MOOC for Lifelong Learning, Equity and Inclusion

### **Chapter 8**

## MOOCS for Lifelong Learning, Equity, and Liberation

*Ebba Ossiannilsson*

### **Abstract**

Quality education for all is both a human right based on social justice and liberation and a force for sustainable development and peace. The goal of education for all is stated in United Nations UNESCO Sustainability Goal 4, 2030 Agenda, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. This chapter is based on a systematic literature review. In this chapter, the focus is on global initiatives in education as a global common. The findings support that knowledge is a universal entity constructed by individuals, and it belongs to anyone anywhere and at any time. The year 2012 was dubbed the Year of the MOOC, but because of the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 marked another milestone. MOOCs have dramatically changed the way people learn, and how to access knowledge. MOOCs offer an affordable, flexible way to learn new skills, advance a career, and deliver quality educational experiences. MOOCs have the potential to help individuals enjoy learning and acquire knowledge in a variety of ways. In the changing learning landscapes and the futures of learning, MOOCs can play a variety of roles, such as stand-alone courses in informal and non-formal learning and modules integrated into formal education. It is time to develop and offer more agile, seamless, rhizomatic learning opportunities that promote human rights equity and liberation.

**Keywords:** equity, human rights, liberation, lifelong learning, MOOC, OER, open educational resources, open learning, open movement, self-determined learning, social justice

### **1. Introduction**

Education is both a human right and a force for sustainable development and peace [1]. Every goal of the 2030 Agenda requires education to equip people with the knowledge, skills, and values they need to live with dignity, build their lives, and contribute to their societies [1–4].

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is the most significant public health emergency in the 21st century to date. In higher education institutions, teaching practices have been profoundly disrupted by the closure of their physical campuses, and the crisis has highlighted the urgent need for policymakers and institutional leaders to adapt their educational and policy models accordingly [5]. The ongoing pandemic has thus increased the interest in online education, as many educational institutions, such as schools and campuses, as well as societies, in most countries around the world have been on lockdown since March 2020. Consequently, the

largest massive open online course (MOOC) providers have experienced dramatic growth since the onset of the pandemic [6, 7].

The year 2012 was coined the year of the MOOC [8]. However, 2020 marked another milestone for MOOCs because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Millions of people around the world are now using MOOCs to learn for a variety of reasons, such as professional development, career transition, college preparation, supplemental learning, lifelong learning, and corporate e-learning and training.

MOOCs are free online courses in which anyone can enroll. MOOCs offer an affordable and flexible way to learn new skills, advance careers, and deliver quality educational experiences at scale. MOOCs have dramatically changed the way the world learns. According to Mooc.org [6]. traditional classrooms can only serve a limited number of students, but millions of people around the world want—and need—a quality education.

The United Nations Educational Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) considers that open education and the open movement, such as Open Educational Resources (OER), MOOCs, Open Science, and Open Access, are the most efficient ways to achieve the United Nations UNESCO Sustainability Goals (SDG), particularly SDG4 on education, as well as to promote resilience and sustainability in quality education for all, equity, lifelong learning, and well-being [9]. The use of the term "global commons" underscores the universality of education and the collective global responsibility for education. Education, particularly open education, is a global common goal in achieving equity, social justice, and human rights. Another initiative of UNESCO, which goes beyond the SDGs and aims at empowering individuals to achieve their personal goals, is the global initiative Futures of Education: Learning to Become [2]. This initiative serves as a catalyst for reimagining how knowledge and learning can shape the future of humanity and the planet. The most coherent means of giving shape to this vision of regenerative education is through the principle of education as a global common, which was initially outlined in the 2015 UNESCO report Rethinking Education [10]. In this context, education, knowledge, and their importance for a prosperous future are among the most important global commons, which include water, the atmosphere, and biodiversity.

In this chapter, the focus is on global initiatives in education as a global common. MOOCs are highlighted in relation to the goal of achieving human rights, equality, lifelong learning, liberation, and social justice. Issues of quality are also addressed in this context.

### **2. Method**

This chapter was conducted as part of a systematic review of the literature, including official reports. The purpose of a literature review is to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge in a defined area. Previous research is analyzed to determine what is known from the past, and any inadequacies or gaps in knowledge are [11–13]. The review is conducted systematically using a structured approach to examine each document's process of information gathering, evaluating, and data analysis.

In addition, the chapter is based on the mixed methods approach [11–13], and moreover the chapter is based on the author's own research, experience, and perspectives in a period of almost 20 years. The author has selected examples from the ongoing discourse and debate on the challenges and opportunities of MOOCs in lifelong learning and the future of education, mainly based on official sources, such as the Commonwealth of Learning (COL), the European Commission (EC), UNESCO, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the World

Economic Forum (WEF). In addition, research and information from the largest and most well-known MOOC providers were used as sources. However, these sources do not always represent the official view.

### **2.1 Issues, controversies, and problems**

This chapter does not claim to provide a comprehensive overview of international developments on MOOCs in the field and in the world. Instead, it highlights key international developments. The chapter focuses on the challenges and opportunities related to MOOCs regarding lifelong learning, equity, and liberation.

### **3. Results**

In this section, MOOCs are described according to typology, definitions, and numbers. The largest MOOCs providers are then reviewed. The initiatives by the largest global organizations on open education and lifelong learning and the case for education as a human right, equity and liberation are reviewed. The chapter ends with a discussion of the findings, a conclusion based on them, and recommendations for further research.

### **3.1 Massive open online courses**

Massive open online courses (MOOC) are free online courses in which anyone can enroll. MOOCs offer an affordable and flexible way to learn new skills, advance careers, and deliver high-quality educational experiences at scale [6, 7].

In response to an open online course designed and led by George Siemens at Athabasca University and Stephen Downes at the National Research Council, Dave Cormier at the University of Prince Edward Island and Bryan Alexander at the National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education coined the term MOOC in 2008 [14]. Downes [14, 15] later argued that every letter in the abbreviation MOOC could be negotiated (**Figure 1**), and the concept has evolved over time.

**Figure 1.** *MOOC (see [14, 15], Mathieu Plourde (Mathplourde on Flickr)).*

The first successful MOOC was Sebastian Thrun and Peter Norvig's course, "Artificial Intelligence," at Stanford University in the fall of 2011. More than 160,000 people around the world enrolled to learn together, which was the first time in history that a course had attracted so many participants [6].

MOOCs have dramatically changed the way the world learns. According to Mooc.org [6] traditional classrooms can only serve a limited number of students, but millions of people around the world want–and need–a quality education.

### **3.2 MOOCs, typology, and definitions: cMOOC and xMOOC**

The phenomenon of MOOCs stems from connectivism theory. Siemens [16] defined connectivism as a theory of learning that describes the process of learning through the establishment of online connections between people. While each MOOC has a unique structure and style, MOOCs in general can be divided into two categories: cMOOCs and xMOOCs. According to George Siemens [17].

*…cMOOCs focus on the creation and generation of knowledge, while xMOOCs focus on the duplication of knowledge.*

The original MOOC was a cMOOC. The terms "cMOOC" and "xMOOC" were coined by Stephen Downes, the co-creator of the first cMOOC that was published on the Internet. Launched in 2008, the course was called "Connectivism and Connective Knowledge" (CCK08) and attracted 2,200 enrolled participants. cMOOCs are based on the learning theory of connectivism. Connectivism was first introduced in a blog post in 2004, which was later published in an article by Siemens (16). It was later extended in two publications in 2005: Siemens' Connectivism: Learning as Network Creation and Downes' An Introduction to Connective Knowledge [15, 18].

The theory of connectivism emphasizes the power of networking with other individuals, gathering diverse opinions, and focusing on end goals as the basis of learning. Connectivism is a learning theory aimed at understanding learning in the digital age. Connectivism explains how Internet technologies have created new ways for people to learn and share information over the World Wide Web and with each other. It emphasizes how Internet technologies, such as web browsers, search engines, email, wikis, social networks, online discussion forums, YouTube, and any other tool that allows users to learn and share information with other people, have contributed to new ways of learning. Technologies have enabled people to learn and share information on the World Wide Web and with each other in ways that were not possible before the digital age [15, 18]. Learning occurs not only within an individual, but also within and across networks. A key feature of connectivism is that much of the learning can take place through peer networks that occur online. In connectivism learning, a teacher guides students to information and answers important questions when they arise to help students learn and share independently. Students are also encouraged to search for information online and express what they find. A networked community often develops around such shared information.

Connectivism is based on the idea that learning occurs in networks [14, 16] and that some networks can "support [learners'] agency and cognition" [15, p. 117]. Furthermore, "knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse these networks" [15]. According to Siemens [16, n.p.], the principles of connectivism include the following:


Connectivism views learning as a process of creating connections and expanding or increasing network complexity. Connections can have different directions and strengths [19]. Siemens, argued that cMOOCs are:

*… based on the idea that learning takes place in a network where learners use digital platforms such as blogs, wikis, and social media platforms to make connections with content, learning communities, and other learners to create and construct knowledge. [17, n.p.].*

A connective MOOC (i.e., cMOOC) is open to anyone. Courses are online for a specific period and according to a specific syllabus. The web with its open systems and software is used to facilitate learning, but also to share information and knowledge. Participants in a cMOOC are responsible for what they learn and what and how they share it. As the course progresses, the networking among the learners helps to shape and form the course content in a rhizome-like and agile manner as it moves along. The teacher serves only as a facilitator.

In a cMOOC, participants take on many roles, both as learners, teachers, and facilitators. All are responsible as peer learners, sharing information and engaging in collaborative experiences and discussions. Haber [8] argues that cMOOC reflects the open vision of the web itself, namely that content continuously is generated by the online community and shared with others in an open manner.

Some top universities, such as Harvard, MIT, and Stanford, have begun offering MOOCs in a slightly different format called xMOOC (extended MOOCs). xMOOCs are built around professors and are more oriented toward a traditional classroom structure, rather than the structure as an open online community of learners based on connectivism theory. xMOOCs mostly mirror classroom instruction by combining a pre-recorded video lecture with quizzes, tests, or other assessments. The xMOOCs landscape is expanding daily and now covers an increasing number of topics in all disciplines. The largest providers today are Coursera [20], edX [21], FutureLearn [22], SWAYAM [23], Udacity [24], and ClassPert (a free search engine for online courses).

Although cMOOCs and xMOOCs share the common goal of providing open and free (or relatively low-cost) education to the public, they have distinctly different

modalities, structures, and qualities. The learning environment set up for each of the MOOC forms is suitable for different learners and different methods of knowledge acquisition.

### **3.3 MOOCs statistics**

In the years before 2020, the growth of MOOC providers had stagnated, garnering a similar number of learners each year. However, in 2020, providers collectively gained over 60 million new learners. Coursera alone accounted for half that number, gaining almost as many users in one year as its closest competitor edX had garnered since it was founded. By the end of 2020, 16.3 million MOOCs had been announced or launched by some 950 universities worldwide. Around 2.8 million courses were added in 2020 alone (**Figure 2**) [7].

Boosted by the pandemic, MOOCs garnered 180 million learners in their ninth year (**Figure 3**) [21].

One-third of learners who had ever registered on a MOOC platform did so in 2020. The pandemic brought many people into online education. MOOC providers

**Figure 2.** *Growth in MOOCs (see [21]).*

**Figure 3.** *MOOCs according to number (see [7]).*


### **Figure 4.**

*The largest MOOC providers in numbers (see [7]).*

benefited immensely by attracting many learners to register in free online courses from top universities. Class Central was no exception. Of all people who had used Class Central, 40% did so for the first time in 2020. Now in its nineth year, the modern MOOC movement has surpassed 180 million learners, excluding China. In 2020, providers launched over 2,800 courses, 19 online degrees, and 360 micro-credentials. **Figure 4** shows the top MOOC providers in terms of users and offerings.

### **3.4 The largest MOOC providers**

Currently, the largest MOOC providers are Coursera [20], edX [21], FutureLearn [22], and SWAYAM [23], and Udacity [24], which are described in brief in alphabetic order in the following subsections.

### *3.4.1 Coursera*

Based on a vision to create life-changing learning experiences for learners around the world, Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng founded Coursera in 2012. In partnership with the world's leading universities and companies, Coursera provides access to high-quality online courses and degrees for anyone, anywhere, to bring the best learning opportunities to every corner of the world. Today, Coursera partners with more than 200 leading universities and companies. More than 82 million learners, over 100 Fortune 500 companies, and more than 6,000 colleges, businesses, and governments use Coursera to access world-class learning. In February 2021, Coursera received B-Corp certification, so they not only have a legal obligation to their shareholders, but also positively impact the broader community as they continue their efforts to lower the barriers to world-class education for all. Anytime, anywhere. Coursera's most important core belief is that learning is the source of human progress, and that learning is considered a human right. They believe that education and knowledge have the power to change the world by transforming disease into health, poverty into prosperity, and conflict into peace. They also argue that education has the power to transform lives, families, communities, and societies. Regardless of who the learners are and where they live, learning empowers everyone to change and grow and redefine what is possible. That's why access to the best learning is a right, not a privilege it's Coursera's mission. Everyone everywhere has the power to change their lives through learning [20].

### *3.4.2 edX*

The story of edX began as an experiment and expanded to a global movement [21]. Spearheaded by edX, the concept began as a way for organizations to offer free online courses to millions of students around the world. While the Internet enabled innovation on a massive scale across a wide range of industries, higher education reached only a tiny fraction of the world's curious minds. One afternoon in a lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Professor Anant Agarwal and his colleagues at MIT and Harvard outlined a far-reaching experiment: a platform that would offer their courses online and freely available to anyone who wanted to take the challenge. In February 2012, Professor Agarwal's course at MIT, Circuits and Electronics, was launched, and edX.org was born (edX, 2021). By opening the classroom through MOOCs, edX brings the best courses from the best schools to millions of learners around the world. The edX platform is designed to enable educators to deliver education at a scale that is equal to or better than on-site learning.

MOOC providers have changed education in many ways and continue to do so. edX, for example, has developed innovative modular degrees - MicroMasters® programs and Professional Certificate, which provide flexible and affordable educational opportunities that learners at all levels can use to succeed in an increasingly complex and technologically advanced world, in addition to their full online master's degrees.

In connection with its MicroMasters™ program, other educational programs, and related services, edX regularly works with many types of organizations from around the world: academic institutions (e.g., major research universities, technical colleges, and liberal arts colleges), nonprofit organizations, national governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations.

An institution that strongly aligns with edX's mission and offers the opportunity to contribute strategically, content-wise, and/or financially to the consortium is very welcome to collaborate with edX and discuss where it is today and where it wants to go with online/blended learning and MOOCs. In return, edX provides a range of technical, marketing, and educational services (e.g., training, onboarding, high-level program management, learner technical assistance, course strategy, design, build, delivery, and repeat consultations that include data analytics, etc.) to its members who participate in the MicroMasters program and other educational programs. edX offers the highest quality online courses from institutions that share the commitment to excellence in teaching and learning. More than 34 million learners worldwide are enrolled in 100 million enrollments in 2,800 edX courses in subjects such as the humanities, math, and computer science [21].

In 2012, edX realized that it was time for a seismic shift in education from the tried and true to the new and from "for some" to "for all." By opening up the classroom through online learning, edX has empowered millions of learners to unlock their potential and become changemakers [21].

edX offers opportunities to learn from more than 160 member universities. It has made three commitments to the world. From the beginning, they have stayed true to these commitments:


**Figure 5** shows the statistics for edX in 2020.

*MOOCS for Lifelong Learning, Equity, and Liberation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99659*


### **Figure 5.**

*EdX statistics in 2020 (see [21]).*

### *3.4.3 FutureLearn*

FutureLearn is a private company jointly owned by the Open University United Kingdom and the SEEK Group [22]. The Open University has over 50 years of experience in distance learning and online education. SEEK is a diverse group of companies with the common goal of helping people lead more fulfilling and productive work lives and helping organizations succeed.

FutureLearn launched its first courses in September 2013. Since then, millions of people have registered in its courses. FutureLearn offers a wide range of courses from leading universities and cultural institutions around the world. Courses are delivered step-by-step, and they are accessible via mobile devices, tablets, and desktops, which allows students to integrate learning into their lives [22].

FutureLearn works with several internationally renowned organizations of professional associations, such as the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) and the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), businesses such as the BBC and Marks & Spencer, and the UK Government. With over hundreds of partners around the world, including many of the best UK and international universities as well as institutions with vast archives of cultural and educational material, such as the British Council, the British Library, the British Museum and the National Film and Television School [22] is one of the world's leading providers of MOOCs.

FutureLearn believes that learning should be an enjoyable social experience. Their courses offer the opportunity to discuss what students are learning with others, which helps in making discoveries and developing new ideas. FutureLearns' (2021) values are based on three pillars: learning everything, learning together, and learning with experts [22]:

*Learn anything*: Whether you want to advance your career or discover a new hobby, there is an online course for it. With online programs and degree programs, you can even expand your knowledge.

*Learn together*: Join millions of people from around the world who are learning together. Online learning is as easy and natural as chatting with a group of friends.

*Learn with ex*perts: Meet educators from top universities and cultural institutions.

### *3.4.4 SWAYAM*

In 2014, the Ministry of Human Rights Development (MHRD) in India announced Study Webs of Active Learning for Young Aspiring Minds (SWAYAM) as the national platform for MOOCs under its National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NME-ICT) [23].

### *3.4.5 Udacity*

In February 2012, Thrun founded the Udacity company, which began developing and offering MOOCs for free. Udacity is where lifelong learners come to learn

### **Figure 6.** *Udacity services and offers (see [24]).*

the skills, they need to get the jobs they want and to build the lives they deserve. Udacity reaches out to individuals, governments, and businesses. Their mission is to train the world's workforce for the jobs of the future. They partner with leading tech companies to learn how technology is changing industries and to teach the critical technological skills that companies require in their workforce. Udacity's Nanodegree programs are developed in partnership with the world's most innovative tech companies and taught by industry leaders Udacity [24].

Udacity students are a community of global learners who share the common goals of progress and change. Their unique learning model allows for unprecedented levels of engagement with students, and students are accompanied through their learning journey from the first moment a member of the marketing team answers a question on Facebook to the penultimate moment when a member of the careers team receives news that a graduate has landed a new job. Udacity's mantra is "Students First," which is the guiding light as the company continues its mission to provide the highest quality learning possible for as many students as possible [24].

Udacity [24] has claimed that their powerful and flexible digital education platform can prepare even the hardest working learners to take on the most indemand tech roles. They also have claimed that their active learning offerings have the critical factors required to deliver real results and teach real, employable skills that are project-based. Moreover, students can learn on their own schedules and get help whenever they need it, as shown in **Figure 6**.

### **3.5 UNESCO initiatives in open education**

### *3.5.1 UNESCO's SDGs*

Every goal of the 2030 Agenda requires education to equip people with the knowledge, skills, and values they need to live with dignity, shape their lives and contribute to their societies [1, 10]. Education is both a human right and a force for sustainable development and peace.

The educational goals are stated in SDG 4 of the 2030 Agenda, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education by 2030 and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. It requires political will, global and regional collaboration, and commitment from all governments, civil society, the private sector, youth, the UN, and other multilateral organizations to address education challenges and build systems that are inclusive, equitable, and relevant for all learners. Open education is probably the only way to achieve these goals. The first cMOOC was based on OER, which played a crucial role, as all the materials in the course were in the Creative Commons (CC). The MOOC movement and OER movement are related and strongly connected. The OER movement subsequently resulted in the UNESCO OER Recommendation in 2019 [9]. The UNESCO OER Recommendation outlined five areas of action:

*MOOCS for Lifelong Learning, Equity, and Liberation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99659*

*(i) building the capacity of stakeholders to create, access, re-use, adapt and redistribute OER; (ii) developing supportive policy for OER; (iii) encouraging inclusive and equitable quality OER; (iv) nurturing the creation of sustainability models for OER; and (v) promoting and reinforcing international cooperation in OER* [9, n.p.].

### *3.5.2 UNESCO's the futures of education: learning to become*

In 2019, the International Commission on the Futures of Education was launched by UNESCO to reconsider how knowledge and learning could shape the future of humanity and the planet [2]. The Global Futures of Education initiative of UNESCO, Learning to Become, aims to rethink education and shape the future. The initiative, which involves broad public and professional engagement, aims to stimulate a global debate on how to reimagine knowledge, education, and learning in an increasingly complex, uncertain, and precarious world.

Although the Futures of Education initiative was animated by the recognition that the world's uncertainty, complexity, and fragility were rapidly increasing, it could not have foreseen the global health pandemic in only a few months, which was a reminder that dramatic changes can occur more suddenly and unexpectedly than anyone expects. On one hand, the pandemic has exposed many weaknesses and vulnerabilities, including increased inequalities, risks associated with the privatization of education, and the lack of preparation for the massive shift to digital and distance learning. On the other hand, some positive aspects have also become increasingly visible in society. It is evident that the answer to the challenges facing many societies involves solidarity and strong resilience. There is increased attention to the common good. The same is true of the ingenuity, commitment, and creativity of the many teachers, families, and students who have created remarkable learning experiences.

The pandemic has forced a massive shift away from learning and teaching in traditional settings that depend on physical interaction. The COVID-19 pandemic has compromised public education and increased the risk of fragmentation and disintegration. There has been an increased awareness of the multiple roles that schools play in addition to academic learning, such as child and adolescent wellbeing, health, and nutrition. The increased awareness and appreciation could serve as the basis for a new way forward in public education.

### *3.5.3 UNESCO: lifelong learning - a key competence*

The Lifelong Learning Initiative of UNESCO [3, 4], which rethinks lifelong learning beyond the conceptual boundaries of education, emphasizes the possible reconnection of learning to larger social–emotional domains. This expands thinking about the "future of education" to include new perspectives on strategic areas such as the role of institutions, the use of technology, sources of knowledge and wellbeing, and people's access to learning and education.

Even in the richest economies, millions of people face financial and other barriers that exclude them from learning and prevent them from reaching their potential. The multidimensionality and complexity of the challenges people face require the implementation of a holistic vision and an ecosystem of lifelong learning. Moreover, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) combined with the dislocations caused by climate change, demographic change and the transformation of the labor market have implications for education. Therefore, the education policy agenda must prioritize lifelong learning beyond education and labor market policies [3, 4].

UNESCO has thus argued that the challenges facing humanity, not to mention those posed by the pandemic COVID-19 and the inequalities it exacerbates, requires people who identify as learners throughout their lives, in a society that is a learning society. Achieving this requires a needs-based, learner-centered approach to education that empowers individuals of all ages and backgrounds to dynamically profile and use every learning process and its outcomes to reach their full potential, so that they can become what they want to become. Learning must be a collective process that recognizes the value of peer and intergenerational learning. This social-ethical dimension emphasizes learning to care for one another, foster diverse communities, and ensure the well-being of the planet. A collectively built global learning ecosystem should fluidly integrate formal, non-formal and informal learning, as well as different learning modalities, both online and offline. Such an ecosystem enables planned or spontaneous, individual, or collective learning in all domains throughout the life course and beyond. Legal foundations and mechanisms that recognize lifelong learning as a human right, social justice and liberation must not only ensure the recognition, validation and accreditation of learning outcomes acquired in different contexts. It also requires the democratization of the negotiation of individual and social emotions in learning. It builds on the free availability of educational resources as an 'educational commons' while strengthening learning opportunities through transformed educational institutions, reinvented (public) spaces for learning and revitalized learning in the workplace.

