Content uploaded by Robert Schuwer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Schuwer on Dec 16, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
20
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
Volume 16, Number 6
November – 2015
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC
Movement f or Higher Education: The European
Perspective
Robert Schuwer, Inés Gil-Jaurena, Cengiz Hakan Aydin, Eamon Costello, Christian Dalsgaard, Mark Brown,
Darco Jansen and Antonio Teixeira
Fontys University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Spain,
Anadolu University, Turkey, Dublin City University, Ireland, Aarhus University, Denmark, Dublin City University, Ireland,
EADTU, the Netherlands, Universidade Aberta, Portugal
Abstract
The Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) movement is the latest “big thing” in Open and
Distance Learning (ODL). MOOCs offer both opportunities and threats that are extensively
discussed in the literature, including the potential of opening up education for all at a global scale.
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
21
On the other hand, MOOCs challenge traditional pedagogy and raise important questions about
the future of campus-based education. However, in discussing these opportunities and threats the
majority of the literature tends to focus on the origin of the MOOC movement in the United States
(US). The specific context of Europe with its diversity of languages, cultural environments,
educational policies, and regulatory frameworks differs substantially from the US context.
Accordingly, this article offers a European perspective on MOOCs in order to better understand
major differences in threats and opportunities across countries and continents, including the use
and reuse of MOOCs for regional or global use, via European or non-European platforms. In the
context of the EU funded HOME project (Higher education Online: MOOCs the European way), a
research initiative was undertaken to identify opportunities and threats of the MOOC movement
for European higher education institutions. Three sources of data were gathered and analysed.
Opportunities and threats were categorized into two levels. The macro level comprises issues
related to the higher education system, European context, historical period, and institutional
concerns. The micro level covers aspects related to faculty, teachers, and courses, thus to the
operational level. The main opportunities discovered were: the ECTS as a robust system for
formal recognition of accomplishments in MOOCs; the trend for institutional collaboration,
stimulated by EU-funded programs; and the many innovative and alternative pedagogical models
used in MOOCs published in Europe. The main threats mentioned were: implementation
problems of the ECTS, difficulties in bridging non/informal and formal education; and too much
regulation, hindering experimentation and innovation.
Keywords: MOOC, Europe, Opportunities, Threats
Introduction
The Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) movement is the latest “big thing” in Open and
Distance Learning (ODL) to threaten to transform higher education in a significant way. Put
simply, MOOCs are “...courses designed for large numbers of participants, that can be accessed by
anyone anywhere as long as they have an internet connection, are open to everyone without entry
qualifications, and offer a full/complete course experience online for free” (OpenupEd, 2015).
Within this definition an important distinction needs to be made between institutionally focused
xMOOCs and the connectivist origins of so-called cMOOCs. However, regardless of this
distinction the disruptive impact of MOOCs remains unclear and we should not forget the long
history of “hope, hype and disappointment” (Gouseti, 2010) that characterises many claims about
the revolutionary potential of previous technological innovations in ODL.
At one end of the “hype continuum” there are predictions that MOOCs are a metaphorical
avalanche that will totally transform higher education (Barber, Donnelly & Rizvi, 2013). This
school of thought raises serious questions about the future of formal education and traditional
universities. The MOOC has become a symbol of a larger modernisation agenda for universities
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
22
and is intertwined with the concept of unbundling and related economic imperatives about the
viability, scalability, and sustainability of higher education (Selwyn, 2014). At the other end of the
continuum, despite the hope of opening up access to higher education through new models of
online learning to millions of people in the developing world, we have been disappointed by the
fact that MOOCs report high dropout rates and generally attract already well-educated learners
(Macleod, Haywood, Woodgate & Alkhatnai, 2015). As Macleod et al. (2015) observe the vast
majority of learners are well-educated, often with several degrees, and in employment. Moreover,
the courses are dominated by a handful of platforms supported by elite universities and very few
MOOCs offer formal pathways to recognised academic qualifications.
