkin, “National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE),” 2012 https://www.slideshare.net/garymatkin/ncseonline (accessed 29 April 2022).
Back to article
85Fadzil et al., “MOOCs in Malaysia.”
Back to article
86Escher, Dimitrios and Patrick, “Boosting higher,” 195; Bernard Nkuyubwatsi, “Evaluation of massive open online courses (MOOCs) from the learner’s perspective,” (2013), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290075408_Evaluation_of_massive_open_online_courses_MOOCs_from_the_learner’s_perspective (accessed 4 May 2022).
Back to article

The quality of higher education through MOOC penetration and the role of academic libraries

Abstract

Paradigm

My account