The UN Lifelong Learning Initiative is based on the argument that generating a global culture of lifelong learning is key to addressing the challenges fronting humanity, such as the climate crisis, technological and demographic change, the challenges posed by the pandemic COVID -19 and the inequalities it has exacerbated [3, 4]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to create a culture of lifelong learning. Ten action points are emphasized by UNESCO: (i) recognize the holistic character of lifelong learning; (ii) promote transdisciplinary research and intersectoral collaboration for lifelong learning; (iii) place vulnerable groups at the core of the lifelong learning policy agenda; (iv) establish lifelong learning and equitable access to learning technology for the common and the public good; (vi) transform schools and universities into lifelong learning institutions, and transform pedagogies to be open to the community; (vii) recognize and promote the collective dimension of learning; (viii) encourage and support local lifelong learning initiatives, including learning cities; (ix) reengineer and revitalize workplace learning; and (x) recognize that lifelong learning is a human right.

Learning to learn thus represents a key competence in lifelong learning, and it is a prerequisite for acquiring and improving skills, knowledge, and attitudes. It is a key resource of personal development and active citizenship. It is seen as a skill that can be developed by all, which could ultimately promote the development of democracy. Briefly, learning to learn is defined as giving the learner responsibility for the activity of learning and orchestrating their own learning [3, 4].

Learning to learn concerns the ability to absorb and continue learning, to organize learning individually or collectively, and to make the best use of time, information, and learning opportunities. It includes the ability to set goals, identify the means of and obstacles to achieving these goals according to an individual learning strategy, and effectively monitor and evaluate one's learning process.

This competence means acquiring, processing, and assimilating new knowledge and skills, as well as seeking and using guidance. In learning to learn, the learner builds on previous learning and life experiences to use and apply knowledge and skills in a variety of contexts: personal, professional, and social. Identifying opportunities to increase one's motivation and confidence is critical to learning to learn. Learners and trainers function as motivators and facilitators of participants' learning in their educational work, with the aim of developing positive attitudes toward learning throughout the life course.

### **3.6 OECD**

The OECD initiative The Future of Education and Skills 2030 [5] aims to help education systems determine the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that students need to succeed and shape their futures. The initiative aims to create a shared understanding of the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that learners will need in the 21st century [25, 26].

### **3.7 WEF**

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is the International Organization for Public–Private Cooperation. The Forum brings together political, business, cultural, and other leaders in society to shape global, regional, and industrial agendas [27].

It is critical that individuals take an active attitude toward their own lifelong learning, according to Schwab, the founder, and Executive Chairman of WEF. The Future of Jobs 2018 report points out that businesses and governments need to dynamically encourage workforces to learn and develop skills. Artificial intelligence, robotization, and automation will create new jobs and wealth for millions of people. In addition, people worldwide will need to change, upskill, re-skill, and un-skill their work and careers during their lifespan, and throughout the transition. In all sectors the world needs people with talents and diversity in every way, but especially those who can offer a unique perspective. Fortunately, the digital world has given us new opportunities to reinvent ourselves, continue to learn, and be competitive. To take advantage of these opportunities and participate in the digital workplace, a lifelong learning plan is imperative.

### **4. Discussion**

Quality education for all is a human right, and it aims at achieving social justice and liberation. All global organizations, such as the Commonwealth of Learning (COL), the European Commission (EC), OECD, UNESCO, and WEF, therefore have emphasized the urgent need to implement an open approach to education to achieve the global goals of quality education and the SDG 4 of accessibility, equity, equality, lifelong learning, inclusiveness, and democracy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the education system was challenged, and the limitations became highly visible, especially the difficulties faced by vulnerable groups. Lifelong learning, equality, and liberation were key issues dealt with by societies to ease tensions between inside and outside organizations and enable boundaryless thinking and seamless learning [28]. Seamless learning involves the integration of learning experiences across different dimensions, including formal and informal learning contexts, individual and social learning, and the physical world and cyberspace.

During the pandemic, all MOOC providers confirmed the increased interest in MOOCs by both education institutions and users [7, 20–24]. There was a new peak in the MOOC year of 2020, which was called the second year of the MOOC field. The first one was in 2012. However, it was argued that MOOCs were limited because enrollment was low at about 10%. However, MOOCs are a different type of learning opportunity, and they are usually aimed at a very different audience: lifelong learners and learners who want to take control of and design their own learning journey [25, 26]. Most MOOC learners are self-directed learners [25, 26, 29, 30] and they often choose to learn through MOOCs for the joy of learning, up-skilling, or reskilling. Sometimes, learners just have the goal of networking in a rhizome way.

Rhizomatic learning, according to Gilles and Guattari [31–33], is a variety of pedagogical practices recently identified as a methodology for network-based education [33]. Rhizomatic theory emphasizes that learning is most effective when it allows learners to respond to evolving circumstances, fluidly and seemingly effortlessly, in a kind of serendipity. Cormier argued that in this way "the community is the curriculum" and the focus is on the flow and engagement of learners [32, 33].

It is crucial to understand this form of learning pathway, which can be formal, informal, and non-formal in nature. Furthermore, it is therefore crucial to understand the theories and practices of the theories that underlie MOOCs, as it has already become clear that the first MOOC, Siemens, and Downs' cMOOC, was based on connectivism. Connectivism pedagogies, such as connectivism and rhizomatic learning, propose giving learners responsibility and agency in online learning ecologies so that they can tailor learning experiences to their learning needs using all means, including time, space, mode, path, and media. According to networked learning theories, networked online spaces provide multiple entry points [34–37], and learners in these spaces should take the lead in their own lifelong learning journey [25] and in learning from their experiences.

MOOC learners are usually self-directed. Self-directed learning builds on heutagogy [37]. Like connectivism and rhizomatic learning, self-directed learning is based on a networked theory of learning that promotes learner agency while further expanding other aspects of learning and the role of the learner as an agent of learning. The theory builds on established learner-centered learning theories, such as constructivism, humanism, reflection, and transformational learning [38]. Central to heutagogy is the concept of the learner as the primary agent in their learning [39]. The learner makes decisions about learning based on what is learned and how and whether and to what extent learning has been achieved (e.g., self-assessment). Also central to the theory are the following principles: (i) self-efficacy, which is the learner's belief in their own abilities; and (ii) capability, which is the learner's ability to demonstrate an acquired competency or skill in new and unique settings. The resulting experience of both has the potential to create transformative learning. In addition, reflection, and critical thinking about what has been learned and the learning process in the form of double-loop learning (metacognition) is another principle of heutagogy. Finally, selfdirected learning is characterized by non-linear learning, in which the learning path is learner-driven and not predefined or sequential, as the learner determines what to learn and how to learn it. As a result, this path can often be chaotic and divergent, like learning in a connectivism and rhizomatic learning environment [39].

It is important to understand the role that MOOCs play in individual learning in terms of self-directed and rhizome learning pathways. This role is paramount in understanding the bigger picture of open learning, the role of MOOCs in this context, and how they contribute to the lifelong learning, equity, and liberation of individuals, communities, and societies.

### **5. Conclusion and recommendations**

This chapter is based on the argument that knowledge is a universal entity and that it is constructed by individuals and belongs to anyone who asks for it wherever they need it. The theories of connected learning and learner-centered learning support the view that learning should be designed to enhance learners' agency by harnessing and nurturing learners' intrinsic motivation to learn. Learner agency through heutagogy and online learning ecologies provides sustainable learning experiences, as autonomy is given to the learner, which is highlighted in connectivism and rhizomatic learning. Rather than being constrained by predefined goals

### *MOOCS for Lifelong Learning, Equity, and Liberation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99659*

or objectives, learning is defined by the needs of learners. It is meaningful if it meets these needs and involves learners in deciding what and how to learn. This approach, which is already characteristic of informal learning, can help establish learner agency as the standard for learning, develop learner self-efficacy and skills as a pathway to active, meaningful, and satisfying learning, and promote critical thinking and reflection in formal learning environments.

Before the advent of MOOCs and OER, quality education was a preserve of the privileged few. Therefore, the MOOC raise in 2012, the COVID-19 pandemic [40], and the UNESCO OER recommendation for implementation of its five areas have made a dramatic change in the educational landscape. The direction of education has shifted toward the fulfillment of human rights, quality education for all, equity, and liberation. Every person has the potential to create change, whether in their own lives, in their communities, or in the world. The transformative power of education can unlock this potential. In this regard, the UNESCO initiative on the future of learning, Learning to Become, is crucial in liberating learners to fulfill their self-goals and assume responsibility as global citizens. MOOCs play a critical role in this liberation because well-educated citizens are more likely to be healthy, responsible, and happy. Well-being and education are strongly linked, which the pandemic has demonstrated to the world.

MOOCs have the potential to help individuals enjoy learning, acquire knowledge in diverse ways, and be part of a learning society. In changing "learning landscapes" and the future of learning, MOOCs can play a variety of roles, such as stand-alone courses in informal and non-formal learning and as modules integrated into formal education. The advantages of MOOCs include the possibilities of upscaling and thus offering all global citizens high-quality learning opportunities [41–45]. In addition, the potential of micro-credentials is promising, which is another departure from the elitist education system that has been predominant for the past several centuries. It is time for agile, seamless, rhizomatic learning opportunities and a learning curriculum for individuals' personal choices in the global learning landscape, which must be open to everyone across the globe to achieve lifelong learning, equity, and liberation. MOOCs can play a key role in the achievement of these goals.

### **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **Author details**

Ebba Ossiannilsson Swedish Association for Distance Education, International Council for Open and Distance Education, International Council on Badges and Credentilals, Lund, Sweden

\*Address all correspondence to: ebba.ossiannilsson@gmail.com; info@i4quality.se

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] UNESCO. Leading SDG 4 - Education 2030. 2021. Available from: https://en.unesco.org/themes/ education2030-sdg4

[2] UNESCO. Futures of education, learning to become. 2019. Available from: https://en.unesco.org/ futuresofeducation/

[3] UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning; 2020. Available from: https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000374112

[4] UNESCO. Embracing a Culture of Lifelong Learning: Contribution to the Futures of Education Initiative: Report – a Transdisciplinary Expert Consultation. Hamburg: UNESCO.

[5] OECD. The state of higher education. One year into the COVID-19 pandemic. 2021. Available from: https://www. oecd-ilibrary.org/education/thestate-of-higher-education\_ 83c41957-en?\_ga=2.239633280. 248329523.1625384020-423207501. 1625147232

[6] Mooc.org. About MOOCs. 2021. Available from: https://www.mooc.org/ about-moocs

[7] Shah D. By the Numbers: MOOCs in 2020. Class Central. 2020. Available from: https://www.classcentral.com/ report/mooc-stats-2020/

[8] Haber J. MOOCs. The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series. 2014. Available from https://mitpress.mit. edu/books/moocs

[9] UNESCO. Recommendation on open educational resources (OER). 2019a. Available from: http://portal.unesco. org/en/ev.php-URL\_ID=49556&URL\_ DO=DO\_TOPIC&URL\_SECTION=201. html

[10] UNESCO. Rethinking Education. 2015.Towards a global Common Good. 2015. Paris: UNESCO. Available from https://unevoc.unesco.org/e-forum/ RethinkingEducation.pdf

[11] *C*reswell JW. Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th edition. London: SAGE Publications; 2013.

[12] Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE: 2014.

[13] Creswell, JW, Creswell JD. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2018.

[14] Downes S. New technology supporting informal learning. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence. 2010;2(1): 27-33.

[15] Downes S. Recent work in connectivism. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning. 2019;22(2): 112-131. Available from: https://edtechbooks.org/-NvTV

[16] Siemens G. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Elearnspace [blogpost]. 2004 December 12. Available from: https://edtechbooks. org/-zKa

[17] Siemens, G. Massive open online courses: Innovation in education. In McGreal, R., Kinuthia W., & Marshall S, editors. Open educational resources: Innovation, research, and practice Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University; (2013). (pp. 5-16).

[18] Siemens G. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2005;2: 1-9.

*MOOCS for Lifelong Learning, Equity, and Liberation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99659*

[19] AlDahdouh AA., Osório, AJ, Caires S. Understanding knowledge network, learning and connectivism. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2015;12(10): 3-21.

[20] Coursera. 2021. About Coursera. Mountain View: Coursera; 2021. Available from https://about. coursera.org

[21] edX. About us, transformation through education. Cambridge US: edX; 2021. Available from https://www.edx. org/about-us

[22] FutureLearn. About FutureLearn, our story. London: FutureLearn; 2021. Available from https://www. futurelearn.com/about-futurelearn

[23] SWAYAM. About SWAYAM. New Delhi: SWAYAM; 2021. Available from SWAYAM. https://tools.kib.ki.se/ referensguide/vancouver/#webbwebbsi

[24] Udacity. The latest digital skills, within reach. 2021. Available from: https://www.udacity.com

[25] Ossiannilsson E. Let the learners yake the lead for their lifelong learning Jjourney. In: Keengwe J, Keengwe G., Onchwari, editors. Handbook of Research on Learner-Centered Pedagogy in Teacher Education and Professional Development. p. 159-180. Hershey: IGI Global; 2017.

[26] Ossiannilsson E. Promoting active and meaningful learning for digital learners. In: Keengwe, J, editor. Handbook of research on mobile technology, constructivism, and meaningful learning. Hershey: IGI Global; 2017.

[27] WEF. On the agenda. 2021. Available from: https://www.weforum. org/agenda/archive

[28] Hambrock H, de Villiers F, Rusman E, MacCallum K, Arrieya Arrifin S. Seamless learning in higher education: Perspectives of international educators on its Ccurriculum and implementation potential. Global research project International Association for Mobile Learning; 2020. Pressbook.

[29] Ossiannilsson E, Altinay F, Altinay Z. Analysis of MOOCs practice from learner experiences and quality cultures. Educational Media International. 2015;4: 272-283.

[30] Ossiannilsson E, Altinay Z, Altinay F. Towards fostering quality in open online education through OER and MOOC practices. In: Jemni M, Kinchuk M, Khribi K, editors. Open Education: From OERs to MOOCs (Lecture Notes in Educational Technology). New York City: Springer; 2017.

[31] Deleuze G, Guattari F. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press; 1987.

[32] Ossiannilsson E. Benchmarking e-learning in higher education: Lessons learned from international projects [doctoral dissertation]. Finland: Oulu University; 2012.

[33] Cormier D. Rhizomatic education: community as curriculum. Innovate: Journal of Online Education. 2008;4(5): 1-8.

[34] Siemens, G. Knowing Knowledge. Vancouver: Lulu Press; 2006.

[35] Siemens G. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2005;2(1):3-10.

[36] Siemens G. (2007). Connectivism: Creating a learning ecology in

distributed environments. In: Hug T, editor. Didactics of Microlearning. Concepts, Discourses, and Examples. Munster: Waxmann Verlag; 2007. p. 53-68.

[37] Mbati L. Creating awareness around rhizomatic principles in mLearning: A means to improving practice. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL). 2017;9(2): 74-87.

[38] Hase S, Kenyon C. From andragogy to heutagogy. 2000; Ultibase Articles, 5, 1-10. Available from: https:// edtechbooks.org/-Ibt

[39] Blaschke LM, Bozkurt A, Cormier D. (2021). Learner agency and the learner-centered theories for online networked learning and learning ecologies. In: Hase S, L. M. Blaschke LM, editors. Unleashing the Power of Learner Agency. EdTech Books, 2021. Chapter 4.

[40] Bozkurt A, Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G. et al. A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education. 2020;15(1):1-128.

[41] Creelman A, Ehlers UD, Ossiannilsson E. Perspectives on MOOC quality: an account of the EFQUEL MOOC Quality Project. INNOQUAL - International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2014;2(3): 78-87.

[42] Ossiannilsson E. Quality Models for Open Online Learning (OOL), Open Educational Resources (OER) and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS). Brussels: European Commission ET Working Group on Open and Distance Learning (ODL); 2016. (Unpublished).

[43] Ossiannilsson E. Quality models for open, flexible, and online learning. Journal of Computer Science Research; 2020;2(4): no pages.

[44] Stracke, M, Trisolini, G. A Systematic Literature Review on the Quality of MOOCs," Sustainability, 2021; 13(11): 1-26,

[45] EADTU. OpenUpEd. 2021. Available from https://www.openuped.eu

### **Chapter 9**

## Equality, Diversity and Inclusion – A MOOC for Academic Purposes

*Rita Bencivenga, Cinzia Leone and Anna Siri*

### **Abstract**

Since its fifth framework programme (1998–2002), the European Union has promoted gender equality and equal opportunities in the higher education sector and science and technological development. In its current framework programme for research and innovation, Horizon Europe (2021–2027), the EU requires scientists to systematically integrate the concepts of sex, gender and intersectionality into their research paths and to promote equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in their working environments. However, for historical reasons, following the EU requirements is challenging, particularly for scientists in STEM disciplines. The University of Genoa is planning a MOOC suited to a large research institution audience to address this problem. The MOOC's targets are researchers, scholars, administrative personnel and students interested in advancing EDI practices in the scientific fields. It enables them to understand the basic principles underlying the gender mainstreaming adopted by the EU and integrate methods and strategies related to sex, gender and intersectionality to progress towards an EDI-sensitive institution. Supported by a learner-centred instructional strategy, this chapter explores the choices related to EDI-sensitive methods and strategies adopted to develop and implement an online education path. Theoretical and practical implications are also discussed.

**Keywords:** equality, diversity and inclusion, EDI-sensitive university, gender equality, higher education, MOOC

### **1. Introduction**

It is widely believed that research performing and financing organisations (RPOs and RFOs) should be sensitive to Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI). The European Union (EU), its Member States and national funding organisations have been taking action to help higher education institutions (HEIs) apply for research funding to include sex/gender, intersectionality, diversity and inclusion analyses in their research and throughout their activities, enabling them to promote EDI within their organisations and in the scientific fields.

However, promoting an EDI-informed learning path and research activities requires the introduction of formal, organisation-focused knowledge and knowledge of cross-cutting topics. The idea of the MOOC originated from a search for EDI-focused online courses that did not reveal resources useful to achieving the learning aims described above. The chapter describes the path towards the creation of the MOOC.

In the following pages, we will begin by outlining the state of the art on the course content (EDI) and the chosen format (MOOC). The following paragraph will briefly outline the theoretical framework relating to the transition from lifelong learning to heutagogy. We will then detail the structure and contents of the course and conclude with a reflection on the relevance of the content chosen for HEIs that intend to continue on the EDI path.

### **2. State of the art**

### **2.1 Equality, diversity and inclusion in academia**

EDI is a strategic topic for the higher education sector. It impacts institutional culture, research and learning and teaching. In planning and designing the MOOC on EDI, we focused on the most up-to-date documents and strategies, in order to provide the learners with a helpful roadmap in devising policies for higher education and research and in implementing or supporting ideas and actions in their daily activities, as professionals or students.

The creation of the MOOC has been inspired by the favourable moment in equality, diversity and inclusion strategies and policies at EU level and in the academic sector. The EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020–20251 , the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021–20302 , the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020–20253 and the EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation for 2020–20304 are all part of a Union of Equality to which the European Commission has committed itself, in order to accelerate the process towards equality, diversity and inclusion in Europe.

These documents follow a political path whose main steps are represented by the commitment, in 2015, of EU ministers to promote social inclusion and cultural diversity and foster the education of disadvantaged young people by ensuring that education systems address their needs5 . A similar commitment, focused this time on the higher education system, was declared by higher education ministers at the Ministerial Meeting of the Bologna Process in 2015, where they agreed to make higher education systems more inclusive6 . This was reiterated by the European Commission in its 2017 renewed agenda for higher education.

At the academic level, clear indications have been issued by reports and position papers [1–3] that define the best practices and the approaches to follow to progress rapidly and steadily towards more inclusive academia, supporting institutional growth and capacity building to promote the progress and innovation of European

<sup>1</sup> https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0152&from=EN. Last visited on 15 August 2021

<sup>2</sup> https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip\_21\_810. Last visited on 15 August 2021

<sup>3</sup> https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/lgbtiq\_strategy\_2020-2025\_en.pdf. Last visited on 15 August 2021

<sup>4</sup> https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/eu\_roma\_strategic\_framework\_for\_equality\_inclusion\_and\_participation\_for\_2020\_-\_2030\_0.pdf. Last visited on 15 August 2021

<sup>5</sup> Informal Meeting of European Union Education Ministers, 2015, 'Declaration on Promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education', Paris, France, 17 March 2015. Retrieved on 15 August 2021 from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education\_culture/ repository/education/news/2015/documents/citizenship-education-declaration\_en.pdf

<sup>6</sup> Education Ministers of EHEA member countries, 2015, 'Yerevan Communiqué', EHEA ministerial meeting 2015, Yerevan, Armenia, 14–15 May 2015. Retrieved on 15 August 2021 from http://www.ehea. info/media.ehea.info/file/2015\_Yerevan/70/7/YerevanCommuniqueFinal\_613707.pdf

society. More recently, in a book promoted by the Council of Europe, it is reaffirmed that, in order to be persuasive, institutional leaders need to understand how to adapt their arguments for diversity and inclusion to different audiences and contexts [4].

Inclusiveness is therefore a strategic question for the higher education sector. It impacts institutional culture, research and learning and teaching. HEIs aim to be more open and inclusive and find new ways to enable people from traditionally less represented backgrounds to participate and progress in their working or learning careers, thus increasing diversity.

Diversity is a condition for excellence, and fairness in competition attracts talent at all levels. Non-diverse research environments are less creative and produce poorer results; diverse learning environments are more stimulating than homogenous ones. To support inclusiveness, HEIs may adopt strategies with high impact potential, such as equity in recruitment practices, mentorship and initiatives to ensure inclusive research and an inclusive work environment.

Since the early 1960s, diversity management has been commonly focused on historically disadvantaged groups such as women and minorities, but the concept of diversity has expanded over time, due to growing awareness about differences. For several years, the focus on gender equality has demonstrated, for example, the existence of a "leaky pipeline" [5] for people who identify as female in academia [6, 7]. The gap in academia is affected by ethnicity and intensifies when reaching senior academic roles [8]. Geographical factors may negatively influence a career path, hindering the publication process [9]. The myth that STEM disciplines represent spaces in which identity does not matter has been shattered by research focusing on lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and sexually/gender diverse (LGBTQ+) individuals [10].

Currently, sexual and gender diversity, age and other grounds for potential discrimination have become more visible. The grounds for potential discrimination recognised by EU legislation, in the EU Charter for fundamental rights7 , are sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or beliefs, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation. The challenge is now to monitor these grounds at the academic level to promote EDI. The challenge is facilitated by the focus placed by the European Commission on addressing equality diversity and inclusion in an intersectional [11] perspective, stimulating the progress towards inclusive organisational practices that foster equity across multiple intersecting identities [12].