Krause and Lowe (2014) present a useful synthesis of the claims made about the promise and
perils of MOOCs. On the one hand, they show that MOOCs have the potential to challenge the
closed and privileged nature of academic knowledge in traditional universities. That said, in many
respects this feature of openness is a profound second order outcome of the Internet rather than a
result of MOOCs per se. Nevertheless, the growth of the MOOC has potential to address the
problem of meeting increasing demand for higher education, particularly in developing countries
where it is almost impossible to build enough traditional institutions to cope with the number of
prospective students. In this regard, Daniel (2012) believes the new openness movement is a real
game changer, as it has potential to widen access to life-long learning, address key gaps in skill
development, and ultimately enhance the quality of life for millions. There is even some hope in
Europe that MOOCs may be able to play an important role in closing the growing inequality gap
and in reducing youth unemployment. In this regard, the European Credit Transfer and
Accumulation System (ECTS) can probably play a role in bridging non-formal and formal
learning. ECTS (2009) describes the ECTS as:
“a tool that helps to design, describe, and deliver programmes and award higher
education qualifications. The use of ECTS, in conjunction with outcomes-based
qualifications frameworks, makes programmes and qualifications more
transparent and facilitates the recognition of qualifications. ECTS can be applied
to all types of programmes, whatever their mode of delivery (school-based, work-
based), the learners’ status (full-time, part-time) and to all kinds of learning
(formal, non-formal and informal)" (p. 7).
One example of ECTS as a foundation for bridging non-formal and formal education, is the model
used by the iMOOC experience: "A critical element of the Model is its contribution to facilitate the
transition from non-formal education to formal education through certification. This is majorly
played by the way certification options are embedded in the courses." (Teixeira & Mota, 2014, p.
514).
On the other hand, MOOCs are seen as nothing more than a clever marketing ploy by elite
universities (Krause & Lowe, 2014). Selwyn, Bulfin and Pangrazio (2015) argue in their analysis of
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
23
the discursive construction of MOOCs in the popular media that the frenzy around the MOOC
movement conceals a number of contradictory messages. For example, despite claims of
disrupting traditional higher education systems, the legitimacy of the MOOC movement as an
educational innovation appears to derive primarily from its association with high status, elite
universities (Selwyn et al., 2015). In addition, they point out that so-called new models of online
massive pedagogy are heralded as innovative using the best of Web 2.0 technology, whilst derided
by more critical and contemporary educators as merely replicating the passive instructionism of
the 20th century.
Peters’ (2013) critique (as cited in Brown & Costello, 2014) goes further by arguing that MOOCs
reflect a new academic labour policy for globalised universities, an expression of Silicon Valley
neo-liberal values, and a kind of entertainment media that is the oxymoron of serious and
meaningful learning. In a similar vein, Barlow suggests the MOOC is just another neo-colonialist
tool reproducing privilege (Barlow, 2014). Once again, Selwyn et al.’s (2015) analysis of the
popular portrayal of MOOCs in the media is useful, as they help us to peel away some of the
competing and co-existing discourses of persuasion. The key point is that different interest groups
and stakeholders have quite different reasons for promoting MOOCs and the opening up of
education agenda must be seen alongside powerful forces that view online learning as a means of
increasing competition between institutions, introducing new business models with reduced
public funding for universities, and the creation of a global higher education digital marketplace
(Brown, 2015).
While more scholarly literature reviews of the opportunities and threats of MOOC are beginning
to emerge (e.g., Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2013; Jacoby, 2014;
Liyanagunawardena, Adams & Williams, 2013), the current state of thinking about MOOCs, and
particularly the research landscape, in Europe remains relatively immature. That said, Jansen,
Schuwer, Teixeira & Aydin (2015) show in their recent mapping survey of current and planned
European MOOC activity that the area is developing quickly. As more European initiatives are
launched, millions of people around the world continue to participate in MOOCs through a small
but growing diversity of courses and platforms; and they continue to attract a high level of
interest from senior politicians, policy-makers and popular media. However, far less is known
about what experienced educators working at the key face of higher education in Europe think
about the MOOC movement.
Set against the above claims and counter-claims, the paper describes an effort to address this gap
in the literature by documenting the opportunities and threats of the MOOC movement, as
perceived by a purposive sample of experienced ODL leaders working in the area. In this regard,
the study sought to hear from a selected group of European educators with a strong commitment
to the goal of opening up access to higher education. More specifically, the study was designed to
investigate the research question: What do experienced ODL educators within Europe perceive as
the main opportunities and threats presented by the MOOC movement?
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
24
Methodology
This study intended to explore the current and future perceived impact of MOOCs on higher
education in Europe, specifically by examining the opportunities and threats that may be
presented. It sought to analyse this problem from the perspective of the ODL research tradition.
To this end, it aimed to give voice to those actively engaged in ODL both as practitioners and
researchers. Accordingly the research question whose answer was sought in this study was:
What do experienced ODL educators within Europe perceive as the main
opportunities and threats presented by the MOOC movement?
