Describing MOOC-based Hybrid initiatives: The H-MOOC Framework

Abstract

Several studies have described different hybrid initiatives to integrate MOOCs into traditional higher education. Most of these studies have partially documented students' perception on hybrid initiatives, measuring course satisfaction among other metrics. Few researchers have reported institutional efforts implied in implementing hybrid initiatives and their benefits from a curriculum perspective. This paper presents H-MOOC, a framework that describes hybrid MOOC-based initiatives as a continuum of two factors: (1) institutional effort, and (2) curriculum alignment. H-MOOC facilitates the comparison of different hybrid MOOC-based initiatives by suggesting Key Performance Indicators to measure their impact at an institutional level. Different hybrid initiatives in the literature are analyzed to illustrate how H-MOOC works. An actual case study on a course on Calculus is presented as empirical evidence of its use.

Full text

Research Track
Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2016
158
Onah, D. F. O., Sinclair, J., & Boyatt, R. (2014). Dropout Rates of Massive Open Online
Courses: Behavioural Patterns. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN14), Barcelona, Spain. 7th-9th July,
2014.
Robertshaw, D., Owen, E., & Hadi, S. M. (2015). An Approach to Quality Assurance of
MOOCs: Bringing MOOCs into Mainstream Quality Processes. Presented at Learning with
MOOCs II. 2nd-3rd October, 2015.
159
Describing MOOC-based Hybrid initiatives:
The H-MOOC Framework
Mar PÉREZ-SANAGUSTÍN1, Isabel HILLIGER1, Carlos
ALARIO-HOYOS2, Carlos DELGADO KLOOS2 & Saif RAYYAN3
1 Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, {mar.perez, ihilliger}ing.puc.cl
2 Universidad Carlos III De Madrid, {calahoy, ckd}@it.uc3m.es
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, srayyan@mit.edu
Abstract
Several studies have described different hybrid initiatives to integrate MOOCs into
traditional higher education. Most of these studies have partially documented
students’ perception on hybrid initiatives, measuring course satisfaction among
other metrics. Few researchers have reported institutional efforts implied in
implementing hybrid initiatives and their benefits from a curriculum perspective.
This paper presents H-MOOC, a framework that describes hybrid MOOC-based
initiatives as a continuum of two factors: (1) institutional effort, and (2) curriculum
alignment. H-MOOC facilitates the comparison of different hybrid MOOC-based
initiatives by suggesting Key Performance Indicators to measure their impact at an
institutional level. Different hybrid initiatives in the literature are analyzed to
illustrate how H-MOOC works. An actual case study on a course on Calculus is
presented as empirical evidence of its use.
Keywords
MOOCs, KPIs, Metrics, Higher Education, Hybrid pedagogies, Flipped Classroom,
Blended learning