HEIs are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that "[k]nowledge production and research at universities and research-performing institutions are not as inclusive as they could be." ([1], p. 19). Current research deals with challenges, climate change, poverty, sustainable food production, which could benefit from broader perspectives, promoting excellence and innovation.

Likewise, global challenges such as climate change adaptation, poverty reduction, sustainable food production and, more recently, the COVID pandemic, will be more effectively addressed with an inclusive agenda in mind, since this expands the range of perspectives brought to bear on these problems. The same thinking can and should be applied to the teaching curriculum at research-intensive HEIs, by making the reading materials and the research used as references more inclusive.

The League of European Research Universities (LERU) has identified five opportunities for universities wishing to promote equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) to become institutions where anyone with potential can thrive: better reflect and connect local and global challenges; discover and include the most outstanding

<sup>7</sup> https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/title/title-iii-equality. Consulted on 10 August 2021.

talents by reconsidering the definitions of excellence and success in the academic community; fully realise the potential in all staff and students; enhance wellbeing across the institution to the benefit of recruitment, retention and performance, and increase the validity and quality of research results and knowledge production and transfer [1].

### **2.2 Massive online open courses (MOOC)**

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have developed rapidly and now play a leading role in achieving a "universal" model of education [13–15]. Dave Cormier, University of Prince Edward Island, coined the term Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in 2008, following an early experiment in activating an online course entitled "Connectivism and Connective Knowledge", taught by Professors George Siemens and Stephen Downes [16].

According to Bates [17] and Hayes [18], a MOOC (Massive Online Open Course) can be defined as a product for teaching:


These characteristics imply that a MOOC should not be a repository of Open Educational Resources (OER), or a so-called blended course (although a blended course may also make use of a MOOC), or even a pathway that has a limited number of enrollees or prohibited access to specific categories of people [21].

Those who benefit most from this new model of education are mainly those who, for various reasons, have difficulty following traditional models of education.

Over the years, web platforms providing distance learning through MOOCs have multiplied, and the number and type of content creators have also increased, gradually including important international academic institutions [22, 23].

In the beginning, the first MOOCs had a solid and deep collaborative philosophy (cMOOCs), with a constructivist-connectivist slant, in which participants played an active and predominant role over that of the teacher, who became a facilitator [24].

This philosophy then evolved into a commercial model (xMOOCs) with a delivery-instructionist slant, more widespread and implemented by large institutions (mainly major US universities such as MIT, Harvard, Stanford), carrying on a more traditional model of education, based on video-recorded lectures [25].

However, more recent research has shown that this distinction is no longer feasible, due to the increasing overlap between these two extremes [26, 27].

In Italy, use of MOOCs has been spreading at an increasing rate, driven by the simultaneous growth of the phenomenon of so-called "telematic universities" [28] and the creation of EUDOPEN, a platform for the delivery of defined courses by a network of Italian universities and bodies/associations/networks of scientific and cultural importance **Figure 1**.

### *Equality, Diversity and Inclusion – A MOOC for Academic Purposes DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100314*

**Figure 1.** *EduOpen platform.*

However, it must be highlighted that, while indicated as a resource capable of increasing access to quality education [29], certain aspects of MOOCs have been criticised, especially the difficulties associated with assessment based predominantly on multiple-choice questionnaires [30, 31], poor interaction with participants [32, 33], failure to meet instructional design criteria [30, 34] and use of technology that is not accessible or user-friendly [30].

It is therefore crucial to incorporate pedagogical, didactic, organisational, communicative and technological features that - in the perception of participants and teachers or through the analysis of best practices - result in a "high-quality" MOOC "[35–39].

The literature on the topic is extensive [40].

Learning design for MOOCs seems to follow specific approaches, given that the audience for which they are intended requires a different instructional design than one that works for a defined number of students. Indeed, since anyone with an internet connection can sign up for a MOOC, faculty staff cannot offer personalised support to every student. Consequently, the instructional design of a type of learning that must necessarily be self-regulated is a topic that must be considered carefully.

In creating the MOOC, we will follow the guidelines and reflections for evaluation proposed by the Conference of Italian University Rectors [39], as well as the checklist for verifying the quality of the MOOC case study, divided into the following six macro-environments:

### 1.MOOC STRUCTURE AND SYLLABUS.

### 2.TEACHING MATERIALS.

### 3.ONLINE LEARNING ACTIVITIES.


### 4.ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING.


5.TUTORING, MONITORING AND COMMUNICATION.

### 6.LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (LMS) FEATURES.

Concerning the recognition of CFUs, reference is made to the Guidelines in force in Italy according to Art. 4, paragraph 4, of Ministerial Decree no. 47 of 30 January 2013 (as amended), promoted and adopted by ANVUR (National Agency for the Evaluation of the University System and Research).

To calculate the CFUs deliverable through a MOOC, CRUI [41] points out that:


The forced digitization we are experiencing due to the COVID19 pandemic has pushed academic institutions around the world to focus on MOOCs (Massive open online courses) to strengthen their educational offer and encompass inclusion, quality and sustainability **Figure 2**.

The success of the formula success, at least quantitatively speaking, is confirmed by the numbers: over 180 million enrolled students and 950 universities at the beginning of 2021 (almost double the number of a year earlier), over 16 thousand free online courses on the leading international platforms.

The main trends in the development of MOOCs today can be grouped into the following three: the institutionalisation of degrees based on MOOC offerings, the concentration in oligopolies of MOOC distribution platforms, and the development of professionalising forms of accreditation for the lifelong market. This paper focuses precisely on this third point.

### **Figure 2.**

*By the numbers: MOOCs in 2020 (Source: Class Central: https://www.classcentral.com/report/ mooc-stats-2020).*

### **3. Theoretical framework: lifelong learning and heutagogy**

Lifelong learning is considered a crucial element for individual growth and human development, a valuable opportunity to develop and maintain one's skills [42]. The emergence of this subjective right to lifelong learning implies a rethinking of training processes to enhance skills, abilities and knowledge (cognitive, experiential, relational, technical) related to a life project [43]. Following Dewey [44], education and training are located within a "hidden" process of formation that stimulates permanent attitudes and interests, i.e., lasting mental and emotional habits. In this sense, education is a process of construction, identification and enhancement of different identities that continues throughout a lifetime (lifelong learning). It takes place in different environments of training and experience (lifelong learning). It acquires the value of deep learning (life-deep learning) when it is cognitively and emotionally consolidated, allowing us to communicate with ourselves and with others, regardless of different values (cultural, moral, ethical, social, religious, etc.).

Putting everyone in a position to have equal rights and opportunities for lifelong learning, regardless of their social, cultural and geographic background, is a challenge that enables everyone to participate effectively and with information as citizens in social and political life.

The turning point can come about if training does not focus solely on the acquisition of skills functional to the profession but also addresses the typical tasks of an adult in the various social contexts. An educational policy based solely on a traditional educational model no longer has any meaning or usefulness today. Learning today means living a plurality of experiences, in which everyone recognises themselves and takes direct responsibility for learning, deciding what, how, where and when to learn.

To address the many unprecedented challenges in the cultural, social and professional lives of individuals and modern societies, a new approach to human development must be promoted, a "progression from pedagogy to andragogy to self-regulation, with learners likewise progressing in maturity and autonomy" [45].

The shift from andragogy to heutagogy expands on the self-directed learning practices of andragogy and involves trainees taking an active role in developing their own learning skills to meet their own needs [46–48]. The core of heutagogy is the principle of learner agency [49], and two additional principles are self-efficacy (learner's perception of their understanding of concepts and ability to apply and carry out specific tasks) and capability (develop their capacity to perform these tasks in new and unique environments).

Heutagogy builds on previous theories such as self-directed learning, humanism, capability, constructivism and self-regulation and self-determination [50–52].

It encourages the development of skills of autonomy and exploration, reflection and critical thinking, and innovation and entrepreneurship. It provides opportunities to develop students' self-directed, self-determined and lifelong learning skills, which are critical skills in online learning contexts, and the possibilities of theory align closely with those offered by technology [50–55].

Learners choose their training path by reflecting on their own strengths and weaknesses and exploring new strategies that fit their learning style. Such a process of self-reflection allows for double-loop learning, where the learner is put in a position to evaluate the effectiveness of their problem-solving strategies, evaluate alternative learning resources to activate [56] and their actions along with the beliefs acted upon [57].

Heutagogy has been found to be effective in blended and online learning [52, 55, 57–60]. It is a net-centric theory [61–63], and its intersection with technology is likely to stimulate the definition of one's own learning path, the ability to create one's own content, the ability to seek and explore sources of knowledge, to connect and collaborate with others, to reflect on new information and knowledge and to share one's work [54, 64].

The availability and accessibility of technology solutions enable and facilitate access to educational resources, learning communities and global knowledge exchange. Examples include OERs, Open CourseWare and MOOCs [65].

In addition, social media [52, 57], community-based learning [57], the use of e-portfolios [64] and mobile learning [66] are other technology-supported learning contexts that meet the heutagogical approach.

In this framework, the meaning of training processes is reformulated to integrate certain trends aimed at effectively fostering:


The possibilities offered by new technologies allow for the enhancement of the heutagogical perspective, as they allow for student-generated content and promote active engagement in the learning process through collaboration and self-reflection, engaging in double-loop learning [68].

Within this framework, heutagogy aligns with lifelong learning, as highlighted in the European Framework for Personal, Social and Learning to Learn Key Competence (LifeComp) [69] and the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) [70], meaning that this approach is capable of developing competences for continuous learning.

### **4. Developing the MOOC: equality of opportunities, diversity of representation: towards an equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) sensitive university**

### **4.1 The wider context**

The MOOC is being created within a Horizon 2020 project entitled GenderEX: Gender for Excellence in Research. GenderEx is coordinated by the Kadir Has University Gender and Women's Studies Research Center. The project aims at exchanging knowledge and engaging best practices to stimulate the integration of the Sex and Gender Dimension in Research Content. Three leading international educational institutions are members of the GenderEX partnership: University of Lund (Sweden), University of Genoa (Italy) and Technological University Dublin (Ireland). The overall aim of GenderEX is to further the adoption of a sex/gender dimension in all areas of research and across multiple scientific disciplines in Turkey by enhancing the capacity of GWSRC-KHAS for training and engaging more researchers into this field, with a primary focus on Early-Stage Researchers (ESRs).

Since the Horizon Europe framework programme adopted an intersectional approach to research and innovation, GenderEX has added this aspect in its activities, in order to equip the participants with the most updated scientific perspectives. The perspective of the MOOC is therefore widened to encompass an EDI approach.

### **4.2 Methodology and architecture**

Creation of the MOOC was divided into three phases: secondary and primary research, followed by synthesis and implementation.

Secondary data were collected through several activities, summarised in **Table 1**. A specific search for MOOCs promoting EDI was not limited to the EU. No MOOCs specifically addressing how to promote EDI in academia were found. The team involved in creating the MOOC learning content was formed of experts in gender and EDI-related issues, science and technology. The FIAGES project, focusing on promoting gender equality in STEM academic disciplines and ICT companies, provided a review of the existing learning resources produced by public and private organisations involved in EU projects in the 7th and 8th framework programmes (FPs). The FIAGES project has contributed to the creation of an online course [71], the content of which has been used as a model for the parts of the MOOCs relating to gender issues.

The primary research activities consisted of discussions within the MOOC working group during weekly partners' online meetings (due to the restrictions imposed by the COVID pandemic).

The total duration of the meetings and the selection process was thirty-five hours. Five meetings with the local team (from two to two and a half hours each) made it possible gradually to include secondary research data and search for new or different information to fill in the gaps.

Secondary and primary data enabled the team to draft the MOOC contents and learning experiences (summarised in **Table 1**). The MOOC team held weekly review meetings to consider the emerging secondary and primary research results, reframe content, where necessary, and avoid repeating information that could be sourced elsewhere. The main task was to bear in mind constantly that the information is aimed at higher education staff and students with no previous knowledge or experience in gender studies or EDI theory and practices. The theoretical aspects were therefore kept to a minimum and links to external sources were used to allow those interested to explore theoretical aspects. Over five such meetings, the MOOC team developed and refined a first draft of the MOOC modules. This draft was circulated to UNIGE staff, GenderEX partners and external experts, selected for their critical views of gender equality, diversity and inclusion studies.

### **4.3 Target groups and learning objectives**

The course is aimed at researchers and students in academic and other research institutions. In addition, it should be of particular interest to Gender Equality


**Table 1.**

*Methods used to select and organise the contents.*

Plan (GEP) and EDI team members and Gender equality/EDI equality/diversity officers / focal persons.

The course is particularly suitable for middle managers aiming to start the path towards institutional change and for administrative personnel.

In fact, the MOOC aims to bridge the gap between gender experts and human resources officers, in order to pursue synergies and improve the integration of EDI tools and considerations into decision-making processes.

### **4.4 Course highlights, learning objectives and outcomes**

The MOOC guides participants in becoming more EDI-sensitive in their working and learning activities in an HEI context. EDI is still often interpreted as a mere numerical balance of research participants, but cultural transformation leading to structural change is necessary to achieve gender equality, respect for diversity and inclusion.

Structural change needs to involve EDI-sensitive institutional processes and strategies and requires a vision of equality at individual and organisational levels that crosses disciplinary boundaries and engages with a variety of theoretical perspectives. Institutional and structural interventions challenging behaviour, attitudes and cultures are pivotal in achieving EDI in a broad sense.

The MOOC is based on an inventory and review of existing content provided by the EU and by international organisations, the results of previous projects focused on equal opportunities, gender equality, diversity and inclusion, a review of the scientific literature and the professional experience of the team members.

The introduction and the three modules include videos, texts and quizzes, and the learner is asked to perform tasks that apply the content to real cases. Other resources include links to external websites, videos, podcasts, reports and scientific resources.

The learning objectives of the MOOC, in terms of demonstrable skills and knowledge that will be acquired by the participants, are:


At the end of the course, participants will have acquired the skills to strengthen EDI engagement in the governance of their institution or in their working or learning activities.

Through a deep immersion in the extensive learning material, at the conclusion of all the activities, the participants will receive a certificate of completion from the university sponsoring the course if they complete the online lessons, pass the module quizzes, view all course lectures and complete the course survey.

### **4.5 Format and organisation**

The MOOC materials are based on an inventory and review of documents issued by the EU, the results of EU gender equality and diversity projects, the scientific literature in the field and the professional experience of the team members. It focuses on the more relevant topics to promote participants' awareness and knowledge of EDI in academia.

The online course hosted by the EduOpen platform (https://www.eduopen.org/), the first Italian portal of free university courses open to all [72], consists of four content modules. Firstly, the Introduction module will provide an explanation of the key issues and concepts of an EDI-sensitive academia. It offers the theoretical background and the EU support to higher education and research institutions. The participants will understand the links among EDI, the EU Union Equality concept and strategy and Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) no. 5, "Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls" of the 2030 United Nations Agenda.

The first module, *Highlights of university policies and infrastructure on EDI as promoted by the EU and by its European Universities Initiative*, will explore reports and documents issued at institutional level. Gender equality is mentioned as early as 1957 in the founding Treaty of the European Economic Community (EEC). It is important to become familiar with the steps leading to the current perspectives and expectations about EDI. The module stimulates the debate on the scientific literature that has analysed the opportunities created and the obstacles faced in implementing them and uses illustrative case studies.

In the second module, Equality Committees (Comitati Unici di Garanzia - CUG) and Positive Action Plans (Piani di Azione Positivi – PAP), Gender Equality Plans, participants will learn about the different approaches to EDI at in different countries. While GEPs are mandatory by law in some, a softer approach allows universities to progress at individual level in others. The impact of the new Horizon Europe requirement for public organisations applying for funding to have a formal GEP will be discussed. The strategies adopted to satisfy this requirement and the risks of turning this into a box-ticking exercise will be analysed.

Lastly, the module on *Policies on EDI, their key features, relevance for students* highlights the key achievements and indicators of EDI policies and explains the connections between gender and the UNIGE Ulysseus, Milieu and GenderEX projects and their potential impact on UNIGE, its staff and students. More specifically, through this module, the participant will learn to interpret an EU-funded project addressing EDI topics and understand the strategies applied to adopt an overarching approach and to embed it in the complex set of follow-up activities, ranging from communication to dissemination, exploitation and evaluation. The participants will also learn how to contribute to the progress towards EDI through their individual role in the academic community.

The first edition of the EDI-focused MOOC course equips the participants with a set of multimedia learning tools.

For each module, 10-minute video-lectures, reports and scientific resources, key messages slides, reading materials, support through "Frequently Asked Questions

clinics" and quizzes and assignments to monitor progress (multiple choice) are available. These can be taken in the participants' own time once they have registered for the MOOC.

Each module takes an average of two to three hours to complete and the course is based around a calendar of activities normally lasting four weeks.

The MOOC contents will be in English; some parts of the MOOC will, however, also be available in Italian, to assist participants who do not speak English. Where documents or reports are available in numerous languages (as is the case for many EU documents), links will be available to the multilingual repositories.

The participants are invited to submit questions through the course website. The most relevant questions will be answered by the team in the three virtual clinics. The FAQs and answers will thus become part of the MOOC and will be useful to future participants.

The material will be updated once a year or upon notification of broken links, new relevant documents and other important changes.

After completing the course, all participants will receive a certificate of attendance. The MOOC will be online by the end of 2021, and only formal assessment will enable us to understand its user-friendliness and effectiveness, through selfassessment and e-assessment.

### **5. Conclusion**

The purpose of this case study was to describe the underlying strategies and choices for the design and implementation of the MOOC.

The current coronavirus pandemic sets several new challenges for the entire international community, and there is a growing need for MOOC curricula to be interdisciplinary. At the same time, the role of MOOCs in education, particularly non-formal and informal education, is growing in these turbulent times, due to the current heavy reliance on online communication and learning.

They represent the learning format that seems to best meet the expectations of education (formal, non-formal and informal) as they are inclusive, accessible and equitable.

The broader context of the MOOC is the GenderEX project co-financed by the EU, in which four partners activate a robust exchange of information to promote the integration of the sex and gender dimension into research and to engage in best practices together with international partners.

At the basis of the MOOC planning, there is the awareness that policies aimed at promoting equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in academia lead to improved personnel and students' retention and satisfaction, as well as discovery, integration, application and dissemination of knowledge.

Academic excellence cannot be pursued without providing support to everyone involved, irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, social class and other factors, allowing them to embrace a diverse range of interests, abilities and life experiences that will enhance the exploration of ideas vital to the academic mission.

Integrating the gender equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) dimensions into academia contributes to more inclusive scientific and innovation processes and ensures people from underrepresented groups are included, remain visible and feel supported and valued.

In recent years, thanks also to the initiatives organised by the European Union, HEIs have established diversity guidelines and policies underlined by the commitment to academic excellence and inclusiveness and equal opportunities.

*Equality, Diversity and Inclusion – A MOOC for Academic Purposes DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100314*

The MOOC described in this chapter aims to share best practices in EDI, and equality policies and strategies implemented at the academic level in Europe, allowing the participants to understand the roles they may have in benefiting from these policies in their professional activities and in promoting their implementation and progress actively.

The study responds to the need to train all those working or studying in the higher education sector on EDI and gender mainstreaming, − for which there is scattered online information requiring a significant amount of time to understand the process involved. The difficulty in identifying and using sound sources discourages people interested in learning about EDI-related issues: they are confronted with concepts outside of their academic learning paths and with the multidisciplinary nature of the gender studies field. The MOOC enables learners to follow a clear path, guiding them in applying EDI principles to all aspects of their research, from the initial idea to the dissemination and exploitation phase, and in achieving better gender equality in their working environments.

### **Acknowledgements**

The GenderEX project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 952432. The opinions expressed in this chapter reflect only the authors' view and in no way reflect the European Commission's opinions. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

### **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

### **Author details**

Rita Bencivenga1 \*, Cinzia Leone1 and Anna Siri<sup>2</sup>

1 University of Genoa, Italy

2 UNESCO Chair in Anthropology of Health, Biosphere and Healing Systems, University of Genoa, Italy

\*Address all correspondence to: rita.bencivenga@unige.it

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Buitendijk S, Curry S, Maes K. Equality, diversity and inclusion at universities: the power of a systemic approach. LERU position paper. Leuven; 2019

[2] Claeys-Kulik A-L, Ekman JT. Universities' Strategies and Approaches towards Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Examples from across Europe. Brussels; 2018

[3] laeys-Kulik A.-L. C, Jørgensen T. E., and Stöber, H. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in European Higher Education Institutions: Results from the INVITED Project. Brussels; 2019

[4] Bergan S. and Harkavy I., Eds., Higher education for diversity, social inclusion and community, no. 22. Strasbourg, 2018.

[5] Berryman S., "Who Will Do Science? Trends, and Their Causes in Minority and Female Representation among Holders of Advanced Degrees in Science and Mathematics. A Special Report," A Spec. Rep. Rockefeller Found., p. 148, 1983, [Online]. Available: http://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED245052.pdf.

[6] Martinez ED et al. Falling off the academic bandwagon. Women are more likely to quit at the postdoc to principal investigator transition. EMBO Rep. 2007;**8**(11):977-981. DOI: 10.1038/ sj.embor.7401110

[7] European Commission. She Figures 2018. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2019

[8] Bhopal K. Gender, ethnicity and career progression in UK higher education: a case study analysis. Res. Pap. Educ. 2020;**35**(6):706-721. DOI: 10.1080/02671522.2019.1615118

[9] Thaler K et al. Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against

publication bias decreases their effectiveness: A systematic review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2015;**68**(7):792-802. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.008

[10] Boustani K, Taylor K. Navigating LGBTQ+ discrimination in academia: where do we go from here? Biochem. (Lond). 2020;**42**(3):16-20. DOI: 10.1042/BIO20200024

[11] Crenshaw K., "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics," Univ. Chic. Leg. Forum, vol. 1989, no. 1, 1989, [Online]. Available: http://chicagounbound. uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8.

[12] Carbado DW, Gulati M. The intersectional fifth black woman. Du Bois Rev. Soc. Sci. Res. Race. 2013;**10**(2):527-540

[13] UNESCO. Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries: Final Report; UNESCO (CI-2002/CONF.803/CLD.1): Paris, France, 2002. http://unesdoc. unesco.org/ images/0012/001285/128515e.pd

[14] UNESCO. 2012 Paris OER Declaration; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2012; Available online: www.unesco.org/ new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/ CI/pdf/Events/Paris%20OER%20 Declaration\_01.pdf.

[15] Lorrie Schmid, Kim Manturuk, Ian Simpkins, Molly Goldwasser & Keith E. Whitfield (2015) Fulfilling the promise: do MOOCs reach the educationally underserved?, Educational Media International, 52:2, 116-128, DOI: 10.1080/09523987.2015.1053288

[16] Cormier, D., Siemens, G. (2010). The open course: Through the open door--open courses as re-search,

### *Equality, Diversity and Inclusion – A MOOC for Academic Purposes DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100314*

learning, and engagement. Educause Review, 45(4), 30 (2010).