The study was designed based on the Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats (SWOT)
analysis framework. The SWOT framework, used as an instrument for formulating
conceptualisations and theories, has a long tradition and established applicability in a wide
variety of domains (Ghazinoory, Abdi & Azadegan-Meh, 2001; Zavadskas, Turskis &
Tamosaitiene, 2011). The research team decided to focus on only opportunities and threats, and
ignore strengths and weaknesses of MOOCs as those components in the matrix that relate to
external or environmental aspects and not specifically to any organisation, institution, or course.
Opportunities refer to those favourable aspects that can provide an advantage of implementing
MOOCs, or aspects that remain unexplored or unexploited. On the other hand, threats (which
could be interpreted as weaknesses under alternative formulations) refer to all those aspects that
could cause problems for the success of the MOOC movement in Europe. Both opportunities and
threats lead to challenges that European policies, institutions, or courses should address.
A European conference on MOOCs was identified as the study site. This event provided the locus
around which the study was anchored as it contained a range of participants from over twenty five
countries in Europe, almost all of whom were active in either MOOC related research and/or the
development, design, and delivery of MOOCs. The conference - titled “Mapping The European
MOOC Territory”
1
- was held in Porto on 27 November 2014 as part of a European funded project
known as HOME (Higher Education Online: MOOCs the European way). The HOME project aims
to “develop and strengthen an open network for European cooperation on open education, in
general, and MOOCs, in particular” (HOME project, 2015, para. 1). Conference attendees were
drawn equally from ODL institutions and from universities with either a history of dual-mode
provision or a newly acquired experience in this area. A number of invited experts from industry,
national policy bodies, and other professional organisations involved in higher education were
also present.
Instrumentation
The research team, comprising the work-package leaders of the HOME Project, formulated an
approach through design conversations that took place at both face-to-face meetings and
1
See http://home.eadtu.eu/images/News/Home_Conference_Final.pdf
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
25
remotely using web conferencing and synchronous communication channels. A study design was
iterated that took an approach that would analyse three sources of data.
The first source of data was the academic outputs of the conference itself, which comprised 15
papers from a combined total of 33 named authors. The research team examined qualitatively
these papers in order to identify the opportunities and threats expressed.
The second data source comprised the views of conference attendees, as reported via a concise
survey instrument which was designed to address directly and solely their views on the
opportunities and threats posed by MOOCs.
The survey consisted of three open questions:
1. In your opinion what are the main opportunities of the MOOC movement for
higher education in Europe?
2. In your opinion what are the main threats the MOOC movement poses for higher
education in Europe?
3. (Optional) who are you?
The third data source was a selection of the tweets of conference attendees. Participants sending
tweets were instructed to use the following hashtags during the conference sessions:
• #MOOCopp to tag an opportunity
• #MOOCthreat to tag a threat
The second and third data sources above were identified to provide context and counterpoint to
the first, that of the papers. This was intended to allow the indirect object of study - the
participant and presenter views - to become more context-dependant (Flyvbjerg, 2006). In effect
this was to provide a form of triangulation represented by a multiplicity of evaluators, particularly
the participants themselves i.e. in positioning the surveys and tweets as in effect feedback loops to
the latent themes of the conference presentations.
Participants
As previously mentioned the HOME Conference was the anchoring site for data collection. For
the first data source the analysed papers were Brown & Costello, 2014; Cooch, Foster & Costello,
2014; Cooperman, 2014; Dillenbourg, 2014; Gaisch & Jadin, 2014; Kalz, Kreijns, Niellissen,
Castaño-Muñoz, Guasch, Espasa, Floratos, Tovar, & Cabedo, 2014; Muhlstein-Joliette, 2014;
Mystakidis & Berki, 2014; Naert, 2014; Nkuyubwatsi, 2014; Santos, Costa & Aparicio, 2014; Siller
& Muuß-Merholz, 2014; Teixeira, Volungeviienė & Mazar, 2014; Truyen, 2014 and Valkenburg,
Kos & Ouwehand, 2014.
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
26
The second instrument, the online survey, was open to all the Conference participants during the
first two weeks of December 2014. In total 16 responses were received.
The third source of data was the tweets of the conference participants. In total, 98 tweets were
posted carrying one or both tags. Some of those tweets were only informative and did not address
an opportunity or a threat. These tweets were not taken into account in the analysis. For each
tweet, the number of retweets and number of people tagged them as favorite was available in the
data. These numbers can indicate the importance of the item being an opportunity or a threat.
Table 1 presents an overview of the number of tweets per type and tag.
