Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Massive open online courses (MOOCs) became very popular and were viewed as an
affordable alternative to the rising cost of higher education after the start of the 2008 recession
(Glass, 2016). The purposes of MOOCs according to Hollands, are to extend reach and access,
build and maintain a schools brand, improve cash flow by reducing costs or increasing revenue,
improve educational outcomes, innovative teaching and learning, and conduct research
(Hollands, 2014). Today MOOCs are used as interactive books for flipped classrooms, corporate
delivering free online courses, and as an opportunity to market (Fomin, 2013). I assert that NAU
can use MOOCs in appropriate ways to expand the pedagogical foundations of teaching, increase
engagement and access with the Northern Arizona community, and provide an alternative,
Several benefits of MOOC development and the scramble for superiority in this arena are
improving the delivery and research of how online learning works (Glance, 2013). According to
Glance, MOOCs improve the following pedagogical areas legitimacy of online learning,
improvements in retrieval type learning, enhanced learning through peer and self-assessments,
and peer support through online forums, (Glance, 2013). From the early beginnings of
cMOOCs, originally pioneered by Alexander and David Cormier to the modern platform that my
seven year old son uses in first grade called Kahn Academy, this disruptive approach to
supplying potential course material to the nearly 150.6 million tertiary students in the world
different than a traditional classroom rests more on the shoulders of the student and their ability
to navigate the digital course elements than on the faculty member that leads a brick and mortar
and even more traditional online classroom, (Yuan, 2013). Conole reports that quality of
MOOCS AT NAU 3
MOOCs can be evaluated through contrasting quality assurance with quality enhancements,
(Conole, 2016). An example of these types of contrasts are emphasis on documentation vs.
emphasis on discussion, focus on teaching vs. focus on learning, and teaching as individual
Coconino County has close to 140,000 residence. One of the points in Northern Arizona
University’s vision statement declares that NAU empowers students to succeed by ensuring
accessibility and inclusiveness. By offering MOOCs, NAU can provide access to the
University’s course content for free to eligible students. One business model that seems to work
for both students participating in MOOCs and the institute providing them is the certificate
model. This model allows students to complete course work and upon completion pay for
receiving a certificate of completion, (Burd, 2015). According to Pappano, the lines between
internet and campus education is blurring and goes on to predict that institutes of higher
education will soon give credit for students achieving edX certificates through MOOCs in a
similar way that colleges give credit for advanced placement and professional experience
(Pappano, 2012). Ensuring access and inclusion can be achieved through using MOOCs
responsibly to assist Northern Arizona residence in gaining information for nominal costs.
Education in the U.S. economy brings in over $1T and has not been seriously impacted by
information technology (Vardi, 2012). Hew reports that MOOCs give students freedom of
choice in what they want to learn about rather than taking a prescribed program of study (Hew,
2014). These are just a few of the reasons why NAU should consider using MOOCs to advance
Fiscal accountability for higher education is extremely important in the current climate of
school accountability. Northern Arizona University’s recent budget cuts forced entrepreneurial
MOOCS AT NAU 4
strategies and creative critical thinking. Enrollment is a major revenue source for colleges and
the addition of MOOCs can bring value, raise brand awareness, and increase student populations
(Leeds, 2015). With the average MOOC enrolling on average 43,000 students and only 6.5% of
those students completing the outlined requirements which usually include a fee based
certificate, this mode of delivering course content is a great way to expose a large body of
potential students at minimal cost (Jordan, 2014). With Harvard and MIT investing $60M to
start edX, their goal was to improve classroom education, not replace it (Kolowich, 2013).
An additional area where MOOCs can provide a supporting role is to provide tutoring and
professional development opportunities for both students and faculty. Used in this way, Sandeen
suggests that reciprocity of academic partnerships sharpens both institutions and allows
acceptance of degree credit for both institutions (Sandeen, 2013). According to a study by
Seaton that samples 108,000 students, the vast amount of data collected through MOOCs gives
unique insight into how students interact with online education (Seaton, 2014). The key insights
there study produced were that students spent most of their time watching lecture videos and
then discussion forums and online labs (Seaton, 2014). Daniel states that institutes of higher
learning like Oxford, Yale, and Stanford originally thought MOOCs could be an additional
source of income but more recent studies indicate that they either lost money or at best, broke
even due to the high cost to create the course and little revenue return, (Daniel, 2012). With a
low return on investment and 60% to 89% of schools using MOOCs reporting a decline in
retention rates, the purpose of MOOCs at NAU is an important one (Allen, 2013). The one area
using existing online courses that are easily adaptable to MOOCs NAU can broadcast content for
little investment that could benefit Northern Arizona residents. Taking courses online for free
MOOCS AT NAU 5
and then deciding whether to pay for a certificate or potentially credits, positions NAU to attract
residents in ways they previously could not. As a form of marketing for NAU and what the
University offers this can be yet another way to reach our community and help broadcast
information. Credentialing is the next step to advance MOOC quality once the outreach has been
Works Cited
Yuan, L., Powell, S., & CETIS, J. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher
education.
Sandeen, C. (2013). Integrating MOOCs into traditional higher education: The emerging
“MOOC 3.0” era. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 45(6), 34-39.
Vardi, M. Y. (2012). Will MOOCs destroy academia?. Communications of the ACM, 55(11), 5-5.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the
Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study
of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and
Kolowich, S. (2013). The professors who make the MOOCs. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 18.
Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online
courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1).
Pappano, L. (2012). The Year of the MOOC. The New York Times, 2(12), 2012.
Seaton, D. T., Bergner, Y., Chuang, I., Mitros, P., & Pritchard, D. E. (2014). Who does what in a
Burd, E. L., Smith, S. P., & Reisman, S. (2015). Exploring business models for MOOCs in
Freitas, S. I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in
higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British
Conole, G. (2016). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner
The Chronicle of Higher Education (Ed.). (2012). Online learning: MOOC madness, an inside
Leeds, E. M., & Cope, J. (2015). MOOCs: Branding, Enrollment, and Multiple Measures of
Success.
Glance, D. G., Forsey, M., & Riley, M. (2013). The pedagogical foundations of massive open
Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). Why Do Institutions Offer MOOCs?. Online
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online
courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational research review, 12, 45-58.
Glass, C. R., Shiokawa‐Baklan, M. S., & Saltarelli, A. J. (2016). Who takes MOOCs?. New