[17] Bates, T. (2014), Teaching in the Digital Age. https://opentextbc.ca/ teachinginadigitalage/

[18] Hayes, S. MOOCs and Quality: A Review of the Recent Literature; QAA: Gloucester, UK, 2015; Available online: http://publications.aston. ac.uk/26604/1/MOOCs\_and\_quality\_a\_ review\_of\_the\_recent\_literature.pdf.

[19] Chapman SA, Goodman S, Jawitz J, Deacon A. A strategy for monitoring and evaluating massive open online courses. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2016;**57**:55-63

[20] DeBoer, J., Ho, A. D., Stump, G. S., & Breslow, L. (2014). Changing "course": Reconceptualizing educational variables for massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 74-84.

[21] Stracke CM, Downes S, Conole G, Burgos D, Nascimbeni F. Are MOOCs Open Educational Resources? A literature review on history, definitions and typologies of OER and MOOCs. Open Prax. 2020;**11**:331-341

[22] Chatti, M. A., Yousef, M. F., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M. (2014), What Drives a Successful MOOC? An Empirical Examination of Criteria to Assure Design Quality of MOOCs, in Proceedings of 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.

[23] Peters, G., Seruga, J. A supply sided analysis of leading MOOC platforms and universities. Knowledge Management & E-Learning:An International Journal, 8(1), 158- 181 (2016).

[24] Wang Z, Anderson T, Chen L, Barberà E. Interaction pattern analysis in cMOOCs based on the connectivist

interaction and engagement framework. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2017;**48**:683-699

[25] Stracke CM, Downes S, Conole G, Burgos D, Nascimbeni F. Are MOOCs Open Educational Resources? A literature review on history, definitions and typologies of OER and MOOCs. Open Prax. 2020;**11**:331-341

[26] Veletsianos G, Shepherdson P. A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013-2015. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2016;**17**:198-221

[27] Zawacki-Richter O, Bozkurt A, Alturki U, Aldraiweesh A. What research says about MOOCs—An explorative content analysis. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2018;**19**:242-259

[28] Pozzi, F., Conole, G. Quale futuro per i MOOC in Italia? TD Tecnologie Didattiche, 22(3), 173-182. (2014).

[29] Clair RS, Winer L, Finkelstein A, Wald S, Finkelstein A, Fuentes-steeves A. Big Hat and No Cattle? The implications of MOOCs for the adult learning landscape. The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education. 2015;**27**(3):65-82

[30] Lowenthal P & and Hodges C: International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16 (5) (2015), pp. 1-8.

[31] Kursun, E. (2016). Does Formal Credit Work for MOOC-Like Learning Environments? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17 (3), 75-91. http://dx.doi. org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2222

[32] Walker L. and B. Loch INNOQUAL-International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2 (3) (2014), pp. 53-63.

[33] Chapman, Sarah & Goodman, Suki & Jawitz, Jeff & Deacon, Andrew.

(2016). A strategy for monitoring and evaluating massive open online courses. Evaluation and Program Planning. 57. 55-63. 10.1016/j. evalprogplan.2016.04.006.

[34] Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compedu.2014.08.005

[35] Wright C.R., Criteria for evaluating the Quality of Online Courses, Alberta Distance Education and Training Association, 2003.

[36] Ehlers, U.-D. (2004). Quality in e-Learning from a Learner's Perspective. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning (EURODL), 7 (1).

[37] Ehlers, U.-D. 2012.Quality Assurance Policies and Guidelines in European Distance, and E-learningIn I Jung & C. Latchem (Eds.), Quality assurance and accreditation in distance education and e-learning, pp. 79 -90. New York: Routledge.

[38] Ehlers U-D. Open Learning Cultures. A Guide to Quality, Evaluation, and Assessment for Future Learning. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013

[39] Conole, G. (2013), MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs, Revista de Educación a Distancia, vol 39, pp 1-17, available at: www.um.es/ead/red/39/ conole.pdf

[40] Stracke, Christian M., and Giada Trisolini. 2021. "A Systematic Literature Review on the Quality of MOOCs" Sustainability 13, no. 11: 5817. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13115817.

[41] Conferenza dei Rettori delle Università italiane - CRUI (2017). Progetto MOOCs Italia. Linee guida nazionali per la predisposizione di MOOCs di qualità erogati dalle Università italiane. Available at the webpage: https://www.crui.it/ images/1-\_LineeGuidaMOOCsItalia\_ aprile2017.pdf.

[42] Ehlers U-D, Kellermann SA. Future skills: The future of learning and higher education. Results of the International Future Skills Delphi Survey: Baden-Wurttemberg Cooperative State University; 2019 https://bit.ly/2WogLKv

[43] Whiting, K. (2020). These are the top 10 job skills of tomorrow— And how long it takes to learn them. World Economic Forum. https://www. weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/ top-10-work-skills-of-tomorrow-howlong-it-takes-to-learn-them.

[44] Dewey J. Experience and education. New York: Macmillan; 1938

[45] Canning, N. (2010). Playing with heutagogy: Exploring strategies to empower mature learn- ers in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(1), 59-71.

[46] McAuliffe, M., Hargreaves, D., Winter, A., & Chadwick, G. (2008). Does pedagogy still rule? In Proceedings of the 2008 AAEE Conference, December 7-10, 2008. Yeppoon, Queensland. http://www. engineersmedia.com.au/journals/aaee/ pdf/AJEE\_15\_1\_McAuliffe%20F2.pdf

[47] Hase, S. (2009). Heutagogy and e-learning in the workplace: Some challenges and opportunities. Impact: Journal of Applied Research in Workplace E-learning, 1(1), 43-52. DOI: 10.5043/impact.13

[48] Snowden M, Halsall JP. Selfdetermined approach to learning: A social science perspective. Cogent Education. 2016;**3**(1):1247608 https:// doi.org/10.1080/23311 86X.2016.1247608

### *Equality, Diversity and Inclusion – A MOOC for Academic Purposes DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100314*

[49] Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. In UltiBase Articles. http://ultibase.rmit. edu.au/Articles/dec00/hase2.htm

[50] Blaschke, L. M., & Hase, S. (2019). Heutagogy and digital media networks: Setting students on the path to lifelong learning. Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 1– 14. https:// doi.org/10.24135/ pjtel.v1i1.1

[51] McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M.J.W. (2010). 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(1), 28-43. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/ mcloughlin.pdf

[52] Blaschke, L. M. (2014). Using social media to engage and develop online learners in self- determined learning. Research in Learning Technology. http://www.researchinlearningtechnol ogy.net/index.php/rlt/artic le/ view/21635/ html

[53] Agonács, N., & Matos, J. F. (2019). Heutagogy and self- determined learning: A review of the published literature on the application and implementation of the theory. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 34(3), 223– 240.

[54] Cochrane, T. (2020). Exploring #heutagogy. Exploring Educational Technology (Weblog). https:// thomcochrane.wordpress. com/2020/10/14/exploring-heuta gogy/

[55] Lock J, Sakhal S, Cleveland-Innes M, Arancibia P, Dell D, De Silva N. The heutagogical bridge: Linking blended and online learning to technologyenabled lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2021

[56] Alkire S. Subjective Quantitative Measures of Human Agency. Social Indicators Research. 2005;**74**(1):217-260 [57] Narayan, V., Herrington, J., & Cochrane, T. (2019). Design principles for heutagogical learning: Implementing student- determined learning with mobile and social media tools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 86– 101. https://doi. org/10.14742/ ajet.3941

[58] Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and selfdetermined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 56– 71. https://doi.org /10.19173/irrodl. v13i1.1076

[59] Cochrane, T., & Munn, J. (2020). Integrating educational design research and design thinking to enable creative pedagogies. Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(2), 1– 14. https:// doi.org/10.24135/pjtel.v2i2.58

[60] Rivers, C., & Holland, A. (2020). Does blended learning change what learning is? (Weblog.) WonkHE. https:// wonkhe.com/blogs/ does- blend edlearn ing- chang e- what- learn ing- is/

[61] Anderson T. Theories for learning with emerging technologies. In: Veletsianos G, editor. Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 35– 50). Athabasca University Press; 2010

[62] Dron J, Anderson T. Teaching crowds: Learning and social media. Athabasca University Press; 2014 https://www.aupress.ca/ books/120235-teaching-crowds/

[63] Blaschke, L. M., & Hase, S. (2019). Heutagogy and digital media networks: Setting students on the path to lifelong learning. Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 1– 14. https:// doi.org/10.24135/pjtel.v1i1.1

[64] Blaschke, L. M., & Marin, V. I. (2020). Applications of heutagogy in the educational use of e- portfolios. Revista de Educación a Distancia RED. https://revis tas.um.es/red/artic le/ view/407831

[65] Thomas A, Campbell LM, Barker P, Hawskey M. Cetis publications. 2012. Into the wild: Technology for open educational resources URL: http:// publications.cetis.org.uk/2012/601

[66] Cochrane, T., & Munn, J. (2020). Integrating educational design research and design thinking to enable creative pedagogies. Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(2), 1– 14. https://doi. org/10.24135pjtel.v2i2.58

[67] Kahle D. Designing open education technology. In: Iiyoshi T, Kumar MSV, editors. Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content and open knowledge. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2010 http://mitpress.mit. edu/sites/default/files/titles/ content/9780262515016\_Open\_Access\_ Edition.pdf

[68] Blaschke, L. M. (2021). The dynamic mix of heutagogy and technology: Preparing learners for lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52, 1629– 1645. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13105

[69] Sala A, Punie Y, Garkov V, Cabrera Giraldez M. LifeComp: The European framework for personal, social and learning to learn key competence. In: EUR 30246 EN. Office of the European Union: Publications; 2020 https://doi. org/10.2760/302967

[70] Redecker C. European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. In: Punie Y, editor. EUR 28775 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2017 https://doi.org/10.2760/159770

[71] Bencivenga R, "Transferability of methods and strategies for advancing gender equality in academia and research: a case study of an online course aimed at academic and professionals," in Learning Technology for Education Challenges, 2021, pp. 90-100.

[72] Siri A, Rui M. (2017). The EduOpen Innovation. The University of Genova opens to MOOCs: A case study. EMEMItalia 2016, in Design the Future!, pp. 393-402.

### **Chapter 10**

## Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in Sub-Saharan African Higher Education Landscape: A Bibliometric Review

*Abdullahi Abubakar Yunusa, Irfan Naufal Umar and Brandford Bervell*

### **Abstract**

In this study, we examined articles focused on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) implemented in the sub-Saharan African (SSA) Higher Education context that describes the different models of MOOCs enacted as an initiative to provide access and opportunity to acquire quality higher education across different disciplines within the sub-region. In addition, the review aims to identify those factors that facilitate or inhibit the success and growth of MOOCs in the SSA context to understand how MOOCs has fared between the time 2012 to 2021. Based on this premise, 30 articles were included in the review in accordance with the authors'set criteria. Results revealed that there are very few collaborations, linkages, and relations between MOOCs researchers in SSA, similarly there is a slow growth of MOOCs production, Narrative, Conceptual and Discourse analysis are the dominant analytical methods, while the perennial challenges of poor internet connectivity, lack of policy framework, poor bandwidth and electricity and lack of personnel with the requisite competences were the major hinderances to MOOCs growth in SSA. The inferences, implications and future directions were discussed.

**Keywords:** MOOCS, production, relations, Challenges, sub-Saharan Africa, Higher Education, Bibliometric Review

### **1. Introduction**

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have emerged as a disruptive technological innovation in the educational sphere and has stoked conversations among critical stakeholders in education [1, 2]. MOOCs are educational offerings that have broken the barriers of distance, time and space and provided opportunity for diverse population of learners to access quality and affordable education. However, there is an indication that the number of paid MOOCs users are on the increase with a corresponding decrease in the number of MOOCs enrollees in the broader global context. According to Shah [3], over the period of seven years, the number of new MOOC users are shrinking while more and more people are paying for MOOCs with corresponding rise in the number of MOOCs degrees. Nevertheless, over 100

million people have enrolled in MOOCs in about 900 universities that offer more than 11,000 MOOC courses since its inception in 2008 [3].

Over the years, MOOCs has evoked different interests among researchers, institutional managers and media organizations such as The New York Times, blog posts and other information dissemination platforms [4] and this is viewed as a reflection of its acceptance and recognition of its vast potentials for promoting equity, individualized learning, flexibility, and the massification of the learning process [1, 5]. … MOOC was coined by David Cormier [6] to describe a course with a very large enrolment and open to diverse range of students. Openness in terms of content, design, accessibility and diverse criteria for completion or success following the successful launch of Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CCK08) course in 2008. MOOCs may vary based on pedagogical interactions, participants experience and learning outcome [7].

In recent times, MOOCs have evolved into different formats: the connectivist MOOCs also known as cMOOCs, is a form of MOOCs in which users engage in learning through social engagement and interaction, wherein they create, co-create and share knowledge and learning experiences. Bates [8] described the key features of cMOOCs as based on networked learning, because learning develops through connections and discussions among participants in social media space without standard technology platform. In contrast, the xMOOC is designed in the form of the traditional model of teaching (also refered to as transmission model) Zhao, Wu, and Huang, [9] referred to xMOOCs as the 'teacher-centric' MOOC model. A recent addition is the Hybrid MOOC which is an agglomeration of the cMOOCs and xMOOCs. The range of MOOCs affordances for opening up to a large number of willing learners of diverse background, eliminating geographical, and resource constraints, flexibility, scalability, and affordability in terms of cost when compared to traditional education systems and the ability to be enrolled in both formal and informal offerings [10] makes it a good fit for sub-Saharan Africa and for learners in resource constrained regions [11, 12]. Nevertheless, MOOCs are bedeviled by issues of contextual relevance, attrition, poor completion rates, issues around credentialling and credit values [1, 13, 14]. Also, despite its popularity MOOCs are still nascent in sub-Saharan Africa as it is more popular in developed countries [14, 15]. A quick search on the Scopus database show that none of the prolific authors of MOOCs literature are in the sub-Saharan African context and the authors in SSA are seemingly not connecting (see **Figure 1**). This scenario makes it plausible to investigate the growth and research trends in order to understand the MOOCs phenomenon in the SSA [16].

Given that, there are conflicting positions regarding the low patronage of MOOCs in SSA. Some authors argued that "MOOCs offered on Cousera platforms

### **Figure 1.**

*Network visualization of most occurring keyword terms in MOOCs articles in SSA.*

were more successful among the young, male, well-educated and employed students in developed contexts [17, 18].Whereas, Ngimwa and Wilson, [11] reported that low technological level in Africa do not impede the adoption of educational technology, contrary to previous research studies [19–21]. Therefore, it is important to dig further to shed more light on the evolution of a disruptive technology such as MOOCs.

This chapter adopts a systematic bibliometric review approach to identify, collect, analyze, and synthesize articles focused on MOOCs applications in sub-Saharan Africa higher education in order to highlight the MOOCs growth landscape within the scope of authors occurrence and links strength, contexts of publication, adoption trends, research design strategies and the factors inhibiting the growth of MOOCs in the region across different disciplinary contexts. Bibliometric review is a technique that is used to highlight the activities of recorded knowledge and identifies the patterns, forms, and shape of the phenomenon of interest [22] Accordingly, bibliometric analysis is relevant in identifying, mapping, and visualizing the pattern of MOOCs authorship, adoption, implementation, and opportunities in the SSA higher education context based on publication trends. The review of literature shows a resurgence of Bibliometric studies across different scientific field. However, we align with the recommendation by Veletsianos & Shepherdson, [23] to the extent that more research is needed to clearly understand whether MOOCs literature are biased towards countries, or regions [24] as well as the growth of the technology within the SSA context. **Figure 1** illustrates the most recurring keyword terms within the corpus on MOOCs in SSA.

There are several studies that have focused on MOOCs across time periods, research objectives, outcomes, using diverse theories and methodological approaches. For instance, Liyanagunawardena et al., [4] conducted a systematic review article on MOOCs between 2008 and 2012; Albelbisi, Yusop, Kalsum, and Salleh [25] Mapped the factors promoting MOOCs, while, Yunusa and Umar [26] reviewed articles on MOOCs adoption, awareness, and barriers in sub-saharan Africa. In that work, forty articles were identified and analyzed to shed light on MOOCs trajectory in sub-Saharan Africa. Since then, more MOOCs platforms have emerged without clarity on the MOOCs trends in SSA. Moreover, the need for MOOCs in underserved communities has been made more stronger with the outbreak of the Corona virus disease (COVID-19) which had upset the norms, stunted and negatively impacted on academic activities in most parts of SSA [27] Hence, this study is Plausible. Moreover, identifying these factors will provide further empirical evidence for reference, guide and inform decisions on policy, curriculum design as well as learning design for MOOCs in the sub-Saharan African region. Moreover, de Waard et al., [28] noted that "more research needed to be undertaken into the realities, benefits, and challenges of MOOCs in order to properly map their dynamics" (P.112). Against this backdrop, this study seeks to achieve the following objectives:


iv. To draw on the information gathered to make inferences on the implications of the findings to higher education in sub-Saharan Afric1a.

Consequently, the paper responded to the following research questions:


### **Figure 2.**

*Network visualization of the co-occurrence of keyword terms on Scopus database.*

From **Figure 2**, the most recurring terms within the search strings on Scopus database was massive open online courses, followed by course, education, research, higher education, learning, learner, and development. The size of the circle represents the weight of the term relative to other terms while the lines represent the relationships between the terms.

**Figure 3** depicts the authors in the articles on MOOCs in SSA, indicating their relations and occurrences. The size of the circle around an author represents the weight and the co-occurrence of the author within the literature in the review. The absence of line strings as connections/links suggests that not much of collaboration and references to the different MOOCs projects has been made by the authors. The authors with the most occurrences are Czerniewicz, Deacon Small, Walji, [29] with

### **Figure 3.**

*Network visualization of authors occurrence in MOOCs articles landscape in SSA.*

a total of 30 link strengths and 29 links. Two occurrences within the 42 items, while authors such as Kalema and Bybazaire, Adetomiwa, Ampong and Ofori, Mtebe and Kissaka, Umar and Muhammad all have only one occurrence, one link strength and in most cases no links and total links strengths.

### **2. Methodology**

### **2.1 Method and design**

This study adopted the bibliometric review approach by mining data from databases Scopus, and the Harzing, Publish or Perish software [30] for literature management. We developed a set of article inclusion and exclusion criteria and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol by Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff and Altman [31]. The PRISMA protocol is a sequential process to search, identify, collect, analyze, synthesize and report findings from the published articles. We searched databases for articles focused on "MOOCs" in sub-Saharan Africa, we used search terms such as (TITLE-ABS-KEY ('massive AND open AND online AND courses' OR 'mooc') AND TITLE-ABS KEY ('higher AND education' OR 'higher AND education AND institutions') AND TITLE-ABS-KEY KEY ('moocs') AND TITLE-ABS ('sub-saharan AND africa')) AND PUBYEAR >2011-2021.We also used Boolean functions to search the databases.The reference pages of retrieved articles were also chain searched (snowballing technique) for relevant articles. The articles were then sorted and organized based on the predetermined criteria, **Table 1** showcases the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of the articles, whereas **Figure 4** depicts the review process. Next we used the VOSviewer clustering and visualization software [32, 33] to cluster and map the authors identified within the review based on co-occurrence and the citation network. **Figures 1** and **2** shows the Network Visualization of authors of the articles on MOOCs in SSA and the Keyword strings within the bibliometric review.

### **Inclusion Criteria**


### **Exclusion criteria**


### **Table 1.**

*Article selection criteria for the systematic review of MOOCs awareness, adoption and barriers in SSA.*

### **Figure 4.**

*Literature inclusion and exclusion process adapted from PRISMA Moher, Liberati,Tetzlaff and Altman [31].*

### **3. Results and analysis**

To properly sort the articles, they were coded based on contexts, research design, subjects and sample size, disciplinary contexts, MOOCs model of implementation, and the inhibitions to the success of the MOOCs projects.

i. Contexts: refer to the location where the study was conducted and geographical region


In line with the above-mentioned measures, 30 articles were found relevant to the focus of the systematic bibliometric review. However, three articles: *Applying MOOCocracy learning culture themes to improve digital course design and online learner engagement* by Akinkulie & Shortt (2020) *Digital neo-colonialism and massive open online courses (MOOCs): colonial pasts and neoliberal futures,* by Adam Taskeen [35] and *A Kenyan Cloud School: Massive Open Online & Ongoing courses for blended and lifelong learning* by Jobe [36] despite its focus on Secondary school education level because it appears to be one of the first of its kind in SSA and offers interesting insights in to the development and testing of MOOCs at that level. They were also included despite their broad focus on MOOCs and its fundamental goals and contributes to the understanding of MOOCs from historical, philosophical, and pragmatic principles of implementation, and make the case for MOOCs based on the unique context of underserved communities rather than on neoliberal philosophical world view of openness and accessibility.

### **3.1 Contexts and yearly article production trends**

The distribution of articles based on the context or location of MOOCs adoption and implementation studies is illustrated in **Figure 5**.

**Figure 5** illustrates the scientific production trends of MOOCs articles based on contexts. Nigeria tops the chart with nine articles followed by South Africa with five, Articles focused on the broader African context have four articles Kenya three, Uganda two while Ghana, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and Eswatini (Swaziland) produced one article each. The publication trends show a significant growth between 2012 and 2014 from one article to four in 2013 and five in 2014, and three each for 2015 and 2016, another rising wave was observed in 2017 with five articles which appeared to be the "plateau of production" then began the downward slide from 2018 with four and two each in 2019, 2020 and one in 2021. There are prospects for additional literature in 2021 going forward given the increase in E-learning research spurred by the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (Yunusa, Ismaila, Dada,

### **Figure 5.**

*Spread of MOOCs articles in SSA context.*

Solomon & Agbo, [27] which provided varied options for technology mediated engagements in the form of MOOCs, emergency remote teaching, and online learning models.

### **3.2 Subjects and sample size**

The subjects and samples sizes featured in the reviewed articles are presented in **Figure 6**.

### **Figure 6.**

*Research sample characteristics and sample size classification within the review.*

From **Figure 6**, the distribution of the articles by types of sample characteristics shows that Thematic, discuss, narrative analysis is the most dominant research techniques within the SSA literature 56% (n = 18 articles), followed by articles with students as respondents 25% (n = 6), articles with teacher, instructors or facilitators as respondents 16% (n = 4) while the least form of samples are institutional leaders and both teachers and students each with one article (4%).

### **3.3 Disciplinary contexts of the MOOCs literature in SSA**

What are the different subjects/course or disciplines within which MOOCs were adopted/ implemented in SSA?