Research Track
Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2016
160
1 Introduction
Since the appearance of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), several institutions
have joined the MOOC wave. They have been creating a huge amount of courses that
have become available as new types of Open Educational Resources (OERs). In order
to benefit from these new OERs, Higher Education (HE) institutions started to explore
and describe a set of hybrid initiatives to integrate MOOCs into their curriculum as
internal innovations (ZHANG et al., 2013; DELGADO KLOOS et al., 2015). In this
context, the concept of hybrid is understood as a broad term, including any learning
initiative, strategy or model that integrates MOOCs and MOOC-related technologies
into a traditional curriculum.
Most of these studies describe the impact of hybrid MOOC-based initiatives from stu-
dents’ perspective, analyzing their learning gains in comparison with more traditional
approaches (JOSEPH & NATH, 2013). However, only few studies have analyzed insti-
tutional implications of hybrid initiatives. These initiatives can be classified into two
groups: (1) those describing the initiatives implemented institutionally (ZHANG et al.,
2013; DELGADO KLOOS et al., 2015, HO et al., 2015), and (2) those analyzing dif-
ferent metrics needed to measure their institutional impact in terms of costs and learn-
ing benefits (GRIFFITHS et al. 2014).
Over the last decade, metrics in hybrid initiatives have evolved from student course
satisfaction to indicators of student support and effort (Firmin et al., 2014). Still, few
metrics inform about institutional advantages and threats of integrating MOOCs into
the academic curriculum (SOFFER & COHEN, 2015).
The variety of hybrid initiatives offered by universities is growing with the passage of
time (ZHANG et al., 2013; DELGADO KLOOS et al., 2015). Thus, decision-makers
need more information about what to expect of each hybrid strategy. For this purpose,
the contribution of this paper is twofold: (1) H-MOOC, a framework for describing
hybrid MOOC-based models and organizing their implementation, and (2) sets of Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) in order to measure both costs and benefits, allowing
decision-makers to adjust expectations and optimize the use of resources.
Describing MOOC-based Hybrid initiatives
M. Pérez-Sanagustín, I. Hilliger, C. Alario-Hoyos, C. Delgado Kloos & S. Rayyan
161
1.1 MOOC-based Hybrid initiatives
ZHANG et al. (2013) identified 5 models to integrate MOOCs into HE curricula and
organized them according to the relevancy for the institution. The list of models, orga-
nized from low to high relevancy, are the following: (1) MOOC learner services,
providing university services to learners that participate in MOOCs but that are not
enrolled in residential education (i.e. use of library); (2) MOOCs as Open Resources,
using MOOC components as learning objects on residential courses; (3) Flipped class-
rooms, using MOOC content for residential students to study at home; (4) Challenge
course for MOOCs, developing courses based on projects that residential students
have to do as an assessment of their work on a MOOC; and (5) Credit transfer from
MOOCs, recognizing credits from MOOCs after passing an exam.
DELGADO et al. (2015) categorized 6 different hybrid initiatives that integrate MOOC
technologies with face-to-face (f2f) instruction: (1) Local Digital Prelude, in which
the first part of the course is completely online (MOOC-based) and then continues with
a second traditional f2f part; (2) Flipping the Classroom, in which students work eve-
ry week with MOOC-based online content at home and then go to class to reinforce
their understanding of what they studied at home; (3) Canned digital teaching with
f2f tutoring, which consists of MOOC-based contents that students use to prepare their
exams in semesters where there are no f2f classes, having the faculty available at office
hours for tutoring; (4) Canned digital teaching in f2f course, which corresponds to
using MOOC-based contents as a textbook in a f2f residential course; (5) Remote tu-
toring in f2f courses, which consists of digital interventions (live or canned) from
experts to complement a traditional course; and (6) Canned digital teaching with
remote tutoring, which corresponds to completely online MOOC-based courses com-
plemented with video-conferences for tutoring.
1.2 Measuring the impact of MOOC-based initiatives
The literature about hybrid initiatives provides valuable insights about different type of
MOOC based models. Researchers have documented varied experiences that combine
MOOC-like content with on-campus courses, acknowledging the challenge of identify-

Research Track
Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2016
162
ing what model integrates online learning with personal experience as expected (DEL-
GADO KLOOS et al., 2015). Today, the challenge is to identify what success metrics
matter for each type of hybrid initiative. More metrics are needed in order to facilitate
their comparison and inform institutional decision-makers.
Over the last five years, most case studies have reported how students experienced
hybrid MOOC-based initiatives by measuring participant demographics, completion
rates, students’ interaction patterns, and learning gains (BRUFF, 2013). For example,
an initiative implemented in Taiwan was characterized by examining different factors
affecting student satisfaction (WU et al., 2010), including students’ gender, age, self-
efficacy, performance expectations, and learning satisfaction, among others. Case stud-
ies conducted in other countries also report metrics regarding the learner experience. A
pilot study about the implementation of MOOCs in the academic curriculum of Tel
Aviv University analyzes data about student participation (e.g., number of students
who signed up in the MOOC), learners’ pathway (e.g. students’ participation in tradi-
tional activities such as exams), and their attitudes towards MOOCs (SOFFER & CO-
HEN, 2015).
Still, there are researchers that have diversified the use of metrics in order to describe
hybrid MOOC-based initiatives beyond students’ perspective. An interim report about
the use of MOOCs in the University System of Maryland presents face-to-face time as
a relevant indicator, besides using instructor interviews as a legitimate instrument for
data collection (GRIFFITHS et al., 2014). A case study about a state-run University in
California proposes student effort as a critical success metric of a hybrid initiative
(FIRMIN et al., 2014), that is, enrollment, approval rates, retention, completed assign-
ments, face-to-face class time, and the use of support services. Thus, the range of met-
rics to measure the impact of hybrid MOOC-based initiatives has become wider, in-
cluding indicators associated with institutional costs and learning benefits.
Describing MOOC-based Hybrid initiatives
M. Pérez-Sanagustín, I. Hilliger, C. Alario-Hoyos, C. Delgado Kloos & S. Rayyan
163
2 The H-MOOC framework
2.1 A framework to analyze MOOC-based Hybrid initiatives
The H-MOOC framework is proposed to organize and systematically analyze the im-
plementation of any MOOC-based hybrid initiative as a continuum of two factors: (1)
the institutional effort to apply the initiative (x-axis), and (2) the alignment with the
curriculum (y-axis) (Fig. 1). It is important to notice that the framework assumes that
the MOOCs used in the hybrid initiatives are already available (either created by the
institution making use of them or by a third party) and therefore does not consider pro-
duction costs as part of the institutional effort, as they may be very variable among
MOOCs and among institutions. That is, as institutional effort we are not considering
the costs for creating and producing the MOOC, but the needed services to use it as
part of a hybrid initiative, such as the maintenance services.
Figure 1. H-MOOC Framework