Table 1
Quantities of Tweets Posted
#MOOCopp
#MOOCthreat
Total (N=98)
Only informative
15
15
Carrying an opinion
59
24
83
Procedure
In accordance with the design of the study, a SWOT analysis was adopted here along with a
perspective informed by thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) as a flexible instrument that
could be used by a large and distributed research team to analyse the three data sources in a
consistent way. To differentiate emerging themes a three level thematic conceptualisation was
imposed with micro, macro and meso levels (Yurdusev, 1993).
However, in exploratory analysis it became clear that the meso level would most usefully be
merged into its adjacent to provide more coherence and to focus the study upon real bottom -up
practitioner perspectives on the one hand, and issues that might affect entire sectors on the other.
This led to a formulation where the macro level was defined as comprising those issues related to
the higher education system, European context, historical period and institutional level. The
micro level covered those aspects related to faculty, professors and courses, i.e. the operational
level. Institutional strategic concerns (which could be meso-concerns) were included in the macro
level.
At an international level, different studies and reports have identified the main topics in the
agenda for MOOCs. Gil-Jaurena and Titlestad (2013) compiled issues and recommendations
relating to building of foundations for MOOCs and practical suggestions for their use, primarily
addressed to higher education institutions which provide open, distance, and flexible education;
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
27
these recommendations were structured around the following strands: equity (about MOOCs and
their relationship to inclusion, social justice, and social mission of open education.); diversity
(about considering contextual aspects when producing/consuming MOOCs); quality (about
improving MOOCs considering pedagogical and managerial related aspects) and innovation
(regarding innovation and research related aspects). ICDE and UNESCO (2014) stress the
following as a main political challenge in the context of Open Education: “it is not only having
equal access that leads to equity, it is having equal access to success, regardless of learning
difficulties, social backgrounds and other barriers” (p. 2) in order to meet the overarching
education goal of the post-2015 education agenda, that is, “to ensure equitable and inclusive
quality education and lifelong learning for all by 2030” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 5). The different
categories identified in the literature complement the categorization we propose here
(micro/macro level). At a European level, those same concerns about equity, diversity, quality and
innovation are reflected.
Many sources also mentioned some of those challenges the MOOC movement offers for Europe.
An example of a challenge is the construction of a European multilingual portal with common
indicators, descriptors and standards, eQuality labels for MOOCs, and a common glossary
(Muhlstein-Joliette, 2014). Such challenges can represent either an opportunity or a threat, and
because of this categorization problem were omitted from the analysis.
Finally, the analysis of the survey revealed that a majority of opportunities and threats were not
specific to Europe, but could be counted within the field of MOOCs in general. We have included
these instances in our results.
Results
In this section, we will present the results of the analysis, organized in the two levels mentioned
above. We firstly analyse the opportunities and threats referred to as the macro level -either
political, contextual, or institutional- given the relevance that diverse authors have provided to
structural and institutional strategy when implementing open education and MOOCs. The micro
level and operational opportunities and threats are dealt with in the following section, as a more
specific approach to relevant topics to be considered when implementing MOOCs.
Results on System / Macro Level
At this macro level we have included all those aspects that are positioned at a system or
institutional level.
Opportunities on system / macro level. Table 2 provides an overview of the
opportunities that were mentioned more than once across all sources.
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
28
Table 2
Opportunities on Macro Level
Opportunities
Papers Citing
# of
mentions
in survey
# of tweets
mentioning
ECTS
(Dillenbourg, 2014),
(Nkuyubwatsi, 2014),
(Santos et al., 2014),
(Cooperman, 2014), (
Naert, 2014)
1
6 retweets; 2
added to
favorites
Increased opportunities
for collaboration
(Brown & Costello, 2014),
(Valkenburg et al., 2014),
(Naert, 2014), (Siller &
Muuß-Merholz, 2014)
4
MOOC as accelerator for
online learning
(Teixeira et al., 2014),
(Valkenburg et al., 2014)
4
1
Reaching new target
groups supported by
platforms that supports
customization of MOOCs
(Brown & Costello, 2014)
11
European policies on
MOOC
(Nkuyubwatsi, 2014),
(Muhlstein-Joliette,
2014), (Truyen, 2014)
1
1
MOOC as a tool for
marketing
3
Research about MOOCs
(Muhlstein-Joliette,
2014), (Kalz et al. 2014)
Use of open licenses
considered more present
in Europe than in US
(Valkenburg et al., 2014)
1
1
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
29
Across all sources (tweets, survey and the papers) the most cited opportunity is the availability of
the ECTS, making possible a uniform recognition of accomplishments across Europe. On the one
hand this can be viewed in light of existing European policies, aiming at collaboration across
borders, thereby potentially boosting MOOC development. The “Opening up education”
communication by the European Commission (EC, 2013) is an example of this. Some European
countries also lead in best practices in terms of recognition of prior learning (RPL) e.g. the
Norwegian RPL system constitutes a framework through which MOOC students could be assessed
and awarded credit (Nkuyubwatsi, 2014). On the other hand, MOOCs may be a catalyst for
strengthening European collaboration within the broader field of ODL by involving institutions
that do not normally operate within this field. The analysis indicates that MOOCs potentially
attract new institutions to online education.