**Table 2** shows that the MOOCs articles within SSA were focused on only seven disciplinary/ subject contexts, spread across the period under the review. The


### **Table 2.**

*Disciplinary contexts of MOOCs literature within the study.*

subject areas covered are presented in a chronological order for ease of reference. They include, Archives and records management, Computer science, Digital skills and Economy, continued professional development (CPD) MOOCs, Mathematics, Readiness factors, differentiated as well as Systematic review. Despite the low production the spread depicted MOOCs as a multidisciplinary avenue (**Table 3**).

### **3.4 Research design and methods utilized in MOOCs studies in SSA**

The different research approaches used within the reviewed articles are illustrated in the **Figure 7**.

From **Figure 7**, the statistics on the research design and instruments are presented. The design groupings were classified based on the recommendation by Creswell [34]. Conceptual narrative discourse was the most prominent in the literature (n = 14) followed by quantitative research design (n = 8), Mixed methods (n = 4), and qualitative research design (n = 3), The least recurring of the designs was the experimental design (n = 1).while the most used instrument/ analytical technique was narrative and discourse analysis, followed by survey questionnaire, combinations of survey questionnaire, interview and observations, systematic reviews, and the least was experimental testing approach.

### **3.5 Disparate forms of MOOCs implementation models in SSA**

The review of the MOOCs articles revealed that the MOOCs implementation models in SSA are based on two fundamental models. The connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs) and teacher centric MOOCs (xMOOCs) (Bates [8]; Gaebels [60] as cited in [39]), particularly the teacher guided models that mimic the traditional teaching method where the learning experiences are guided by the teacher as the second predominant model/approach. On the other hand, 50% of the articles were based on narrative/thematic/discourse analysis and anecdotes wherein the authors draw on their experiences and evolution of MOOCs in other contexts to propose indigenous / contextualized formats for the African continent. For instance, Rambe & Moeti [46] enunciated the potentials of MOOCs to disrupt the educational landscape in Africa.

However, the authors argued that for that to happen, the MOOCs curriculum must be designed within the context of the needs of the African environment not as an extension of the elitist models from established institutions (such as MIT,







**Table 3.**

*Summary of the reviewed MOOCS articles in SSA context.*

### *Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in Sub-Saharan African Higher Education Landscape… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99041*

**Figure 7.** *Research designs and relevant instruments within MOOCs articles on SSA.*

Harvard, Stanford etc.,). Similarly, Mtebe and Kissaka [38] dwelled on the potentials of MOOCs to enhance the quality of Computer Science Education in Tanzania, Similarly, Nhamo, [39] examined the feasibility of MOOCs for driving the transition to the development of green economy in Africa. furthermore, Boga & McGreal [21] reported their experience with how Cousera platform was used to provide opportunity for the enhancement and development of ICT skills in Sub-Saharan Africa to prepare them for the evolving knowledge economy. MOOCs as capacity building vehicles include the Teachers E-learning Portal (TEP) for enhancing the teacher's digital literacy and life-long learning capabilities in Uganda [17], The Teacher Education for Sub-Saharan Africa (TESSA), also known as TESSA MOOCs [40] which focused on Kenyan Teachers and Teacher Educators. The predominant themes for the narrative analyses also include opportunity for innovative credentialing [47]; MOOCs revolution implications for African Higher Education (Carvalho & Woldegiyorgis [49]; MOOCs for addressing African evaluation capacity [42]; Boosting African Higher Education through shared MOOCs [57] and the advocacy for a wholly African MOOCs (MOOCs for Africa by Africa [45]). Though an emerging phenomenon in the African context a few MOOCs adoption focused on the lower rung of the educational stream (Primary and Secondary education); The Kenyan Cloud School MOOCs for teaching foundational subjects [36].

### **3.6 The inhibiting factors within the MOOCs literature on SSA**

A cluster of the inhibiting factors based on the reviewed literature was also created using the VOS viewer application. **Figure 8** presents the visualization of the

**Figure 8.** *Cluster density visualization of inhibitions to MOOCs growth in SSA.* text density visualization of the inhibiting factors of MOOCs in SSA. The most prominent are absence of policy framework to guide the adoption and implementation of the MOOCs platforms, poor teaching methods, acute shortage of expertise and personnel, Infrastructural factors, and irrelevant and outmoded curriculum across the SSA context.

### **4. Discussion**

This paper aims to provide insights on the evolution of MOOCs in sub-Saharan Africa by searching, locating, and identifying articles on different *aspects of MOOCs* focused on sub-Saharan African contexts. Published between 2012 and 2021 *The Harzing publish or persish* literature search and management software along with the Scopus data base were used to identify 30 articles based on the authors'set criteria. The choice of the time period of the review was premised on the global evolution of the MOOCs phenomenon, given that MOOCs began to rise in 2013 [61] and was a Buzzword in 2012, [62]. The findings show a slow but steady production of articles on MOOCs in SSA domain, though with a bit of in consistencies. For instance, there was significant growth observed between 2012 to 2014, with a slight decline in 2015 and 2016, However, an increase was recorded in 2017 which appeared to be the highest since then. Though, from global perspectives MOOCs literature have been on the ascendancy, the probable reason for the slow pace of the scientific production of MOOCs in SSA may not be far from the myriads of challenges hindering its adoption in the sub-region. Nonetheless, significant publications have been recorded by the frontline countries in E-learning adoption and uptake such as Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, and Tanzania.

These countries have recorded significant growth in internet penetration and usage including web based technologies such as the popular learning management systems, Moodle [19, 63]. According to a report by the international telecommunication union (ITU [64]) Kenya and Tanzania ranked 3rd and 4th behind Nigeria and South Africa as countries in Africa with the fastest growing mobile technology subscribers and internet users [63] given these statistics it can be concluded that the growth of MOOCs as reflected in the bibliometric review followed this trajectory even though these are not necessarily used for education purposes. Also, the low production may not be unconnected with the socio-economic status of the SSA countries as well as the doubts on its ability to impact positively given the disparity in the learning conditions between the environment where MOOCs was founded and the developing environment such as the SSA. Moreso that empirical evidence have shown that individuals who are already educated and have higher socioeconomic status are more disposed to the MOOCS particularly in the developed contexts [65, 66] Notwithstanding, MOOCs has the potential to reduce inequities in education when contextualized and structured on the needs of the underserved communities [35, 67].

In terms of research design, the systematic bibliometric review revealed that the conceptual, narrative and discuss analysis was the most dominant within the reviewed literature. This is also not surprising given the scenario mentioned earlier. The contradictions around the conception of MOOCs as a technology that can facilitate the inclusion of underserved individuals is still raging within the SSA contexts. As [35, 46, 67] argued, until the issues around the contextualization and relevance of MOOCs to Africa is fully resolved, most discussions around the phenomenon would continue to be anecdotal and based on the experiences of the privilege few who are only opportune to experience MOOCs either through shear individual self-directedness and determination to achieve certain learning goals as in the case of the Rwandan citizens [68] or through interventions and partnerships

as is the case with the TESSA MOOCs [40] which emphasized MOOCs based on partnership with global organizations and prominent MOOCs providers such as Cousera (www.cousera.org), edX(edx.org), Udemy (www.udemy.com), FutureLearn (futurelearn.com), Openlearning (www.openlearning.com) etc.

Regarding subject area, disciplinary contexts, and samples that were more pronounced in the MOOCs articles, the novelty of the MOOCs and it's slow pace stuck out. This is because the most prominent subject areas and the themes revolved around, readiness, willingness to adopt, and the researchers narration the relevance of MOOCs to some of the disciplinary contexts such as Evaluation management and Archives and records management practitioners [37, 42]. Thus, underscoring the explorative inclination of MOOCs research. It is however, encouraging to observe the widening of the scope of research based on discipline as it cut across the STEM, STEAM and Continued personal and professional development of individuals and collectives across the different fields within the review (covering, Archives and Records Management, Computer science, Green Economy, and Mathematics). The presence of computer science, mathematics and the arts and humanities resonate with the courses that recorded completions in prominent platforms [69], thus, reflecting the multidisciplinarity of the phenomenon. Similar reasons may be advanced for the sampling techniques and sample sizes expressed within the MOOCs literature in SSA.

The dominant model among the MOOCs within the empirical literature are the traditional MOOCs format (xMOOCs), which is a replication of the teacher dominated model, followed by the connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs). This outcome may also be ascribed to the predominance of the conceptual or theoretical views of the MOOCS phenomenon aligning with the findings of [16] they found that conceptual model constituted the most employed in their review as more than half of the articles in the corpus used this approach. However, these researchers argued against viewing MOOCs from theoretical or conceptual perspectives as according to them there is no evidence of how this benefits the growth or otherwise of MOOCs [70].

In that sense, it may therefore be inferred that the predominance of conceptual approach to the MOOCs phenomenon signifies a limitation in the actual practice or adequate utilization of the MOOCs affordances or technology within the context of the study. In terms of research methodology, and instruments, the findings also corroborated previous literature but add to the body of evidence from SSA perspectives. Additionally, conceptual narratives and thematic discourse analysis outnumbered the use of survey, observation, or a combination of both. The survey instrument approach was the next most used, followed by qualitative method while the least was the experimental and/ or testing-based article. More investment in MOOCs through partnership and innovative conception of the technology in SSA will benefit from the exploration MOOCs vast potentials through empirical research. Regarding the milestones, the successes and the enthusiasm demonstrated in the few MOOCs within the SSA literature (e.g TESSA MOOCs in Kenya, E-learning Portal, Uganda) underscores the relevance of MOOCs in providing and facilitating accessibility and learning at scale. While the inhibitions are peculiar issues with developing countries, which needed to be solved through concerted efforts, conscious quality policy and legal framework for the implementation of MOOCs and more investment through partnerships with established institutions and MOOCs providers.

### **5. Conclusion**

This paper sought to identify articles published on MOOCs focused on the technology in SSA between 2012 and 2021 to understand the growth and production

trends of the phenomenon. 30 articles were found relevant and included in the bibliometric review. The review identified the most recurring keywords, the prolific authors, and their relations depicting a lack of collaborations among the experts within SSA. The low production of MOOCs articles signifies that despite the muchtaunted disruptive potential of MOOCs to address the needs of underserved communities, the expectations are yet to be met. Perhaps due to the underlying challenges inherent in developing environments and the philosophy of being a neocolonial product and not fit for the SSA context. The predominant literature was based on anecdotes and expert opinions with a few empirical articles. Based on the findings we can conclude that more collaboration, networking, and partnership is required to develop a nuanced indigenous MOOC for SSA.

### **6. Limitations, future studies, and recommendation**

This study's limitations may be drawn from the broader aspects of bibliometric studies and the method. Though, the paper sought to highlight the growth of MOOCs production, and drew a matrix that included the journals, the paper did not cover the metrics on the sources and document types, albeit due to space constraints therefore, future studies might want to consider the journals, journal citation metrics and their ranking based on MOOCs article publication to offer more interesting insights. In addition, the review did not capture the authors citation metrics. But rather presented only the link strengths and occurrences of the authors. Furthermore, the review was based on literature from Harzing publish or perish and Scopus, even though Harzing is an integrative platform, there may be literature in other databases that were not captured. The review was primarily focused on SSA therefore limiting extrapolation to Africa in general despite common characteristics across the continent. Future studies might want to consider comparative reviews between SSA and the rest of the region (North Africa).

### **Acknowledgements**

We acknowledge the authors of all the articles that were used in the review and appreciate their insights and contributions that guided the focus of the paper. We also appreciate the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments that help shaped the paper.

### **Conflict of interest**

The authors hereby declare that they have no conflict of interests regarding this paper.

### **Availability of data**

All the data related to this article are contained in the article matrix which can be found from this link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NLY1yXDTN-DOPr0wPpZAJ0cXN2IaHtGys/view?usp=sharing.

### **Author details**

Abdullahi Abubakar Yunusa<sup>1</sup> \*, Irfan Naufal Umar<sup>2</sup> and Brandford Bervell<sup>3</sup>

1 Department of Curriculum Studies and Educational Technology, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto, Nigeria

2 Center for Instructional Technology and Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

3 College of Distance Education, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana

\*Address all correspondence to: abdullahi.yunusa@udusok.edu.ng

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] T. Teo and H.M. Dai: "The role of time in the acceptance of MOOCs among Chinese university students." Interact. Learn. Environ. vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–14, 2019.

[2] J. Jacoby: "The disruptive potential of the Massive Open Online Course: A literature review." *J. Open, Flexible, Distance Learn.* vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 73–85, 2014.

[3] D. Shah: Year of MOOC-based degrees: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2018. Retrieved from https:// www.class-central.com/report/moocsstats-and-trends-2018/2019, January 6.

[4] T.R. Liyanagunawardena, A.A. Adams, and S.A. Williams: "MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012." *Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn.* vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 202, 2013.

[5] K.S. Hone and G.R. El Said: "Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study." Comput. Educ. vol. 98, pp. 157–168, 2016.

[6] S. Downes: Places to go: Connectivism and connective knowledge. *Innovate Online* 5(1). Retrieved from https://www.academia. edu/2869475/Places\_to\_go\_Connectivi sm and\_connective\_knowledge 2008.

[7] T. Phan, S.G. McNeil, and B.R. Robin: "Students' patterns of engagement and course performance in a Massive Open Online Course." Comput. Educ. vol. 95, pp. 36–44, 2016.

[8] Bates T. MOOCs: Getting to know you better. Distance Education. 145-8, 2014 May 4;35(2).

[9] M. Zhao, J. Wu, and X. Huang: "A Framework of Building Effective MOOCs." International Conference on Management,Education and Social

Sciences (ICMESS 2017). pp. 31–34 (2017).

[10] D. Tao, P. Fu, Y. Wang, T. Zhang, and X. Qu: "Key characteristics in designing massive open online courses (MOOCs) for user acceptance: an application of the extended technology acceptance model." Interact. Learn. Environ. vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–15, 2019.

[11] P. Ngimwa and T. Wilson: "An empirical investigation of the emergent issues around OER adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa." Learn. Media Technol. vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 398–413, 2012.

[12] A.A. Yunusa, I.N. Umar, and James Ussher: "Leveraging Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) for Increased Access and Quality Education in Nigeria." The Asian Conference on Education & International Development 2020 Official Conference Proceedings. pp. 14, 2020.

[13] A.A. Economides and M.A. Perifanou: "MOOC Affordances Model." vol. 562, no. 2016, pp. 605–613, 2018.

[14] R.A. Rasheed, A. Kamsin, N.A. Abdullah, A. Zakari, and K. Haruna: "A Systematic Mapping Study of the Empirical MOOC Literature." IEEE Access. vol. 7, pp. 124809–124827, 2019.

[15] R. McGreal: "Special Report on the Role of Open Educational Resources in Supporting the Sustainable Development Goal : Quality Education Challenges and Opportunities Quality Education : Role / Contribution of OER." *Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn.* vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 292–305, 2017.

[16] A. Bozkurt, E. Akgün-Özbek, and O. Zawacki-Richter: "Trends and patterns in Massive Open Online Courses: Review and content analysis of research on MOOCs (2008-2015)." Int. Rev. Res.

Open Distrib. Learn. vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1–23, 2017a.

[17] B. Oyo, B.M. Kalema, and J. Byabazaire: "MOOCs for in-service teachers: The case of Uganda and lessons for Africa." Rev. Española Pedagog. vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 121–141, 2017.

[18] G. Christensen, A. Steinmetz, B. Alcorn, A. Bennett, D. Woods, and E.J. Emanuel: "The MOOC Phenomenon: Who Takes Massive Open Online Courses and Why?" *Ssrn*. 2014.

[19] J.S. Mtebe and C. Raphael: "Key factors in learners'satisfaction with the e-learning system at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania." Australas. J. Educ. Technol. vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 107– 122, 2018.

[20] A.A. Yunusa, I.N. Umar, and B. Bervell: "Octennial review (2010-2018) of literature on M-learning for promoting distributed-based medical education in sub-Saharan Africa." *Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn.* vol. 20, no. 2, 2019.

[21] S. Boga and R. McGreal: "Introducing MOOCs to Africa: New economy skills for Africa program – ICT." *CoL Athabasca Univ.* vol. CC-BY-SA, no. January, pp. 1–10, 2014.

[22] F.S. Harouna and S. Lei: "Review of Literature on Social Media Use : A Bibliometric Analysis." Eur. Bus. Manag. vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 101–111, 2018.

[23] G. Veletsianos and P. Shepherdson: "Who studies MOOCs? Interdisciplinarity in MOOC research and its changes over time." *… Rev. Res. Open …* . 2015.

[24] R. Wahid, A. Ahmi, and A.S.A. Alam: "Growth and Collaboration in Massive Open Online Courses: A Bibliometric Analysis." *Int. Rev. Res. Open …* . 2020.

[25] N. Albelbisi, F.D. Yusop, U. Kalsum, and M. Salleh: "Mapping the factors influencing success of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) in higher education." *EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ.* 2018.

[26] A. A. Yunusa, I.N. Umar: Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS) in a global context: awareness, adoption and barriers in higher education institutions, the sub-Saharan African perspective. shmuhammad.com.

[27] A.A. Yunusa, I.T. Sanusi, A.O. Dada, S.S. Oyelere, and Joseph Friday Agbo: "Disruptions of Academic Activities in Nigeria: University Lecturers' Perceptions and Responses to the COVID-19." 2020XV Conferencia Latinoamericana de Technologias de Aprendizaje. pp. 1–6., Ecquardo (2021).

[28] I. de Waard, A. Koutropoulos, R.J. Hogue, S.C. Abajian, N.Ö. Keskin, C.O. Rodriguez, and M.S. Gallagher: "Merging MOOC and mLearning for increased learner interactions." Int. J. Mob. Blended Learn. vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 34–46, 2012.

[29] L. Czerniewicz, A. Deacon, J. Small, and S. Walji: "Developing world MOOCs: A curriculum view of the MOOC landscape." *J. Glob. Literacies, Technol. Emerg. Pedagog.* vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 122–139, 2014.

[30] A.W Harzing: Publish or Perish, available from https://harzing.com/ resources/publish-or-perish. 2007.

[31] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, D. Altman, G. Antes, D. Atkins, V. Barbour, N. Barrowman, J.A. Berlin, J. Clark, M. Clarke, D. Cook, R. D'Amico, J.J. Deeks, P.J. Devereaux, K. Dickersin, M. Egger, E. Ernst, P.C. Gøtzsche, J. Grimshaw, G. Guyatt, J. Higgins, J.P.A. Ioannidis, J. Kleijnen, T. Lang, N. Magrini, D. McNamee, L. Moja, C. Mulrow, M. Napoli, A. Oxman, B. Pham, D. Rennie, M. Sampson, K.F.

Schulz, P.G. Shekelle, D. Tovey, and P. Tugwell: "Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement." *PLoS Med.* vol. 6, no. 7, 2009.

[32] N.J. Van Eck and L. Waltman: "Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer." *arXiv*. pp. 1–25, 2017.

[33] N.J. Van Eck and L. Waltman: "VOSviewer Manual version 1.6.16." *CWTS Meaningful metrics*. no. September, 2020.

[34] J.W. Creswell: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage; 2014.

[35] T. Adam: "Digital neocolonialism and massive open online courses (MOOCs): colonial pasts and neoliberal futures." *Learn. Media Technol.* 2019.

[36] W. Jobe: "A Kenyan Cloud School. Massive Open Online & Ongoing courses for blended and lifelong learning." Open Prax. vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 301–313, 2013.

[37] C.T. Chisita and V.W. Tsabedze: "Massive open online courses (MOOCs): a tool for intercontinental collaboration in archives and records management education in Eswatini." *Rec. Manag. J.* vol. ahead-of-p, no. ahead-of-print, 2021.

[38] J.S. Mtebe and M.M. Kissaka: "Enhancing the quality of computer science education with MOOCs in sub-Saharan Africa." Handbook of Research on Active Learning and the Flipped Classroom Model in the Digital Age 2015.

[39] G. Nhamo: "Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and Green Economy Transition: Feasibility Assessment for African Higher Education." Jhea/Resa. vol. 1121, no. 1, pp. 101–119, 2013.

[40] P.W. Wambugu: "Massive Open Online Courses ( MOOCs) for Professional Teacher and Teacher Educator Development : A Case of TESSA MOOC in Kenya." Univers. J. Educ. Res. vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 1153–1157, 2018.

[41] L. Czerniewicz, A. Deacon, M. Glover, and S. Walji: "MOOC - Making and Open Educational Practices." J. Comput. High. Educ. vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 81–97, 2017.

[42] C.B. Mapitsa, L. Khumalo, H. Engel, and D. Wooldridge: "Can massive open online courses fill African evaluation capacity gaps?" African Eval. J. vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2019.

[43] C.O. and Reju and L.C. Jita: "Students' experiences with distance and online learning of university-level undergraduate mathematics in Nigeria." vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 112–125, 2018.

[44] C.O. Fakinlede, M.O. Yusuf, and O. V Mejabi: "Readiness for Online Learning in Higher Education : A Mixed Methods Assessment of Students at a Nigerian University." Malaysian J. Distance Educ. 16(1)*,*. vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 37–57, 2014.

[45] B. Oyo and B.M. Kalema: "Massive open online courses for Africa by Africa." *Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn.* vol. 15, no. 6, 2014.

[46] P. Rambe and M. Moeti: "Disrupting and democratising higher education provision or entrenching academic elitism: towards a model of MOOCs adoption at African universities." Educ. Tech Res. Dev. vol. 65, pp. 631–651, 2017.

[47] G. van Stam: "eLearning in Africa and the Opportunity for Innovative Credentialing." Fifth International Conference on e-Infrastructure and e-Services for Developing Countries (Africomm 2013) (2013).

[48] S. Odebero: "The Place of MOOCs in Africa's Higher Education." Handbook of Research on Innovation Technology Integration in Higher Education. pp. 248–261. *IGI Global*, USA (2016).

[49] A.A. Woldegiyorgis and L. Carvalho: "Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and the 'revolution' in higher education: Implications for Africa." *13th Int. Conf. African Priv. High. Educ.* pp. 321–341, 2015.

[50] S.H. Muhammad, A. Mustapha, and K. Haruna: "Massive Open Online Courses : awareness, adoption, benefits and challenges in Sub- Saharan Africa." Int. J. ICT Manag. vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 60– 68, 2016.

[51] E. Fianu, C. Blewett, G. Ampong, and K. Ofori: "Factors Affecting MOOC Usage by Students in Selected Ghanaian Universities." *Educ. Sci.* vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 70, 2018.

[52] N.M. Castillo, J. Lee, F.T. Zahra, and D.A. Wagner: "MOOCs for Development: Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities." Inf. Technol. Int. Dev. vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 35–42, 2015.

[53] P.J. Kpolovie and E.C. Iderima: "Readiness for MOOCs: Learners' inequity in Nigeria." EPRA Int. J. Econ. Bus. Rev. vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 5–25, 2016.

[54] B. Akinkuolie and M. Shortt: "Applying MOOCocracy learning culture themes to improve digital course design and online learner engagement." *Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.* no. 0123456789, pp. 2–5, 2021.