Research Track
Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2016
164
The institutional effort refers to the means in terms of infrastructure, services, and
human resources (including teaching effort) required for launching or maintaining the
hybrid initiative. A low institutional effort means that the institution invests a minimum
on providing infrastructure, services and human resources (typical from a traditional
f2f teaching practice. A high level of institutional effort means that the institution in-
vest lots of efforts to provide infrastructure, human resources and associated services to
help students advance on the hybrid initiative. I. e., offering open and free study rooms
for residential and non-residential students to work on a MOOC requires much less
institutional effort compared a flipped classroom model, which will need the maximum
teaching effort as well as the infrastructures typical from a f2f teaching practice.
The alignment with the curriculum indicates both (1) the degree of institutional
recognition of the hybrid MOOC-based initiative, and (2) the alignment with the cur-
riculum of the MOOC-resources employed in the initiative. This is usually associated
with the institutional recognition (e.g., in the form of credits or as part of the final
grade in a course). A low level of alignment means that the MOOC is used as a com-
plement in the hybrid initiative and the institution does not recognize it as part of the
curriculum. However, a high level of alignment implies that the MOOC is the core of
the hybrid initiative (used in the course directly by teacher and students), and the insti-
tution recognizes it as part of the curriculum. Initiatives at a middle level of alignment
make an indirect use of the MOOC like, for example, as a reference textbook.
Through the continuum of these two factors, the H-MOOC framework enables the
characterization of hybrid initiatives with different levels of institutional effort and
alignment with the curriculum. In Fig. 1 we represent with a circle the four basic mod-
els that we place in the four corners of the framework: (1) the MOOC as service mod-
el (low in ‘X’ and ‘Y’ axes), typical from hybrid initiatives in which students use a
MOOC (or part of it) voluntarily, and as a complement to the curriculum but no institu-
tional recognition is given for completing this MOOC; (2) the MOOC as a replace-
ment model (high in ‘X’ and low in ‘Y’ axes), typical from hybrid initiatives in which
the MOOC replaces a traditional course (or is used to extend the curriculum), recogniz-
ing the institution the completion of the course, but providing no pedagogical nor insti-
tutional support in terms of physical infrastructure, nor services or local teaching sup-
port; (3) MOOC as a driver model (high in ‘X’ and ‘Y’ axes), typical from hybrid
Describing MOOC-based Hybrid initiatives
M. Pérez-Sanagustín, I. Hilliger, C. Alario-Hoyos, C. Delgado Kloos & S. Rayyan
165
initiatives in which a traditional course in the curriculum is organized around a MOOC
(e.g., flipped classroom), requiring high teaching and institutional effort; and (4)
MOOC as an Added Value model (high in ‘X’ and low in ‘Y’ axes), typical from
hybrid initiatives in which all the institutional efforts are provided to help students
success in the MOOC (e.g., offering teaching classes, tutoring times, etc.), but no cred-
its are given to them as the MOOC is considered an added-value complement for stu-
dents’ knowledge
Apart from these four extreme models, we could also find other models “in between”
the ends of these two axes that could be useful to classify hybrid initiatives. An exam-
ple model could be the use of MOOCs as textbooks in traditional classrooms, where
the institutional support is lower than in a flipped classroom and MOOCs are not fully
aligned with the curriculum.
2.2 Metrics related with H-MOOC
From the literature review, we identified three indicators that are important for evaluat-
ing any MOOC-based initiative. These indicators are: (1) required infrastructure, (2)
teaching and learning benefits, and (3) students’ participation (Table 1). Although met-
rics for each indicator can vary depending on the institutional context, the three of them
can inform decision-making. The first two indicators report information for a cost-
effectiveness analysis of any hybrid model. Regarding students’ participation, this is an
indicator that describes the target population of the initiative, in order to assess its cov-
erage and its participant’s needs.