Availability of a diversity of platforms with the ability to customize MOOCs makes addressing new
target groups (e.g. lifelong learners) possible, thereby contributing to improved accessibility to
higher education in Europe. Customization of MOOCs is enabled because of the availability of
openly licensed learning materials in MOOCs.
Other opportunities mentioned are partly not specific for Europe (e.g. MOOCs as an accelerator
for new conversations about online teaching and learning) or were mentioned less. Examples
include MOOCs as a tool for marketing for institutions, improving visibility of European higher
education offerings outside of Europe, pursuing strategic goals formulated in the Digital Agenda,
and increasing employment, via a more specialized workforce and economic growth (Mystakidis
& Berki, 2014).
Threats on system / macro level. Table 3 provides an overview of the threats that
were mentioned more than once across all sources.
Table 3
Threats on Macro Level
Threats
Papers Citing
# Of
Mentions In
Survey
# Of Tweets
Mentioning
Lack of recognition
and accreditation
(Nkuyubwatsi, 2014),
(Valkenburg et al., 2014),
(Muhlstein-Joliette, 2014)
4
Worries about quality
(Nkuyubwatsi, 2014),
(Santos et al., 2014),
4
6 retweets
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
30
(Muhlstein-Joliette, 2014)
Missing evidence and
data
(Valkenburg et al., 2014),
(Kalz et al., 2014)
1
4 retweets; 2
added to
favorites
Too much regulation,
hindering innovation
(Brown & Costello, 2014),
(Teixeira et al., 2014)
1
1
Lack of institutional
strategies for
integrating MOOCs
(Brown & Costello, 2014),
(Teixeira et al., 2014),
(Truyen, 2014)
5
Sustainability and
costs
(Nkuyubwatsi, 2014),
(Truyen, 2014)
Inequality in access
6
Whilst the biggest opportunity considered is the ECTS, the lack of a sound implementation of it
was mentioned as a big threat for MOOCs, particularly if the issue of bridging informal and
formal learning is not addressed sufficiently. In the long run, a threat to MOOCs may manifest, if
they are not well-integrated in broader university strategies and do not establish their own role
within the university offerings. Missing strategies on an institutional level to integrate MOOCs
and connect them with mainstream activities may hinder their uptake. Too much regulation was
seen as hindering innovation in MOOCs. In addition the fragility of MOOCs is addressed in
several sources that highlight a lack of evidence and research data, for instance on the impact of
MOOCs. This relates to a widespread scepticism of the quality of MOOCs and the pedagogies
employed, for example those of xMOOCs (Gaisch & Jadin, 2014). The costs of MOOCs production
and uncertainty about sustainability in lifecycle planning are also mentioned as threats.
Examples of inequality in access mentioned are: persistence in MOOCs only achievable for
privileged learners (those who have previously attained higher education qualifications);
publishing MOOCs is only achievable for large, well established institutions; and massiveness
may disincentivize MOOCs for smaller language groups.
Poor quality MOOCs and poor pedagogies are considered a threat in several ways. The lack of
quality can damage the reputation of the institution and paints a false picture to society of
MOOCs as being the best of higher education has to offer. Other threats mentioned several times
include: the risk of commercialisation of higher education; competition (from other institutions,
in Europe or elsewhere); fragmentation in offerings in terms of approaches, technology and
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
31
markets (Santos et al., 2014) because of the many platforms; and an excessive focus on the
European situation at the risk of losing sight of the wider global view (Valkenburg et al., 2014).
Results on micro level
At this micro level we have included all mentions positioned at the operational level, which
directly concern professors, faculty and courses.
Opportunities on micro level. On the micro level, the diverse types of MOOCs offered
in Europe with acronyms like Spitz MOOC
2
, qMOOC
3
, pMOOC
4
and eMOOCs (Gaisch & Jadin,
2014), each with a specific rationale were considered opportunities to targeting innovative ways of
teaching and learning, thereby creating better possibilities for personalized and flexible learning.