[55] A. Safana and M. Nat: "Systematic Review On Massive Open Online Courses Based On Primary/Meta-Analysis." Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. vol. 6, no. 01, pp. 212–219, 2017.

[56] B. Ipaye and C.B. Ipaye: "Opportunities and Challenges for Open Educational Resources and Massive Open Online Courses : The Case of Nigeria . Commonwealth of Learning." *Educo-Health Proj. Ilorin, Kwara Niger. Abstr.* 2013.

[57] G. Escher, D. Noukakis, and P. Aebischer: "Boosting Higher Education in Africa through Shared Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)." *Rev. Int. Polit. développement*. vol. 5, no. 1, 2014.

[58] L. Czerniewicz and Andrew Deacon Janet Small Sukaina Walji: "Developing world MOOCs: A curriculum view of the MOOC landscape." *J. Glob. Literacies,Technol. Emerg. Pedagog.* vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 122–139, 2014.

[59] T. Adebo and T. Ailobhio: "Massive Open Online Courses awareness and adoption by Nigeria university students: ( A Case Study)." Int. J. Comput. Eng. Inf. Technol. vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 41–46, 2017.

[60] M. Gaebel: 'MOOCs: Massive Open Online Courses (EUA Occasional Paper)', Brussels: European University Association (EUA) 2013.

[61] A. Bozkurt, N. Ozdamar Keskin, and I. de Waard: "Research trends in Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) theses and dissertations: Surfing the tsunami wave." Open Prax. vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 203–221, 2016.

[62] L. Yuan and S. Powell: "MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education." *Cetis*. pp. 19, 2014.

[63] R.R. Joel S. Mtebe: "Investigating students' behavioural intention to adopt and use mobile learning in higher education in East Africa." Int. J. Educ. Dev. Using Inf. Commun. Technol. vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 4–20, 2014.

[64] International Telecommunications Union (ITU): World Telecommunication / ICT Indicators

Database. Geneva: International Telecommunications Union (ITU) 2010.

[65] S. Lambert: "Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion?: A systematic review 2014–18." *Comput. Educ.* vol. 145, no. 103693, 2020.

[66] R. Pollack Ichou: "Can MOOCs reduce global inequality in education?" Australas. Mark. J. vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 116–120, 2018.

[67] B. Nkuyubwatsi: "Positioning Extension Massive Open Online Courses (xMOOCs) within the Open Access and the Lifelong Learning Agendas in a Developing Setting." J. Learn. Dev. vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 14–36, 2016.

[68] B. Nkuyubwatsi: "Fostering collaborative investment in massive open online courses (MOOCs)." *leicester. figshare.com*, 2015.

[69] T.R. Liyanagunawardena, S. Williams, ..., P. Version, and O. Access: "The impact and reach of MOOCs: a developing countries' perspective." *eLearning Pap.* vol. 0, 2014.

[70] A. Bozkurt, E. Akgün-Özbek, and O. Zawacki-Richter: "Trends and patterns in Massive Open Online Courses: Review and content analysis of research on MOOCs (2008-2015)." Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1–23, 2017b.

### **Chapter 11**

## The Adoption of Massive Open Online Courses in Selected Sub-Saharan African Countries: The Experiences of Urban Learners

*Vollan Ochieng', Maurice Mutisya and Caroline Thiong'o*

### **Abstract**

MOOCs is slowly gaining traction in the education provisioning in SSA. Much of this is attributed to governmental and institutional aim of providing quality and affordable universal education to all learners. This chapter explores how MOOCs is affecting access to learning in SSA, with particular bias to urban education context. Evidence adduced in this chapter was adduced from secondary sources, involving review of relevant literature available from internet sources. In the internet sources visited, key search terms that were used in obtaining the relevant resources included but not limited to: 'MOOCs and education', 'MOOCs in Africa', 'Education technologies AND MOOCs in Africa', 'MOOCs, OERs adoption and adaptability in Africa', and 'MOOCs' challenges in Africa' among others. It emerged that while MOOCs is gaining the needed traction in the SSA education space, the pace of its development is slow and calls for a more concerted effort from concerned education stakeholders.

**Keywords:** urban education, massive open online courses (MOOCs), distance learning solutions, learning and teaching

### **1. Introduction**

The onset of COVID-19 has set the stage for the hitherto ignored learning approach – virtual/distance learning solutions. The approach (distance learning) could be observed as a blessing amidst a curse (pandemic). It is an approach that could be explored and expanded to promote learning for all as it has the capability of breaching the geographical and distance barriers in access to quality education. With the school closures due to COVID-19, most governments in SSA, like the rest of the world, adopted distance learning to ensure continued learning. In this chapter, we look at Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria as case examples. Evidence from the foregoing in the education space – catalyzed by COVID-19, indicates that the future of education is digital and online, further re-emphasizing the central place of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in the attainment of SDG-4. The MOOCs place is the education sphere is thus validated. From the foregoing, it would be important to understand the place MOOCs in the African educational context.

This chapter explores the place of MOOCs in selected sub-Saharan African countries – Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria – in relation to the advancement of education in the countries' urban areas.

### **2. What is MOOCs?**

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is an education platform that is gaining popularity in the field of education in the recent times. Like the name, MOOCs are synonymized by learning provision that is technology enabled, meaning that they are largely utilizable via the internet or online, and are open (meaning their potential users are not restricted on access). Also, they are 'massive' in the sense that the platform can accommodate a huge (massive) number of learners at any given time [1]. MOOCs can be traced from Dave Cormier lecture on connectivism in 2008 that was used to synonymize learning's development [2].

Today, varied definitions of MOOCs do exists, and this is to a large extent attributed to the existing divergent viewpoints on MOOCs as a median of learning by proponents and opponents, emergence of varied platforms, MOOC's wider scope, as well as its perceived futuristic feature, where opponents perceive it as a yet to mature learning approach/medium that cannot be scalable in the current context.

At its inception stage, MOOCs' definition was that it was a learning platform that encompassed the linkage of social networks, accessible by a renowned expert in a study discipline, and an assemblage of open internet-based learning materials. The platform was such that it could accommodate mass number of learners, organized according to their field or discipline of study interest and study goals [3, 4]. Laurillard [5], on the other hand offered a perceived easier definition which stated that MOOCs is an online/internet enabled learning that is created to support a huge number of learners. Chai's [6] definition is no different from that of McAuley et al. [4], as the former [Chai's definition] maintained that MOOCs are open learning platforms that are freely accessible to all learners, geographical location notwithstanding, provided that such learners has access to internet connectivity and education enabling technologies like computers, tablets, and smartphones among others. De-Waard [7] reinforces the above captured definitions by maintaining that MOOCs is an online learning platform in which learners gather to share experiences and knowledge either at the workplace or in schooling aspects and work in collaboration as well as individually to learn more using the available learning resources in MOOCs platforms.

### **3. How MOOCs work**

In terms of form or appearance, MOOCs being online based platform where users access learning contents via the internet, it often take or come in the following formats that users utilize in enhancing their skills-set: learners interaction platforms through forums; recorded or filmed video lessons; exams and internetbased assessments; engaging educational modules; literacy; and sets of problems for users to solve [6]. Typically, for each MOOC, there is need for a course platform and a provider of the course. Examples of providers of course(s) are universities and colleges that avail lecturers or instructors as well as course(s) learning materials for learners/users' access and interaction in the existing platform [6, 8]. Among the widely existing and known platforms that offer the requisite technological structure for MOOCs' course modules include Coursera (Udacity), EdX and Canvas among others [6, 9].

### *The Adoption of Massive Open Online Courses in Selected Sub-Saharan African Countries… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99321*

Given the above MOOCs' definitions and features, it can argued that definitions of MOOCs is inspired by its acronyms 'MOOC' as it emphasizes shared involvement or participation as well as collaboration in learning. Despite the notable definitions advanced for MOOCs, it is still observed to be loosely defined since in whole, MOOCs can be observed in relation to the scalability of distance and open learning services that are available online [8]. Ordinarily, a MOOC may be either less structured or fashioned in a university or college like system. MOOCs' despite not according its users the much-sought certification, it has gained traction in the recent past due to its contribution to the furthering and enhancement of users' employment prospects [6].

From the foregoing, it is evident that key distinguishing features of MOOCs are: free access to MOOCs' learning resources; and, mass participation in learning via the MOOCs' platform. We thus explore MOOCs in this paper from the mentioned MOOCs' features.

### **4. MOOCs in Africa**

Proponents of MOOCs within and outside the continent is rooted on the perception that that MOOCs presents a perfect avenue for providing affordable and quality education for learners in higher education institutions (HEIs) and individuals in pursuit of career development [10]. This is expressly due to the fact that MOOCs is largely appreciated by users falling in this category [learners in HEIs, and those seeking to advance their careers] [6].

Africa has over the years contended with perennially low enrolments to HEIs, specifically due to high costs of university education, high or excess number of learners seeking opportunities at HEIs against few slots in existing HEIs or low grades attained at secondary/high school level that restricts entry to HEIs to only high performers. Consequently, learners unable to secure slots at prestigious public HEIs have been forced to discontinue their education, forcing them to settle for casual or low level employments that require minimum/low level of skills-set.

The diminished opportunities at HEIs led to the enactment of laws that permit privatization of higher education learning in the 1990s for most African countries, to accommodate learners unable to secure opportunities in public universities. This practice led to deliberate random increase in private HEIs in the continent. This practice expanded opportunities for learners seeking university slots, and even provided varied and flexible learning time. HEIs learners thus have had the option of choosing among the varied learning times, the ones that best suited their programs [10]. For instance, one could opt for either distance learning module, day, weekend or evening classes.

The irony however, is that even with these developments, learners who attain the minimum required HEIs entry points still fail to join HEIs, even when they are selected to join them, due to abject poverty that such learners are subjected to [11, 12]. The prevailing poverty scenario in Africa has reduced the continent into a mere spectator in the ongoing MOOCs discourse and practice. This could be understood given the widespread poverty incidence across the country in comparison with the context of the developed countries [13].

However, due to the high cost of schooling, including those pertaining to learning materials like textbooks, the continent see MOOCs as an alternative affordable education platform. This is particularly due to the MOOCs' feature of free utility, which has made MOOCs to be more attractive to developing countries. As noted previously, MOOCs prevalence is more on HEIs level compared to primary and secondary level in the African continent and this could perhaps be explain by the

fact that at the HEIs level, funding and or support for learning lower than for primary and secondary levels. This is because the cost of learning increases with level, implying that the higher one goes the education ladder, the higher the cost. This has led to the governments (in sub-Saharan Africa) to prioritize provision of funding for primary level compared to secondary and tertiary levels respectively. Moreover, primary level is cheaper and covers more learners, which is a contrary case for tertiary level where the costs are higher yet covering fewer students [14]. MOOCs at HEIs in Africa is thus seen as a deliberate effort to address the high cost of HEIs and keep majority of learners from vulnerable, poor and marginalized areas in HEIs and or support them in accessing quality learning materials. The MOOCs platform is perceived as a crosscutting skills' development vehicle that is keen on eliminating school dropouts post-secondary education level [10]. However, due to the COVID-19, varied levels of learning institutions (including primary and secondary) have adopted the MOOCs as the new alternative learning platform to keep learning ongoing during the school closure period [6].

Oyo and Kalema [10], offers a model (**Figure 1**) that depicts the entry and or access scenario into HEIs in the African continent where in the past, access to HEIs was limited to learners from the privileged settings, dubbed the society of the elite. This was followed by the present scenario where access to HEIs is characterized by privatization of learning in HEIs to maximize on access and or enrolments to HEIs [both public and private]. The paradox however, is even with the increased privatization of HEIs with the aim of increasing access to higher education (HE) learning, an equally higher number of learners seeking HE learning are unable to enroll to these institutions owing to the fact that enrolment to the private HEIs involve costs that learners from poor, and marginalized settings/households are unable to afford [11, 12].

The era of MOOC is thus perceived as the future of learning and deemed as a driving vehicle for equal access to learning owing to its relatively cheap cost – free access to learning contents and materials, provided an individual has access to enabling devices or infrastructure like laptops, tablets, internet, and electricity among others [15]. Despite being viewed as a future education equalizing vehicle, COVID-19 has brought forth the future owing to the mass use of MOOCs' components that include the open educational resources (OERs). It is however important to note that for a noteworthy uptake of MOOCs and related OERs features, it is imperative that sub-Saharan African (SSA) governments prioritize the need to

### **Figure 1.**

*HEIs' access viewpoints: The ivory tower era, the present [privatization era] and the future. Source: Adopted from Oyo and Kalema ([10], p. 4).*

*The Adoption of Massive Open Online Courses in Selected Sub-Saharan African Countries… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99321*

strengthen the HEIs' infrastructure and personnel. This include political good will towards MOOCs and OERs, strengthening HEIs' teaching/professional competencies, and providing free or cheap internet bandwidth to MOOCs users and potential users.

### **5. Effects of MOOCs on urban education in cote d'Ivoire, Kenya, Ghana, and Nigeria**

The uptake of technology-enabled education in the African continent is on the rise, a situation that could be attributed to significant in-country investments in the provision of internet to its inhabitants, particularly through undersea fiber optic cables [16]. Users and or adopters of MOOCs in Africa, like in other global regions is to a large extent a preserve of higher learning institutions, with corporate bodies following in pursuit. This could be perhaps due to the fact that the genesis of MOOCs and related OERs was from top higher learning institutions that include Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Harvard, with the successes observed in these institutions' use and adoption of MOOCs believed to be replicable in other higher learning institutions.

Even with the observed internet provision efforts observed [16], Africa and in particular, sub-Saharan African (SSA) region, is still riddled with inadequate internet access, a situation which limits its participation and use in the global internet provided resources. For instance, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) revealed that only about 16% of the region's (SSA) inhabitants (constituting some 140 million individuals) had access to internet as of 2014 [16]. Evidence [17, 18] indicate that the situation has not changed, as internet access in SSA has largely remained low. Equally, access at household level is even discouragingly low as households with internet access is below 20% [16, 17], with those in urban areas constituting the highest proportion of households with internet access [17]. This implies that the region's internet access gap is very high [19], thus reducing the region's capability in accessing and utilizing internet resources, among them MOOCs for learning and teaching [9, 20].

Online learning through various distance-learning solutions (education technologies – EdTechs) have been proven to reduce educational costs as well as promote access, quality and equitable learning [9, 16]. Considering that access to MOOCs and open educational resources (OERs) is to a large extent driven or enabled through internet, the SSA and the African continent at large remain underserved leading to diminished access to MOOCs' resources by learners and educators from this region. However, countries like Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda are making significant strides in the adoption and adaptation of online learning, by leveraging on existing enabling online-learning technology systems [21, 22].

Urban centers in SSA region are practically the areas that comparably to other regions in the continent (e.g. peri-urban, and rural areas), are enjoying internet coverage and access. It would therefore, imply that learning and teaching through MOOCs or OERs is more pronounced in urban areas than in rural or peri-urban areas [20]. However, this is not the case for a significant number of SSA countries. In Kenya, for instance, despite the country enjoying the use of undersea cable drawn all the way from the United Arabs Emirates (UAE) since 2009, a large swathe of the country is not accessing this service, resulting in over 70% of the population having no access to internet [18, 19]. This by extension has resulted in these underserved populations' inability to access interned-provided resources. In particular, education, which is a key user of internet for the development, sharing/ distribution, revision, re/use of educational resources has been disadvantaged [23]. Even within the urban households, access to internet is limited to affordability and therefore I will not be surprising to find a high number of urban households not having access to internet. This has resulted in unequal access to internet and utilization of educational resources availed through internet-enabled platforms like MOOCs and OERs [9]. Against this background, MOOCs and OERs' utilization for learning and teaching in Kenya has not received the optimum user-threshold.

In Cote d'Ivoire, the predicament is same as that of Kenya, as there are inadequate infrastructure and systems that can support MOOCs and OERs for learning. In fact, limitations of internet access outside urban areas is considered a key impediment to the utilization of MOOCs and OERs, which if compounded by infrastructure and systems related limitations like inadequate learning institutions' staffing, ICT, and program design, worsens the situation [24, 25]. This however, could change if the country's recognition of the importance of distance learning solutions, through MOOCs and OERs, in provisioning of quality teaching and learning, especially at the higher education level is anything to go by (EdTech [25, 26]). The country sought to establish a MOOCs and OERs driven higher education institution – the Digital University of Ivory Coast – that was not only intended to promote distance learning for both urban and rural users, but also to modernize research and learning at higher education institution through the use of distance learning solutions (EdTechs) (**Figure 2**) [25, 27].

In Ghana, adoption and usage of MOOCs is likewise determined by the in/ existence of enabling resources like MOOCs and OERs systemic quality, the system/ platforms' performance, and learners and teachers computer knowledge [28]. While usage of MOOCs and OERs in Ghanaian urban areas would be expected to high,

**Figure 2.**

*African countries' participation in MOOCs, by instructional language. Source: Adopted from Gérard et al. [16].*

### *The Adoption of Massive Open Online Courses in Selected Sub-Saharan African Countries… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99321*

considering the relative prevalence of internet in the country's urban areas, this is not the case due to the perceived and real lacking interest in MOOCs and their use among students [28, 29]. This is further exacerbated by the limited internet and enabling or assistive devices' [e.g. tablets, smartphones, computers etc.] access at the household level [30, 31], which limits usage of MOOCs and related OERs at urban household level. This situation has resulted in limited access to and usage of online learning and teaching resources for urban learners, further entrenching existing inequities in the provisioning of education and related resources at local and country level.

Nigerian context as pertains to MOOCs is a replica of the continent's investment in MOOCs. Notable MOOCs investments in Nigeria are premised in higher learning institutions given its flexibility and potentials [32]. Some of the universities in Nigeria that offer programs that mirror MOOCs include the University of Ibadan (UI), Kaduna State University (KASU), University of Portharcourt, Bayero University Kano (BUK), University of Lagos, the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN), and Centres for Distance and Continuing Education at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (ABU) [33]. The biased adoption and adaptation of MOOCs in higher learning institutions in Nigeria points to a gap in adoption and utilization of the MOOCs platform in basic level (primary and secondary/high school levels), which are potentially key beneficiaries of MOOCs. Inadequate financial resources, lack of or inadequate enabling technological resources are some of the notable limiting factors that militate against development of education and related platforms in Nigeria [10, 21, 33]. While notable investments have been made that lends to positive trajectory in the adoption of MOOCs in Nigeria, they are to a large extent restricted or limited to higher learning institutions. Learners outside these institutions' environment are restricted in terms of access and use. Even those with access to the MOOCs platforms contend with the challenge of internet access among other technology aiding resources [32, 33]. This imply that urban learning and learners, though expected to benefit from MOOCs, also experience limitations in access and use of MOOCs, considering the inadequate enabling infrastructure.

### **6. Conclusion**

African governments as well as educational institutions have recognized the central place of MOOCs and OERs in the advancement of quality and inexpensive education that meet the global or international standards. Against this background, there are noteworthy efforts, undertaken through a painstaking process, that can be witnessed in the continent's education providing institutions, particularly higher education institutions. A key effort in this context is the provision of learning programs in universities that imitate and mirror the MOOCs and OERs approaches, like online learning and teaching as well as provisioning of learning materials for learners' access freely. There are however, salient gaps that key education stakeholders could take into account, if efforts to promote and improve MOOCs and OERs adoption and adaptation into mainstream education is to yield desired results. The gaps could also be viewed as opportunities for stakeholders' involvement depending on vantage point that one looks at it. Such gaps include limiting internet infrastructure and related ICT infrastructure like computer or ICT labs, which higher learning institution providers could work on expanding, including coming up with innovate ways that spur uptake and usage of MOOCs. For instance, could make deliberate efforts to support and encourage students' use of OERs and MOOCs using the most suitable and innovative approaches. Moreover, efforts should be made in capacity building learners and/or users of MOOCs ICT skills where and when needed.

On the part of MOOCs developers, deliberate efforts should be cast on guaranteeing that the right curriculum, quality instructional and appropriate pedagogical methods are availed and used in the MOOCs platforms that learners are exposed to.

It is also evident that inequities and inequalities' dynamics in the urban space play an important role in accessing and using MOOCs and related OERs for learning. While it is expected that urban centres, being perceived to have sufficient infrastructural, would have a near universal access to internet and consequently, online learning resources like MOORs and OERs, this is sadly not the case as diverse poverty scenarios and different wealth quintiles determine uptake and usage of online resources. For urban households, only households with internet connections would have consistent access and use of the online learning platforms. Such households are however, the minority with majority of households lacking internet connections, hence making learning in urban areas using MOOCs and OERs to be an imbalanced intervention that further entrench education inequities and inequalities.

Finally, the salient ICT infrastructure challenges notwithstanding, African governments and educational institutions could leverage on the affordability of MOOCs and OERs to mitigate the inherent high cost of learning, particularly in higher learning institutions. This could particularly be effectively and efficiently explored through institution-to-institution collaboration, especially with the institutions in the developed countries, to act as benchmarks and help transform higher education institutions in the SSA region.

### **7. Recommendation**

The following recommendations would thus suffice if efforts to make access to and utilization MOOCs and OERs a universal initiative that addresses aspects of educational inequities and inequalities:


*The Adoption of Massive Open Online Courses in Selected Sub-Saharan African Countries… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99321*

For instance, it is observed that MOOCs' providers tend to rely on a pedagogical approach that is cognitive-behaviorist centric [41, 42]. It thus follows that designers of MOOCs' instructional resources ought to take into consideration the need to provide learners with materials for learner(s)'s assessment, giving and obtaining feedback, provide materials that are applicable for remote usage, and materials that highlight the learning outcomes at the onset of the online lessons [43]; and,

d.Ease of utility is another determinant of uptake and use of MOOCs [35, 38, 44]. This shows that the performance of MOOCs in terms of its user-friendliness and ease of accessing the sought educational contents is integral in MOOCs' utility to learners. To address this concern, MOOCs' providers and developers of its contents should ensure existing MOOCs' systems are user-friendly. This can be attained by having place a system that is easy to navigate, accessible even via smartphones (or any other hand-held gadgets), fast-loading site, learning sites that are visually appealing, and easy to utilize.

### **Author details**

Vollan Ochieng'\*, Maurice Mutisya and Caroline Thiong'o African Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya

\*Address all correspondence to: vochieng@aphrc.org; vollan88ochieng@gmail.com

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Atiaja, L. M., and Proenza, R. S. (2016). MOOCs: Origin, characterization, principal problems and challenges in higher education. Journal of e-learning and knowledge Society, 12(1), 65-76.

[2] Downes, S. (2008). Places to go: Connectivism & connective knowledge. Innovate: Journal of online Education, 5(1), 1-6. Retrieved from https:// nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol5/iss1/6

[3] Lange, C., and Costley, J (2015). Opportunities and Lessons from Informal and Non-formal Learning: Applications to Online Environments. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(10):1330-1336. DOI:10.12691/education-3-10-20.

[4] McAuley, A.; Stewart, B.; Siemens, G.; Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital Practice. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/ Articles/MOOC\_Final.pdf.

[5] Laurillard, D. (2014). Five Myths about MOOCs. Times Higher Education, 16 January. Retrieved from http://www. timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/ opinion/five-myths-about-moocs/ 2010480.article

[6] Chai, W. (2021). Definition: massive open online course (MOOC). Retrieved from https://whatis.techtarget.com/ definition/massively-open-onlinecourse-MOOC

[7] De-Waard, I. (2015). MOOC factors influencing teachers in formal education. Revista Mexicana de Bachillerato a Distancia, 7(13), 1-8. Retrieved from http://oro.open. ac.uk/44528/3/MOOC%20and%20 teacher%20developmen%20final.pdf

[8] Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., and Littlejohn, A. (2015), Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers and Education, 80, 77-83.

[9] Ochieng', V., and Gyasi, R. M. (2021). Open educational resources and social justice: Potentials and implications for research productivity in higher educational institutions. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(2), 1-20. DOI:10.1177/2042753021989467

[10] Oyo, B., and Kalema, B. M. (2014). Massive open online courses for Africa by Africa. International review of research in open and distance Learning, 15(6): 1-13. DOI:10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1889

[11] Materu, P. (2007). Higher Education Quality Assurance in Sub-Sahara Africa Status, Challenges, Opportunities and Promising Practices. The World Bank.

[12] Osokoya, I. O. (2007). Privatization of university education in Africa: Lessons from the theories and practices of the United States of America and Japan. International journal of African and African American Studies, 6(2), 1-10. Retrieved from https://ojcs.siue. edu/ojs/index.php/ijaaas/article/ view/94/154

[13] Emanuel, E. J. (2013). Online education: MOOCs taken by educated few. Nature, 503(342). Retrieved from DOI:1010.1038/503342a

[14] Lewin, K. M. (2004). Mapping the Missing Link: Planning and Financing Secondary Education in Sub Saharan Africa. Lead Keynote, World Bank Africa Regional Conference on Secondary Education in Africa. Dakar, Senegal.

[15] Pityana, N. B. (2009). Open distance learning in the developing world: Trends, progress and challenges. University of South Africa. Retrieved from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/ handle/10500/411/ICDEMaastricht 250609.pdf;sequence=1

*The Adoption of Massive Open Online Courses in Selected Sub-Saharan African Countries… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99321*

[16] Gérard, E., Noukakis, D., and Aebischer, P. (2014). Boosting Higher Education in Africa through Shared Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). In Education, Learning, Training: Critical Issues for Development (pp. 195-214), International Development Policy series No.5. Graduate Institute Publications. Retrieved from https://journals. openedition.org/poldev/1790

[17] Ngware, M. N., and Ochieng, V. (2021). Keeping class in session: A case study of EdTech and the COVID-19 response in Kenya. APHRC. Retrieved from https://aphrc.org/publication/ keeping-class-in-session-a-case-studyof-edtech-and-the-covid-19-responsein-kenya/

[18] Ngware, M., and Ochieng, V. (2020). Education Technology (EdTech) and the COVID-19 Response in Kenya. Case study. EdTech Hub. Retrieved from https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/ SMLIMS2X/download/UBFPWLAX/ Ngware%20and%20Ochieng%20-%20 2020%20-%20EdTech%20and%20 the%20COVID-19%20response%20 A%20case%20study%20of%20.pdf

[19] Lawton, W., and Burrows. A. (2013). Is there a technical fix for sub-Saharan universities? Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.obhe.ac.uk/ newsletters/borderless\_report\_ june\_2013/is\_there\_a\_technical\_ fix\_for\_subsaharan\_universities

[20] Lane, A. (2013). The potential of MOOCs to widen access to, and success in, higher education study. In The Open and Flexible Higher Education Conference 2013 (pp. 189-203). EADTU.

[21] Bervell, B., and Umar, I. N. (2017). A decade of LMS acceptance and adoption research in sub-Sahara African higher education: A systematic review of models, methodologies, milestones and main challenges. Eurasia journal of

mathematics, science and technology Education, 13(11), 7269-7286. DOI:10.12973/ejmste/79444

[22] Ng'ambi, D., and Bozalek, V. (2015). Editorial: Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Disrupting teaching and learning practices in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 451-454. DOI:10.1111/bjet.12281

[23] World Bank. (2019). Improving Higher Education Performance in Kenya: A Policy Report. World Bank. Retrieved from https://documents1. worldbank.org/curated/ ar/831821566966279688/Improving-Higher-Education-Performance-in-Kenya-A-Policy-Report.pdf

[24] Jacobs Foundation (2015). The State of EdTech in Ivory Coast. Jacobs Foundation. Retrieved from https:// jacobsfoundation.org/app/uploads/ 2019/06/The-State-of-EdTech-in-Ivory-Coast\_2018.pdf

[25] Sawahel, W. (2015). Cote d'Ivoire: Government Announces Plan for a Virtual University. University World News. Retrieved from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post. php?story=20150108131544806

[26] EdTech Hub (2020). The effect of Covid-19 on education in Africa and its implications for the use of technology: A survey of the experience and opinions of educators and technology specialists. EdTech Hub. DOI:10.5281/ zenodo.4018774. Retrieved from https:// www.elearning-africa.com/ressources/ pdfs/surveys/The\_effect\_of\_Covid-19\_on\_Education\_in\_Africa.pdf

[27] World Bank (2015). Côte d'Ivoire Urbanization Review: Diversified Urbanization. World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank. org/bitstream/handle/10986/22896/ Final0Output.pdf?sequence= 1&isAllowed=y

[28] Fianu, E., Blewett, C., and Ofori, K. S (2018). Factors affecting MOOC usage by students in selected Ghanaian universities. University of KwaZulu-Natal. Retrieved from https://www. researchgate.net/publication/ 324648110\_Factors\_Affecting\_MOOC\_ Usage\_by\_Students\_in\_Selected\_ Ghanaian\_Universities

[29] Porter, S. (2015). To MOOC or Not to MOOC How Can Online Learning Help to Build the Future of Higher Education? Elsevier. ISBN 9780081000489

[30] Awidi, B. I. T. (2008). Developing an E-learning strategy for public universities in Ghana. Educ. Quartelry, 31, 66-69.

[31] Taddese, A. (2020). EdTech in Ghana: A Rapid Scan. (EdTech Hub Country Scan). DOI:10.5281/ zenodo.3830951. Retrieved from https:// docs.edtechhub.org/lib/4TKSDH2I/ download/TUM48CS3/Abeba%20 Taddese%20-%202020%20-%20 EdTech%20in%20Ghana%20A%20 Rapid%20Scan.pdf

[32] Jaiyeoba, A. O., and Ademola, A. I. (2014). Re-engineering tertiary education (university) for sustainable development in Nigeria. Reforming Higher Education in Africa, 46-57. DOI:10.1.1.558.750

[33] Yunusa, A. A., Umar, I. N., and Ussher, J. (2020). Leveraging Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) for Increased Access and Quality Education in Nigeria. Universiti Sains Malaysia. Retrieved from https://www. researchgate.net/publication/ 341192760\_Leveraging\_Massive\_Open\_ Online\_Courses\_MOOCs\_for\_ Increased\_Access\_and\_Quality\_ Education\_in\_Nigeria

[34] Magsamen-conrad, K., Upadhyaya, S., Youngnyo, C., and Dowd, J. (2015).

Computers in human behavior bridging the divide: Using UTAUT to predict multigenerational tablet adoption practices. Comput. Human Behav, 50, 186-196. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.032

[35] Decman, M. (2015). Modelling the acceptance of e-learning in mandatory environments of higher education: The influence of previous education and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 272-281. DOI:10.1016/j. chb.2015.03.022.

[36] Dulle, F. W. (2015). The suitability of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model in open access adoption studies. Information Development, 27, 32-45. DOI:10.1177/0266666910385375.

[37] Juinn, P., and Tan, B. (2013). Applying the UTAUT to understand factors affecting the use of English E-learning websites in Taiwan. Sage Open, 3(4), 1-12. DOI:10.1177/ 2158244013503837.

[38] Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Duyck, W., and Duyck, P. (2011). Predicting secondary school teachers' acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: A cross-sectional study. Comput. Human Behav, 27, 568-575. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.005.

[39] Wang, Y. S., Wu, M. C., and Wang, H. Y. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol, 40, 92-118. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8535. 2007.00809.x.

[40] Lee, B. C., Yoon, J. O., and Lee, I. (2009). Learners' acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and results. Comput. Educ, 53, 1320-1329. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.014.

[41] Bali, M. (2014). MOOC pedagogy: Gleaning good practice from existing

*The Adoption of Massive Open Online Courses in Selected Sub-Saharan African Countries… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99321*

MOOCs. MERLOT J. Online Learn. Teach, 10, 44-56.

[42] Bayne, S., and Ross, J. (2014). The pedagogy of the massive open online course (MOOC): The UK view. Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/ detail/elt/the\_pedagogy\_of\_the\_ MOOC\_UK\_view

[43] Alzaghoul, A. F. (2012). The implication of the learning theories on implementing e-learning courses. Res. Bull. Jordan ACM, 11, 27-30.

[44] Ramayah, T., Ahmad, N. H., and Lo, M. C. (2010). The role of quality factors in intention to continue using an e-learning system in Malaysia. Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci, 2, 5422-5426. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.885

### **Chapter 12**

## Metacognitive Assessment Model for Student Project-Based Learning through the Blended Learning Practice MOOCs

*Ridwan Daud Mahande, Fitrah Asma Darmawan and Jasruddin Daud Malago*

### **Abstract**

Online or blended learning assessments through LMS-MOOCs carried out in the world of education today tend to be multiple-choice assessments that are only based on low-level cognitive. In fact, to measure the metacognitive of students is quite difficult, if only using the form of multiple choice questions. Therefore, it takes the form of questions and assessments that allow students to explore their reflective and metacognitive thinking according to the characteristics of the education they are attending. Vocational education tends to apply a project-based learning (PjBL) model that requires authentic and performance-based learning assessment methods. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an appropriate blended metacognitive skill assessment rubric instrument for vocational education. Metacognitive assessment was developed using research and development procedures, with students as subjects in vocational education in Makassar, Indonesia. The integration between elements of metacognitive skills: planning, monitoring, and evaluation with self-peer-teacher assessment can be an assessment method to measure students' metacognitive thinking skills in PjBL. Especially metacognitive assessment through blended learning practice MOOCs that are in accordance with the characteristics of vocational education and can be adopted by general education.

**Keywords:** metacognitive skills, blended learning, PjBL, MOOCs, vocational education

### **1. Introduction**

The world of work that is dynamic and develops in accordance with the direction of technological progress, requires workers not only to have hard skills in their respective fields, but also to have soft skills [1]. In the context of a dynamic and complex world of work, intelligence and soft skills are needed that are relevant to the world of work today and the world of work in the future [2]. These soft skills are of course in the form of adaptability, problem solving ability, analytical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication. The International Labor Organization (ILO) released several soft skills that are currently needed in the

world of work such as analytical skills, creativity, problem solving, communication, collaboration, and entrepreneurship [3]. Some of these soft skills, such as analytical skills, creativity, and problem solving skills, are classified as critical thinking which is regulated by the ability to think reflectively or think metacognitively (metacognitive skills) [4]. Therefore, the ability to think metacognitively is very important for workers because it can help them maintain their work ethic in a very dynamic world of work with change and uncertainty.

Vocational education as an educational institution that aims to prepare a competent workforce is required to have an awareness of the demands of today's world of work. UNESCO-UNEVOC has set one of the main priorities of vocational education in the world, namely to prepare a competent young workforce according to the demands of today's global workforce. Vocational education or globally known as Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) is required not only to equip students with hard skills but also to equip them with creativity skills, analytical thinking, problem solving, and leadership [5]. To support this, higher education should carry out various learning innovations, both in learning planning, learning processes, and learning evaluations. Digitization is one of the best choices because it is the demand of the current digital era that leads to learning 4.0 [1].

Learning 4.0 has now been promoted at various levels of education, not least at the higher education level. The use of online learning is one of the learning media used to assist the digital learning process [1]. The implications of online learning or e-learning in learning present new forms of learning and allow learners to collaborate and interact socially online [6]. In addition, online learning can increase the level of motivation of students [7] as well as helping students to access information and learning resources from anywhere and anytime [8]. The use of e-learning in vocational education has also been widely used and researched. The use of digitalbased teaching materials that are integrated in e-learning can improve mathematics learning outcomes in vocational education [9]. From the aspect of users, teachers and students use mobile devices for vocational learning purposes [10]. Learning evaluation is of course also possible to do online with the help of e-learning. The advancement of internet technology and the increasing interest in online learning, issues around e-learning and its assessment methods are also getting more attention among educators [11].

Online learning evaluations carried out in the world of education today tend to measure using multiple choice-based questions [1]. Multiple choice-based questions are often used in summative and formative tests in education (online and offline or blended) [12]. In fact, to measure the higher-level cognitive of students is quite difficult, if only using the form of multiple choice questions. Because in practice, the use of multiple choice-based tests only touches low-level cognitive [13]. Therefore, it takes a form of evaluation and form of questions that allow students to explore their subjective and objective reflective and metacognitive thinking. Through this metacognitive thinking process, it is hoped that students will be able to reflect on their own learning and make adjustments so that students can achieve a deeper understanding [14]. In addition, a form of formative assessment that focuses on teaching students' metacognitive processes is needed to evaluate their own learning and make adjustments to the learning process [15].

Several research results have examined the methods of assessing and measuring students' metacognitive thinking through the online environment [1]. Online metacognitive thinking assessment in certain domain assignments and settings, can measure students' metacognitive thinking abilities [16]. Researchers used measurement tools in the form of otter tasks, multiple choice questions, and open-ended questions. Another researcher conducted an assessment using an online-based group metacognitive scaffolding (GMS) to measure the metacognitive behavior of

*Metacognitive Assessment Model for Student Project-Based Learning through the Blended… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98996*

students in a small group in class [17]. The results show that GMS has a significant impact on changes in the metacognitive behavior of learners in a small group. Furthermore, Altıok et al. [18] measuring metacognitive thinking using an online environment integrated video portfolio and the results show an increase in the level of students' metacognitive thinking in foreign language learning. The results of this study only focus on the measurement and assessment methods of learning in general education, not yet on learning in vocational education which has its own learning characteristics. In vocational education, appropriate learning models are used, namely work-based learning, project-based learning, or contextual teaching and learning so that authentic and performance-based learning assessment methods are needed [19]. The development of rubrics and assessment models uses a student-centered assessment approach where students are the subject and object of the assessment to reflect on their own learning, as well as peer assessment and teacher assessment approaches [20]. The results of the development of rubrics and metacognitive skills assessment models through blended learning MOOCs can be a reference for PjBL assessment methods that are in accordance with the characteristics of vocational education.

### **2. Technical and vocational education**

*Technical and Vocational Education and Training includes theoretical and practical learning content developed in schools, training institutions, or companies. Based on this limitation, the knowledge and skills referred to here can be understood not only as technical knowledge and skills, but also knowledge of values and identity in a complex world of work* [1]. This vocational education paradigm is also not only a learning process in the school environment, but can be carried out in non-formal training environments such as training institutions and in agencies or companies [21]. The main purpose of vocational education is to prepare graduates directly for work. Vocational education should provide specialized training that is reproductive in nature and based on teacher instruction, with an emphasis on knowledge of certain industrial sectors and includes specific skills or tricks of the trade. Vocational education has played a central role in supporting the transition from school to the world of work for youth. Vocational education for productive work is considered essential for economic and social development [22]. An important emphasis of vocational education is on developing specific work-related skills or skills to prepare students for entering the workforce, while general education emphasizes on equipping students with broad knowledge and basic skills in mathematics and communication [23]. Based on these theories, it can be concluded that in general, vocational education aims to prepare graduates to work in certain sectors. The function of this education is to carry out the process of transforming work competencies, knowledge of the world of work, as well as the ability to collaborate and interact between workers.

### **3. Metacognitive skill**

The study of metacognitive thinking has been widely associated with John Flavell as an expert in the field of cognitive development since the 1970s. The term metacognition as proposed by Flavell et al. [24] used to refer to awareness, monitoring and regulating of one's cognitive processes. In line with this, Yusuf et al. [25] explained that metacognition refers to the principle of organizing thinking through the process of controlling one's cognitive. The metacognitive component consists

of self-awareness, as well as monitoring and evaluation. These components can improve students' ability to solve problems.

Furthermore, Jacobs and Paris [26] explained that metacognition refers to thinking about thinking. Metacognition focuses on self-regulated thinking, namely what people know and how they apply that knowledge to certain tasks. Metacognitive theory as a systematic framework used to explain and direct cognitive processes, cognitive knowledge, and cognitive regulatory skills [27]. A fundamental distinction is made between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Knowledge of cognition refers to what individuals know about their own cognition or about cognition in general. It consists of declarative knowledge (knowing about things), procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things), and conditional knowledge (knowing why and when). Cognitive regulation refers to metacognitive activities that help control one's thinking or learning. Three important skills that are widely recognized are planning (strategy selection and resource allocation), monitoring (awareness understanding and task performance), and evaluation (assessing the product and process of one's learning arrangements) [1].

Schraw and Moshman [28] explain the classification of metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. In metacognitive knowledge, declarative knowledge includes knowledge about oneself as a learner and about what factors affect one's performance. Procedural knowledge refers to knowledge about the implementation of procedural skills. Conditional knowledge refers to knowing when and why to apply various cognitive actions. Meanwhile, the regulation or metacognitive regulation is categorized into three domains, namely planning the cognitive process (planning), monitoring the cognitive process (monitoring), and evaluating the cognitive process (evaluation). Planning involves selecting the right strategy and allocation of resources that affect performance. Examples include making predictions before reading, sequencing strategies, and allocating time or attention selectively before starting a task. Monitoring refers to a person's on-line awareness of task comprehension and performance. The ability to engage in periodic self-evaluations while studying is an example. Evaluation refers to the assessment of the product and process of setting one's learning. Common examples include re-evaluating one's goals and conclusions. In connection with some of the above definitions of metacognitive, [29] explained that metacognition can be divided into two components: metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Metacognitive regulation is the monitoring of one's cognition and includes planning activities, awareness of self-understanding and performance, and evaluation of the efficacy aspects of monitoring processes and strategies.

Based on the description of metacognitive above, it can be concluded that metacognitive or metacognitive thinking is an awareness of thinking about how we think, how we organize thinking strategies in order to complete certain tasks well. Metacognitive thinking can be categorized into 2 sub categories, namely metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Metacognitive knowledge is further divided into declarative, procedural, and conditional thinking. Meanwhile, metacognitive regulation is divided into planning, monitoring, and evaluation processes.

In the context of learning in vocational education, these two categories allow to be measured and assessed. However, taking into account the performance-based and project- or product-based assessment methods in vocational education, the measurement of metacognitive regulation (planning, monitoring, and evaluation) is more likely to be measured [1]. As explained by Klerk et al. [30] that vocational education emphasizes performance-based assessment where students learn by doing. This is confirmed by Wimmers [19] that at the end of the vocational education program or professional education program, every student must achieve standardized work competence, so that in this educational program, performance-based assessment is a general method for assessing practical competence in an authentic context. Learners can measure their metacognitive thinking skills through the process of planning, monitoring, and evaluating their performance and the projects or products they make.

### **4. MOOCs**

MOOCs cannot be separated from their early history in 2008 when George Siemens and Stephen Downes provided open enrollment for their Connectivism and Connective Knowledge course at the University of Manitoba. This course is designed as a liaison or cMOOC where students are expected to learn more about connecting with each other in online environments such as classroom learning. In 2012, prestigious educational institutions such as MIT, Harvard, and Stanford began experimenting with offering a MOOC model known as xMOOC, taking a more behavioristic approach to teaching [31]. Then in 2011, a professor of Computer Science at Stanford University, and Peter Norvig, Director of Research at Google, announced that they would offer an open online course in Artificial Intelligence. This course does not use a learning credit system, but students who complete this course will be given a certificate of acknowledgment that they have completed learning. As many as 160,000 people registered, so that the world's attention was given to this phenomenal program and was given the term Massive Open Online Course/MOOCs [32].

MOOCs have attracted the attention of researchers, learning experts, and even governments who have raised various opinions and assumptions regarding the features offered and their advantages and disadvantages. Despite this heterogeneity, dozens of MOOC options emerge every day and thousands of people sign up for the courses available. Besides being free, their motivation is because the course content comes from prestigious universities including Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, University of California, and so on. In addition, research teams from various scientific backgrounds from universities around the world focus daily on finding new alternatives in terms of content access and distribution in MOOCs. It is solely aimed at providing a more engaging learning experience for MOOCs users.

MOOCs have great potential in the world of educational technology so that their use becomes a challenge in itself from the massive aspect, open access, and connectivity which of course must be developed through a multidisciplinary approach. Cyber-socialecology MOOCs can provide a collaborative approach not only among students, but also between educational institutions so that students can adapt their learning models, preferences, and learning needs to MOOCs from different institutions. Another important thing in collaboration between educational institutions is the formalization or recognition of learning in MOOCs. In this way, formal MOOCs can become part of an educational institution's curriculum or tailor a course of study to earn an online diploma. An example of this scenario has been done on the "Mobile Cloud Computing with Android" specialization provided by Coursera [31].

MOOCs can support competency-based education [33]. In addition, MOOCs need to improve the quality and personalization of the student learning experience to further increase the effectiveness of education in general. As well as, Rosé et al. [34] emphasized the need to explore the possibilities of new features, such as collaboration features that encourage collaborative online activities such as structured brainstorming, whole group feedback, group reflections, and other collaborative activities. This activity aims to foster and maintain connectivity support, direction, and a more positive experience for students.

One of the advantages of online courses such as MOOCs is that it is easy to be able to engage in classes from any geographic location at any time you want. Having students spread all over the world in different time zones does not pose much of a problem while studying. This is because it facilitates the delivery of learning asynchronously and synchronously. However, the lack of face-to-face engagement can lead to a sense of isolation and result in students feeling separated from their peers in the classroom [35]. As a result, students in online environments tend to feel like they are taking on independent study rather than being active members of a study group [36]. One way to minimize this sense of alienation is through the use of technology and more interactive content that can enhance collaboration and knowledge construction.

In the learning system through MOOCs, students learn content knowledge by utilizing information and multimedia systems based on the development of learning models and methods. In other words, through learning systems and technology MOOCs require students to use metacognitive skills to manage their own learning pace (metacognitive skills). Students must be active learners in encouraging and sustaining their own learning progress. For example, they should assess the extent to which their learning strategies are effective in facilitating their learning progress, and identify which content has been optimal in terms of helping them achieve their desired learning goals [37]. Tsai et al. [38] conducted research with the aim of proposing an integrated model that integrates aspects of metacognition and interest in learning to investigate student learning motivation through MOOCs. The results of this study revealed that the increase in metacognitive skills was also accompanied by an increase in student enjoyment and encouragement regarding learning in the setting and organization of MOOCs. The findings show that metacognitive aspects can explain whether learners are motivated to learn through MOOCs because of the consequences of cognitive aspects mediated by interest in learning. In the use of MOOCs, the term blended is known which combines learning in terms of the implementation of learning (online or face to face), the delivery of learning content (synchronous or asynchronous).