Although as mentioned under threats above, MOOCs are often criticised for poor quality, they
have at the same time the potential to be a test-bed for innovation in education. Mention of these
opportunities are in Santos et al. (2014), Teixeira et al. (2014), Cooch et al. (2014), Siller and
Muuß-Merholz (2014), Mystakidis and Berki (2014), Gaisch and Jadin (2014), and in 1 tweet and
7 responses in the survey.
Threats on micro level. The high dropout rate and low completion rate is mentioned
the most in the sources [Santos et al. (2014), 8 responses in the survey]. Other threats with fewer
mentions include weak peer learning capabilities, the high level of previous knowledge and
competencies needed to be successful in a MOOC (Santos et al., 2014) and lack of experience with
online teaching and learning with many professors (Teixeira et al., 2014).
Discussion
It can be seen that the majority of opportunities and threats are on a macro level. There is no
obvious explanation for this than perhaps that the context of the HOME project deals less with
MOOCs effects on the micro level. Another possible explanation may be the fact institutions are
still not very experienced with the phenomena of MOOC provision and its implications. In fact,
most of the opportunities and threats on the micro level focus on pedagogy and learning in a more
abstract way and less on more concrete effects for teachers (e.g. the opportunity to use MOOCs as
a tool for professionalization of teachers). In addition the threats mentioned are in many cases
not specific for the context of Europe, but are more generic threats (e.g. the high dropout rates).
Some issues pose both opportunities and threats or can be connected to each other. ECTS is
mentioned both as an opportunity and a threat. Innovation as opportunity is countered by
2
See http://www.slideshare.net/EADTU/03-making-the-european-academia-more-agile-pierre-
dillenbourg
3
See http://www.slideshare.net/stylianosm/participative-design-of-qmoocs-with-deep-learning-
and-3d-virtual-immersive-environments
4
See http://www.olds.ac.uk/blog/pmoocpedagogicalpattern
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
32
excessive regulation as a threat. Availability of multiple platforms for adopting MOOCs is tangled
with the threat of too much fragmentation.
Reflecting on opportunities and threats for European values (equity, diversity, quality and
innovation), we can observe that equity is not directly addressed in the results, although indirectly
the opportunity to reach new target groups could be categorized as contributing to this value. In
fact, some papers mention increasing access to HE and lifelong learning via MOOCs. For instance,
Teixeira et al. (2014) state: “It is this scalability element that assures the lowering down of costs
and can assure an even more disseminated and wider access to high quality higher education
provision.” (p. 25) and Brown and Costello (2014) in analysing their institutional strategy also say
that MOOCs provide an opportunity for “widening access to higher education through the
development of a 21st Century digital campus.” (p. 136).
Summary and Conclusions
This paper has described an effort to identify the opportunities and threats of the MOOC
movement with a specific focus on Europe. It has reported a study which draws on a purposive
sample of ODL leaders with considerable experience and knowledge of MOOCs.
For some people working in higher education, MOOCs are already seen as passé. Indeed, when
the levels of publicity surrounding MOOCs is compared to the actual numbers of courses and
students, then MOOCs are perhaps best understood as “imaginary” (Fairclough, 1995); a
prefiguring of possible and desired realities rather than a unified and coherent domain around
which clear boundaries exist (cited in Selwyn et al., 2015).
The results of this research indicate that this is too bold a statement. The results may help to
decide on future directions institutions of higher education can take to make optimal use of
MOOCs, and at the same time avoiding the threats as much as possible.
The Porto Declaration on European MOOCs (EADTU, 2014), formulated during and after the
previous mentioned conference, support the findings of this research. The Declaration calls for
openness for all, a collective European response to MOOCs and a strengthening of collaboration
between universities across Europe to that end. These are all recognized in the results of our
research and can be considered as points of attention and guidance for future developments. To
support such developments, the Declaration also points to the strong support of the European
Commission and governments required. The latter is a prerequisite to succeed in successfully
embracing the MOOC movement in Europe.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted in the framework of the European Union-funded project HOME
Higher education Online: MOOCs the European way (Ref. 543516-LLP-1-2013-1-NL-KA3-
KA3NW) under the support of the European Commission, DG EAC, under the Lifelong Learning
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
33
Programme. The authors wish also to extend their acknowledgements to all the contributors and
participants to the conference “Mapping the European MOOC Territory" held in Porto on 27th
November, 2014, for their contribution to this study.
References
Barber, M., Donnelly, K., & Rizvi, S. (2013). An avalanche is coming: Higher education and the
revolution ahead. Institute for Public Policy Research. London.
Barlow, A. (2014). Just another colonist tool? In S. Krause & C. Lowe (Eds.), Invasion of the
MOOCs: The promise and perils of massive open online courses (pp. 73-85). San
Francisco: Parlor Press.