### **5. Blended learning practice**

Blended learning is a combination of various modalities (on-site, self-directed and web-based learning), delivery media (internet, lectures, powerpoint presentations, textbooks); teaching methods (face-to-face or technology-based/online sessions) and web-based technologies (wikis, chat rooms, blogs, textbooks, online courses) [1]. The combination (hybrid) is carried out depending on criteria such as learning objectives, course content, lecturer experience and teaching style, student characteristics, and others [39]. While, Kaur [40] define blended/hybrid learning from multiple perspectives:


*Metacognitive Assessment Model for Student Project-Based Learning through the Blended… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98996*


The success of blended learning depends not only on the quality of the courses and the virtual/online environment, but also on the degree to which faculty and students are prepared to work in a virtual learning environment. It also really depends on the preparation of learning materials and activities by the lecturers and the technical abilities of lecturers and students [1]. In particular, to use all the tools/features offered by the Learning Management System (LMS)-MOOCs, such as related to metacognitive assignments and quiz-essays.

### **6. Project-based learning (PjBL)**

Project-based learning (PjBL) is an approach to teaching science and technology that focuses on investigating questions and problems that students find meaningful and interesting, as well as sparking curiosity about something [41]. By investigating these questions and problems, students are involved in understanding phenomena, recurring natural events, or finding solutions to problems using disciplinary core ideas, scientific and engineering practice, and cross-disciplinary concepts. PjBL involves students and lecturers in finding solutions to questions about the environment around them. Investigating real-world questions in which students investigate meaningfulness has long been touted as a viable learning method. Thus, PjBL triggers the curiosity and active involvement of students to find out what is going on in their environment [41]. The George Lucas Educational Foundation [42, 43], recommend 6 steps of PjBL, namely:


**Figure 1** presents a procedural map of the use of metacognitive rubrics in PjBL. PjBL is a model that organizes learning around projects. Projects are complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems that involve students in design,

### **Figure 1.**

*Procedural map of the use of metacognitive rubrics in PjBL.*

problem solving, decision making, or investigative activities, and provide students with the opportunity to work independently guided over a long period of time, culminating in on the final product or presentation. As a learning strategy, PjBL involves students in authentic learning through working on a project. This approach varies greatly from the traditional teacher-centered classroom and provides an interdisciplinary, student-centered activity for students that is integrated with realworld problems and practices, and usually lasts over a long period of time [44].

PjBL, sometimes referred to as project work, can be seen as an extensive problem-based learning activity in which students need to find ways to verify a phenomenon or solve a problem. Thus, aspects of skills are determined to be relevant to aspects of attitudes and abilities needed by students, including abilities such as critical thinking, creative thinking, time management skills and the ability to work cooperatively with others [45]. PjBL is centered on generating questions or inquiries that lead students to see concepts and principles related to their learning. Work on this project requires a long period of time, involving students to generate new knowledge to build on the premise of student inquiry and understanding [46]. Furthermore, Netto-Shek explains that project work, when executed properly, gives students autonomy to make decisions and to work independently and collaboratively in producing solutions for situations that were not previously planned. Netto-Shek argues that in the process of project work by students, monitoring by lecturers provides guidance and advice if needed. As such, project work embeds authentic real-world challenges in student learning experiences.

PjBL allows students to hone and develop skills through knowledge reconstruction when students work together to develop their projects and overcome problems, thereby forcing them to maximize cognitive aspects and overall theoretical understanding and identify theoretical knowledge gaps [47]. This is a more authentic approach to the student learning experience compared to the traditional approach. In keeping with current trends, the Israel Institute of Technology, in 2014 launched an online course on nanotechnology and nanosensors in the MOOCs format, which continues to this day. This course was developed by Prof. Hossam Haick, from the School of Chemical Engineering, is a leading researcher in the field of nanotechnology. The nanotechnology and nanosensors course is the world's first MOOCs in this field, and the first to be presented simultaneously in two languages: English and Arabic. Their purpose is twofold. First, it reaches everyone around the world, even those who live in countries that do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Second, provide a model for promoting sociocultural learning in the context of technical education, by integrating project-based learning, multicultural teamwork, and peer assessment into a curriculum [48].

Following previous developments on project-based learning in higher education [49], assignments on nanotechnology and nanosensor learning in MOOCs involving features related to the use of authentic questions, inquiry communities, and the use of cognitive aspect support technologies. PjBL involves students in authentic

*Metacognitive Assessment Model for Student Project-Based Learning through the Blended… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98996*

inquiry directly [41, 49]. In order for an activity to be considered as PjBL, it is necessary to involve the construction of knowledge through the development of new ideas, understanding, and/or skills on the part of students. This raises questions about the role of project-based MOOCs in the process of knowledge construction and learning motivation among science and engineering students. More specifically, how to assess the appropriate knowledge construction project for blended MOOCs learning according to the characteristics of vocational education.

### **7. The development of PjBL metacognitive assessment models**

The development of the metacognitive assessment model presented is the result of the author's research, which uses Research and Development steps [1]. Metacognitive instruments and rubrics were developed based on the theory of [28] and Lai [29] previously reviewed, where metacognitive regulation covers 3 aspects, namely: the planning process, the monitoring process, and the evaluation process of the project undertaken.

### **7.1 Metacognitive scoring rubric for PjBL**

Assessment models and rubrics are based on the previously studied metacognitive thinking theory. The results of this study use the theory of metacognitive regulation which is divided into planning, monitoring, and evaluation processes. **Table 1** is a complete rubric that has been compiled based on the theoretical indicators that have been described previously.

The rubrics in **Table 1** are then integrated into the LMS-MOOCs. The following is a metacognitive rubric display on planning aspects that have been integrated into the LMS.

**Figure 2** shows a metacognitive rubric consisting of 4 rating scales where each scale contains several assessment criteria from the planning aspect of project work which is one of the metacognitive aspects. Students and teaching staff directly choose one of the points in accordance with the contents of the student project project planning report being assessed.

### **7.2 Implementation of PjBL metacognitive assessment rubric through blended learning MOOCs**

This learning process applies the Blended learning method that combines two learning cycles, namely online-based and face-to-face. The online-based learning cycle is used to strengthen basic materials or theories before students work on projects directly in the laboratory [1]. In addition, online methods are also used to integrate metacognitive assessment instruments and rubrics. The following is a display of the results of Peer, Self, and Teacher Assessment from students (**Figure 3**).

The picture above shows the results of peer assessment (Grades received), selfassessment (Grades given), and teacher assessment (Grade for Submission and Grade for Assessment). Each student gave a score to 3 other students and received a score from 3 students based on the assessment rubric. After that, the teacher also gives a score based on the same assessment rubric. These scores are then downloaded in an excel file format for further processing by assigning a weight to each score. The score from the self-assessment is given a weight of 20, the score from the peer assessment is given a weight of 30, and the score from the teacher assessment is given a weight of 50 so that the maximum score is 100. The following



**Table 1.**

*Rubrik metacognitive.*

### *Metacognitive Assessment Model for Student Project-Based Learning through the Blended… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98996*



### **Figure 2.**

*Metacognitive rubric integrated in LMS. (Source: [1]).*


### **Figure 3.** *Peer, self, and teacher assessment.*

**Figure 4.** *Results of measuring students' metacognitive thinking. (Source: [1]).* *Metacognitive Assessment Model for Student Project-Based Learning through the Blended… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98996*

is the final score from the results of measuring students' overall metacognitive thinking in project work (**Figure 4**).

The graph above shows the scores of the three aspects of metacognitive thinking, namely planning, monitoring, and project evaluation. The score comes from three sources, namely peer, self, and teacher assessment. In the planning aspect, the peer assessment score (24.19) is categorized as high because it is close to the maximum score (30). Likewise, the self score (18.38) and teacher assessment (36.29) were also categorized as high because they were close to the maximum scores of 20 and 50. Scores on the metacognitive aspects of monitoring and evaluation also showed high scores from peer, self, and teacher assessment.

The scores in the graph can also be seen that the peer assessment scores from the planning, monitoring, and evaluation aspects are not much different. Likewise, the self and teacher assessment scores do not differ much from the three metacognitive aspects. This means that the metacognitive thinking rubric is effectively used as an assessment guide by students and lecturers in vocational education. These scores have shown the level of students' metacognitive thinking that is in accordance with the characteristics of assessment methods in vocational education based on performance-based assessment and project-based learning models.

### **8. Metacognitive assessment model for PjBL through blended learning MOOCs**

The results of the research on assessment models, instruments, and rubrics that have been integrated with LMS through blended learning practice MOOCs have successfully measured students' metacognitive thinking skills [1]. This is because this assessment model provides opportunities for students to assess their own answers (self-assessment) and provides opportunities for students to assess the answers of their peers (peer-assessment). Students are involved in assessing and evaluating answers based on the assessment rubric given in BLEMS. This encourages students to be more proactive in evaluating their own metacognitive thinking skills so as to support the development of their metacognitive skills. This is in line with the results of Vaughan's research that applies the Triad Approach Assessment (self, peer, teacher assessment) in blended learning where this assessment approach can support the development of students' metacognitive skills [20]. In addition, the results of this study are also in accordance with the theory that has been described previously, namely metacognitive thinking or metacognitive thinking is an awareness of thinking about how we think, how we organize thinking strategies in order to complete certain tasks well. Metacognitive thinking can be categorized into 2 sub categories, namely metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Metacognitive knowledge is further divided into declarative, procedural, and conditional thinking. Meanwhile, metacognitive regulation is divided into planning, monitoring, and evaluation processes.

In the context of learning in vocational education, these two categories allow to be measured and assessed. However, considering the performance-based and project- or product-based assessment methods in vocational education, the measurement of metacognitive regulation (planning, monitoring, and evaluation) is more likely to be measured. As explained by Klerk et al. [30] that the vocational education emphasizes performance-based assessment where students learn by doing. This is confirmed by Wimmers [19] that at the end of the vocational education program or professional education program, every student must achieve standardized work competence, so that in this educational program, performance-based assessment is a general method for assessing practical competence in an authentic context.

### **Figure 5.**

*Metacognitive assessment model. (Adapted from: [1]).*

In addition, PjBL is an alternative learning model in vocational education where students can plan, design, and reflect on their learning through projects [50]. PjBL is a student-centered learning model in which students work on a project, make a project report, and communicate the report to their peers and teaching staff [51]. Therefore, students can measure their metacognitive thinking skills through the process of planning, monitoring, and evaluating their performance and the projects or products they make.

In addition, the application of blended learning methods (online and face to face) in project-based learning is able to optimize the learning process carried out. The online method is carried out to strengthen basic theory before students work on projects directly (face to face) in the laboratory so that students are able to optimize the three metacognitive aspects, namely planning, monitoring, and evaluating project work. The following is a metacognitive assessment model that combines self, peer, and teacher assessment in a blended learning environment using a projectbased learning model (**Figure 5**).

The picture above shows an assessment model that combines self, peer, and teacher assessment integrated in LMS-MOOCs with a project-based learning model. Blended learning consists of online learning and face to face in the laboratory. The online method is used to assess the three metacognitive aspects, namely planning, monitoring, and evaluation based on metacognitive rubrics that have been integrated in the online environment. While the face to face method is carried out in the *Metacognitive Assessment Model for Student Project-Based Learning through the Blended… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98996*

laboratory for project work for students. In addition, face to face also allows educators to conduct authentic assessments of the three metacognitive aspects (planning, monitoring, evaluation). The final result of the implementation of this assessment model is the metacognitive thinking score of students in vocational education.

Learning evaluation methods are generally only teacher-centered, not involving students in assessing and reflecting on their own evaluation results. Their answers from carrying out activities at LMS-MOOCs were only judged by one side by the educator. Students only see the score or final score of each test they pass so they cannot see which aspect they lack. However, through this assessment model (selfassessment and peer-assessment), students are actively involved in assessing their higher order thinking skills, namely metacognitive thinking.

### **9. Conclusions**

The assessment rubric aims to determine students' metacognitive thinking skills in project-based learning in vocational education. The assessment rubric was developed for 3 activities, namely planning, monitoring, and evaluation, then integrated into the LMS-MOOCs blended learning practice method. This study also produces a metacognitive assessment model for blended learning models in vocational education. The resulting model is an integration of three activities with self-assessment, peer-assessment, and teacher-assessment assessments for the PjBL learning model [1]. The metacognitive assessment model can be an assessment method to measure students' metacognitive thinking skills, especially in project/work-based learning in vocational education.

### **Author details**

Ridwan Daud Mahande\*, Fitrah Asma Darmawan and Jasruddin Daud Malago Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia

\*Address all correspondence to: ridwandm@unm.ac.id

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Mahande, R. D., Darmawan, F. A., and Malago, J. D. (2021). Metacognitive skill assessment model through the blended learning management system in vocational education. Jurnal Pendidikan Vokasi, 11(1), 1-13. DOI:10.21831/jpv. v11i1.36912

[2] Mane, F., and Corbella, T. (2017). Developing and running an establishment skills survey—Guide to anticipating and matching skills and jobs Vol. 5 Skills for Employment (Vol. 5). Publications Office of the European Union. DOI:10.2816/413514

[3] International Labour Office (2019). A Skilled Workforce for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth (1st ed., Issue November). International Labour Organization.

[4] Gotoh, Y. (2016). Development of Critical Thinking with Metacognitive Regulation. International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, Celda, 353-356.

[5] Peter Ganter, J. (2019). The Trends Mapping Study on Innovation in Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET). the UNESCO-UNEVOC International Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training.

[6] Mhouti, A. El, and Nasseh, A. (2017). Enhancing collaborative learning in Web 2.0-based e-learning systems: A design framework for building collaborative e-learning contents. Education and Information Technologies, 22, 2351-2364. DOI:10.1007/s10639-016-9545-2

[7] Kew, S. N., and Petsangsri, S. (2018). Examining the motivation level of students in e-learning in higher education institution in Thailand: A case study. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 2947-2967.

[8] Al-araibi, A. A. M., and Naz, M. (2018). Technological aspect factors of E-learning readiness in higher education institutions: Delphi technique. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 567-590.

[9] Zwart, D. P., Luit, J. E. H. Van, Noroozi, O., Goei, S. L., Zwart, D. P., Luit, J. E. H. Van, Noroozi, O., Goei, S. L., Zwart, D. P., Luit, J. E. H. Van, Noroozi, O., and Goei, S. L. (2017). The effects of digital learning material on students' mathematics learning in vocational education The effects of digital learning material on students' mathematics learning in vocational education. Cogent Education, 29(1). DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2017.1313581

[10] Mahande, R. D., Susanto, A., & Surjono, H. D. (2017). The Dynamics of Mobile Learning Utilization in Vocational Education: Frame Model Perspective Review. *Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology*, 16(4), 65-76.

[11] Hsu, C. M., Yeh, Y. C., and Yen, J. (2009). Development of design criteria and evaluation scale for web-based learning platforms. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(1), 90-95. DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2008. 08.006

[12] Costello, E., Holland, J., and Kirwan, C. (2018). The future of online testing and assessment: Question quality in MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(42), 1-14.

[13] Xiong, Y., and Suen, H. K. (2018). Possibilities, challenges and future directions. International Review of Education, 64, 241-263. DOI:10.1007/ s11159-018-9710-5

[14] Earl, L., Katz, S., and WNCP. (2006). Rethinking Classroom

*Metacognitive Assessment Model for Student Project-Based Learning through the Blended… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98996*

Assessment with Purpose in Mind. In: Learning. DOI:10.4135/9781446214695

[15] Johnson, R. (2004). Peer Assessments in Physical Education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 75(8), 33-40. DOI:10.1080/07303084.2004.10607287

[16] Veenman, M. V. J., Bavelaar, L., Wolf, L. De, and Haaren, M. G. P. Van. (2014). The on-line assessment of metacognitive skills in a computerized learning environment. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 123-130. DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.003

[17] Zheng, L., Li, X., Zhang, X., and Sun, W. (2019). The e ff ects of group metacognitive sca ff olding on group metacognitive behaviors, group performance, and cognitive load in computer-supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 42(19), 13-24. DOI:10.1016/j. iheduc.2019.03.002

[18] Altıok, S., Başer, Z., and Yükseltürk, E. (2019). Enhancing metacognitive awareness of undergraduates through using an e-educational video environment. Computers and Education, 139(May), 129-145. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.010

[19] Wimmers, P. F. (2016). Innovation and Change in Professional Education 13 Assessing Competence in Professional Performance across Disciplines and Professions (M. Mentkowski, Ed.; 1st ed.). Springer. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-30064-1

[20] Koc, S., Liu, X., and Wachira, P. (2015). Assessment in Online and Blended Learning Environment. Information Age Publishing.

[21] Sudira, P. (2017). TVET Abad XXI (Hartono, Ed.; 2nd ed.). UNY Press.

[22] Jung, S., Chul, J., and Nam, S. (2019). Impact of vocational education and training on adult skills and

employment: An applied multilevel analysis. International Journal of Educational Development, 66(September 2018), 129-138. DOI:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.09.007

[23] Hampf, F., and Woessmann, L. (2017). Vocational vs. General Education and Employment over the Life-Cycle: New Evidence from PIAAC. NBER Working Papers Series, 5(10298), 1-17.

[24] Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., and Miller, S. A. (1979). Cognitive Development (L. Pearson, Ed.; 4th ed.). Prentice Hall.

[25] Yusuf, Y., Rodding, R., Awang, H., and Mukhtar, I. (2017). Metacognitive Strategies in Promoting the Development of Generic Competences in High TVE in Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 25, 247-256.

[26] Jacobs, J. E., and Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's Metacognition About Reading: Issues in Definition, Measurement, and Instruction Children's Metacognition About Reading: Issues in Definition, Measurement, and Instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3), 37-41. DOI:10.1080/00461520.1987.9653052

[27] Moshman, D. (2017). Metacognitive Theories Revisited. Educational Psychology Review. DOI:10.1007/ s10648-017-9413-7

[28] Schraw, G., and Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive Theories. 7(4), 351-371.

[29] Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A Literature Review Research Report. Pearson's Research Reports, April.

[30] Klerk, S., De Veldkamp, B. P., and Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2018). A framework for designing and developing multimedia-based performance

assessment in vocational education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(1), 147-171. DOI:10.1007/s11423-017-9559-5

[31] Mendoza, R., and González. (2016). User-centered Design Strategies for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). In User-Centered Design Strategies for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) (1st ed.). Information Science Reference. DOI:10.4018/978-1-4666-9743-0

[32] Haber, J. (2014). MOOCs. In Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 6(11), 951-952. (1st ed.). MIT Press.

[33] Dasarathy, B., Sullivan, K., Schmidt, D., and Porter, A. (2018). P212- Dasarathy. Future of Software Engineering Proceedings, 212-224. DOI:10.1145/2593882.2593897

[34] Rosé, C. P., Ferschke, O., Tomar, G., Yang, D., Howley, I., Aleven, V., Siemens, G., Crosslin, M., Gasevic, D., and Baker, R. (2015). Challenges and opportunities of dual-layer MOOCs: Reflections from an edX deployment study. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL, 2, 848-851.

[35] Willging, P. A., and Johnson, S. D. (2019). Factors that influence students' decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 13(3), 115-127. DOI:10.24059/ olj.v8i4.1814

[36] Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (E. Wenger, Ed.). Cambridge University Press.

[37] Ackerman, R., Parush, A., Nassar, F., and Shtub, A. (2016). Metacognition and system usability: Incorporating metacognitive research paradigm into usability testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 101-113. DOI:10.1016/j. chb.2015.07.041

[38] Tsai Y., Hsun, Lin, C. Hung, Hong, J. Chao, and Tai K. Hsin. (2018). The Effects of Metacognition on Online Learning Interest and Continuance to Learn with MOOCs. Computers and Education, 121, 18-29. DOI:10.1016/j. compedu.2018.02.011

[39] Koſar, Gülten. 2016. "A Study of EFL Instructors' Perceptions of Blended Learning." Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232:736-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.100.

[40] Kaur, Manjot. 2013. "Blended Learning-Its Challenges and Future." Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93:612-17. DOI: 10.1016/j. sbspro.2013.09.248.

[41] S. Krajcik and M. Czerniak (2014). Teaching Science in Elementary and Middle School: A Project-Based Approach. In Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning (5th ed., Vol. 8, Issue 1). Routledge. DOI:10.7771/1541-5015.1489

[42] Husamah, H., and Pantiwati, Y. (2014). Cooperative learning STAD-PjBL: Motivation, thinking skills, and learning outcomes of biology department students. International Journal of Education Learning and Development, 2(1), 68-85.

[43] Sukamti, E. U., Putra, A. P., and Devi, A. C. (2019). Innovation of Project Base Learning (PjBL) on Outdoor Study for PGSD's Student Activity on Education Diffusion. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang, 5(5), 546-561.

[44] Joseph, C. T., and Chapman, A. (2016). Project-Based Learning for Academically-Able Student (1, Ed.). Sense Publisher.

[45] Ngeow, K., and Kong, Y.-S. (2001). Learning To Learn: Preparing Teachers and Students for Learning To Learn: Preparing Teachers and Students for Problem-Based Learning. ERIC. ERIC Digest, 20, 1-6.

*Metacognitive Assessment Model for Student Project-Based Learning through the Blended… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98996*

[46] Netto-Shek, Ho, T. B., and Chang, A. S. (2014). Making Projects Work: Structuring Learning. Managing Project work in Schools: Issues and Innovative Practices. Singapore (1st ed.). Prentice Hall.

[47] Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., and Olkinuora. (2016). Project-Based Learning in Post-Secondary Education – Theory, Practice and Rubber Sling Shots. Higher Education, 51, 287-314. DOI:10.1007/ s10734-004-6386-5

[48] Barak, M., and Watted, A. (2017). Project-based MOOC: Enhancing knowledge construction and motivation to learn. In: B. Berenfeld and J. Ginestie (Eds.), Digital Tools and Solution for Inquiry-Based STEM Learning (p. 26). IGI Global. DOI:10.4018/978-1-5225- 2525-7

[49] Barak, M., and Dori, Y. J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students' chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89(1), 117-139. DOI:10.1002/sce.20027

[50] Doppelt, Y. (2005). Assessment of Project-Based Learning in a MECHATRONICS Context. 16(2).

[51] Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., and Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting Project-Based Science. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 342-358.

## *Edited by Dragan Cvetković*

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are free online courses available to anyone who can sign up. MOOCs provide an affordable and flexible way to learn new skills, advance in careers, and provide quality educational experiences to a certain extent. Millions of people around the world use MOOCs for learning and their reasons are various, including career development, career change, college preparation, supplementary learning, lifelong learning, corporate e-Learning and training, and so on.

Published in London, UK © 2022 IntechOpen © Andrii Atanov / iStock

MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses)

MOOC (Massive Open

Online Courses)

*Edited by Dragan Cvetković*