Brown, M. (2015, June 9th). Opportunities and threats of the MOOC movement for Higher
Education: A European perspective. Presentation at How Europe Seizes the
Opportunities Offered by MOOCs, HOME Pre-Conference Workshop, European Distance
and e-Learning Network (EDEN) Conference, Barcelona.
Brown, M., & Costello, E. (2014). MOOCs in question: Strategic insights from two institutional
experiences. In D. Jansen & A. Teixeira (eds). Position papers for European cooperation
on MOOCs (pp. 130-148). Heerlen: EADTU. Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cooch, M., Foster, H. & Costello, E. (2014). Our MOOC with Moodle. In D. Jansen & A. Teixeira
(eds). Position papers for European cooperation on MOOCs (pp. 75-98). Heerlen:
EADTU. Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
Cooperman, L. (2014). MOOCs in the era of higher education’s digital transition. In D. Jansen &
A. Teixeira (eds). Position papers for European cooperation on MOOCs (pp. 6-8).
Heerlen: EADTU. Retrieved from
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
34
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility.
Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 18(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/2012-18
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2013). The maturing of the MOOC: Literature
review of massive open online courses and other forms of online distance learning. BIS
Research Paper Number 130.
Dillenbourg, P. (2014). Making european education more agile. In D. Jansen & A. Teixeira (eds).
Position papers for European cooperation on MOOCs (pp. 9-10). Heerlen: EADTU.
Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
EADTU (2014). Porto declaration on European MOOCs. Heerlen: EADTU. Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/News/Porto_Declaration_on_European_MOOCs_Final.p
df
EC-European Commission (2013). Opening up Education: Innovative teaching and learning for
all through new Technologies and Open Educational Resources. Retrieved from
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0654&from=EN
ECTS (2009). ECTS users’ guide. Luxembourg: European Communities.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry,
12(2) 219-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
Gaisch, M., & Jadin, T. (2014). Enhanced MOOCs for the conceptual age: A diversified lens on the
MOOCversity. In D. Jansen & A. Teixeira (eds). Position papers for European
cooperation on MOOCs (pp. 120-129). Heerlen: EADTU. Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
Ghazinoory, S., Abdi, M. & Azadegan-Mehr, M. (2011). SWOT methodology: A state-of-the-art
review for the past, a framework for the future. Journal of Business Economics and
Management, 12(1), 24-48.
Gil-Jaurena, I. (2014, November 29th). Implementation of MOOCs in a distance education
university: Issues and lessons learned. Keynote speech at ICET - International
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
35
Conference of Educational Technology. Innovative Learning Environments for Authentic
Education, Seoul (South Korea).
Gil-Jaurena, I., & Titlestad, G. (2013). ICDE: “Mind to MOOCs”– draft issues and
recommendations. Retrieved from http://www.icde.org/filestore/News/2013_July-
Dec/SCOP_2013/ICDEMindtoMOOCsdraftissuesandrecommendationsver1-
120131125.pdf
Gouseti, A. (2010). Web 2.0 and education: Not just another case of hype, hope and
disappointment? Learning, Media and Technology, 35(3), 351–356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2010.509353
HOME project (2013). Objectives. Retrieved from http://home.eadtu.eu/objectives
ICDE & UNESCO. (2014, November 20th). Policy forum. ensure equitable quality education and
lifelong learning for all by 2030: The contribution of open, online and flexible higher
education to the post-2015 global education agenda. Bali, Indonesia. Retrieved from
http://icde.org/en/context/unesco/icde_-_unesco_policy_forum/
Jacoby, J. (2014). The disruptive potential of the Massive Open Online Course: A literature
review. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 18(1), 73-85. Retrieved from
http://journals.akoaotearoa.ac.nz/index.php/JOFDL/article/view/214/168
Jansen, D., Schuwer, R., Teixeira, A., & Aydin, H. (2015). Comparing MOOC adoption strategies
in Europe: Results from the HOME project survey. International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, Special Issue on European MOOCs.
Kalz, M., Kreijns, K., Niellissen, G., Castaño-Muñoz, J., Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Floratos, N.,
Tovar, E. & Cabedo, R. (2014). MOOCKnowledge: Establishing a large-scale data
collection about participants of European Open Online Courses. In D. Jansen & A.
Teixeira (eds). Position papers for European cooperation on MOOCs (pp. 113-119).
Heerlen: EADTU. Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
Krause, S., & Lowe, C. (2014). Invasion of the MOOCs: The promise and perils of massive open
online courses. San Francisco: Parlor Press.
Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A. & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of
the published literature 2008-2012. International Review of Research in Open &
Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202-227. Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1455/2531
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
36
Macleod, H., Haywood, J., Woodgate, A. & Alkhatnai, M. (2015). Emerging patterns in MOOCs:
Learners, course design and directions. TechTrends, 59(1), 56-63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0821-y
Muhlstein-Joliette, C. (2014). eCompetences and eQuality: From MOOCs to social MOOCs in
Europe. In D. Jansen & A. Teixeira (eds). Position papers for European cooperation on
MOOCs (pp. 30-32). Heerlen: EADTU. Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
Mystakidis, S., & Berki, E. (2014). Towards a crowd-sourced open education strategy for
employment in europe with qualification-focused MOOCs. In D. Jansen & A. Teixeira
(eds). Position papers for European cooperation on MOOCs (pp. 33-43). Heerlen:
EADTU. Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
Naert, F. (2014). MOOCs, SPOCs, DOCCs and other bugs. In In D. Jansen & A. Teixeira (eds).
Position papers for European cooperation on MOOCs (pp. 64-74). Heerlen: EADTU.
Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
Nkuyubwatsi, B. (2014). Fostering collaborative investment in Massive Open Online Courses
(MOOCs). In D. Jansen & A. Teixeira (eds). Position papers for European cooperation on
MOOCs (pp. 44-57). Heerlen: EADTU. Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
OpenupEd (2015). Definition Massive Open Online Courses. Heerlen: EADTU. Retrieved from
http://www.openuped.eu/images/docs/Definition_Massive_Open_Online_Courses.pdf
Santos, T., Costa, C. & Aparicio, M. (2014). Do we need a shared European MOOC platform. In D.
Jansen & A. Teixeira (eds). Position papers for European cooperation on MOOCs (pp.
99-112). Heerlen: EADTU. Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
Selwyn, N. (2014). Digital technology and the contemporary university: Degrees of
digitalisation. London: Routledge.
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
37
Selwyn, N., Bulfin, S. & Pangrazio, L. (2015). Massive open online change? Exploring the
discursive construction of the ‘MOOC’ in newspapers. Higher Education Quarterly,
69(2), 175-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12061
Siller, F., & Muuß-Merholz, J. (2014). MOOC didactics Matters. A hands-on vision for MOOCs
and Connected Learning Practices in Europe. In D. Jansen & A. Teixeira (eds). Position
papers for European cooperation on MOOCs (pp. 58-63). Heerlen: EADTU. Retrieved
from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
Teixeira, A., & Mota, J. (2014). The iMOOC pedagogical model: Bridging the gap between non-
formal and formal education. Actas del V Congreso Internacional sobre Calidad y
Accesibilidad de la Formación Virtual - CAFVIR 2014 (pp. 512-517). Antigua Guatemala:
Galileo.
Teixeira, A., Volungeviienė, A. & Mazar, I. (2014). The mainstreaming of open, online and
flexible learning: How will MOOCs continue to be unique from an institutional
perspective. In D. Jansen & A. Teixeira (eds). Position papers for European cooperation
on MOOCs (pp. 25-29). Heerlen: EADTU. Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
Truyen, F. (2014). MOOCs from a university resource management perspective. In D. Jansen & A.
Teixeira (eds). Position papers for European cooperation on MOOCs (pp. 11-18).
Heerlen: EADTU. Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
UNESCO. (2015). Position Paper on Education Post-2015. Retrieved from
http://en.unesco.org/post2015/sites/post2015/files/UNESCO Position Paper ED
2015.pdf
Valkenburg, W. van; Kos, T. & Ouwehand, M. (2014). MOOCs as accelerator of change. In D.
Jansen & A. Teixeira (eds). Position papers for European cooperation on MOOCs (pp.
19-24). Heerlen: EADTU. Retrieved from
http://home.eadtu.eu/images/Position_papers_for_European_cooperation_on_MOOC
s.pdf
Yurdusev, A. N. (1993). 'Level of analysis' and 'unit of analysis': A case for distinction.
Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 22(1), 77-88.
Opportunities and Threats of the MOOC Movement for Higher Education: The European Perspective
Schuwer, Gil-Jaurena, Aydin, Costello, Dalsgaard, Brown, Jansen and Teixeira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
38
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z. & Tamosaitiene, J. (2011). Selection of construction enterprises
management strategy based on the SWOT and multi-criteria analysis. Archives of Civil
and Mechanical Engineering, 11(4), 1063-1082. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1644-
9665(12)60096-X