Research Track
Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2016
166
Table 1: Examples of metrics that are relevant for all MOOC-based initiatives
Required infrastructure
Teaching and learning benefits
Students’ Participation
x MOOC studio rooms
x
MOOC production
equipment
x Tutoring rooms
x Technology labs
x Teachers’ satisfaction
x Learning expectations
x Teaching expectations
x Students’ satisfaction
x Perceived learning
x Students’ self-efficacy
x Course enrollment
x Demographics
x Online participation
x
Students’ interaction
patterns
x
Retention and attrition
We have also identified different types of metrics whose relevance depends on the
MOOC-based initiative of analysis. For example, f2f teaching time is an important
metric for models that use MOOCs as a driver. In flipped classroom approaches
(DELGADO KLOOS et al., 2015), f2f teaching time is an indicator of teacher effort to
foster active learning. However, this metric might be less important for hybrid initia-
tives that use a MOOC as a service (ZHANG et al., 2013), because students are not
necessarily participating in traditional teaching instances aligned to the MOOC. Thus,
decision-makers need information from different KPIs, depending on the MOOC-based
initiatives that their institution is implementing.
In what respects to the two dimensions of the H-MOOC framework, the set of KPIs
also varies. Curriculum alignment could be determined by the number of credits stu-
dents receive from their participation in the MOOC. Regarding institutional effort, the
metrics also differ for each hybrid MOOC-based model. In the case of a MOOC as a
service model, tutoring time is more relevant than teaching time. No teaching time is
expected to be expended in MOOC usage, but tutoring time might be needed in order
to guide students’ learning. Conversely, f2f teaching time is more relevant when the
MOOC is used as a driver, because there is f2f time considered in the hybrid initiative.
In Table 2, we made an effort to organize the different metrics used in the literature,
and align them with the H-MOOC framework. This table indicates what metrics could
Describing MOOC-based Hybrid initiatives
M. Pérez-Sanagustín, I. Hilliger, C. Alario-Hoyos, C. Delgado Kloos & S. Rayyan
167
be used to quantify each dimension of H-MOOC, besides clarifying what metric mat-
ters more in each hybrid MOOC-based model described in previous section 2.1. This
initial approach could be improved with future work about different hybrid initiatives
and their institutional implications.
Table 2: Examples of metrics whose relevance varies depending on the hybrid
MOOC-based model. The meaning of the ‘*’ is Relevant and ‘**’ More
relevant.
Metric
D
i
men
men-
sion
Metric
Relevance
MOOC as
a Service
MOOC
as a
R
e
place-
place-
ment
MOOC as
Added
value
MOOC
as a
Driver
Curriculum
alignment
x Number of students’
credits
Not ap-
plies
*
Not ap-
plies
*
x Faculty qualifications
**
*
**
*
x Learning gains
*
**
*
**
x Students’ achievement
*
**
*
**
Institutional
effort
x Tutoring time
**
*
*
*
x Use of support services
**
*
*
*
x Planning and teaching
time
*
*
**
**
x Material course devel-
opment
*
*
**
**

Research Track
Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2016
168
3 The H-MOOC framework in practice
This section illustrates how the H-MOOC framework works. First, we analyze and
organize current hybrid MOOC-based initiatives in the literature according to the
framework. Second, we show how to apply the KPIs defined through an actual case
study.
3.1 Organizing Hybrid MOOC-based Models from the literature
The six models by DELGADO KLOOS et al. (2015) are classified in the H-MOOC
framework (Fig. 2). Two non-hybrid MOOC-based courses are used as reference in the
Figure: a fully remote course, completely aligned with the curriculum, but with a low
level of institutional support regarding infrastructures and services, and a f2f regular
course, which is aligned to the curriculum and demands an important institutional ef-
fort regarding infrastructures, services and human resources.
Figure 2. Hybrid MOOC-based models for organized according to the H-MOOC
Framework
Describing MOOC-based Hybrid initiatives
M. Pérez-Sanagustín, I. Hilliger, C. Alario-Hoyos, C. Delgado Kloos & S. Rayyan
169
The two reference models can be hybridized in different ways. The f2f regular course
can be hybridized using MOOCs as a flipped classroom. In the flipped classroom the
f2f class is still present, but there is an extra effort on the teacher (and thus institutional
effort) to plan well ahead of class. We can however reduce the number of f2f classes in
our course and thus the institutional effort following a local digital prelude model, in
which the first part of the course is entirely online and the second f2f. In addition, we
can maintain the same structure in our f2f course but hybridize it by using MOOCs as
reference textbooks (canned teaching in f2f courses), which reduces their alignment
with the curriculum, or simply as a complement to the course (remote tutoring with
f2f course), in which case the alignment with the curriculum is lower.
The remote course model can be hybridized as well. For example adding f2f tutoring to
the remote course (canned digital teaching with f2f tutoring) increases the institu-
tional effort, while adding remote tutoring (canned digital teaching with remote tu-
toring) reduces it. As in the case of f2f regular courses we can maintain the same struc-
ture in our remote course and hybridize it using MOOCs as reference textbooks or
complements to the course (see the two extra models added to Fig. 2 in grey, canned
teaching with remote course, remote tutoring with remote course).
3.2 A Hybrid MOOC-based model on Calculus: a case study
As an example of how the framework and the KPIs proposed can be applied in an actu-
al context, we analyzed a “MOOC as a service model” a course on Calculus called
“Progressions and Summations” at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (PUC).
This course is proposed to support freshmen on engineering with low scores at the
entrance institutional exam to improve their calculus competences. Although the
MOOC was open to anyone from January 19th to 30th, the sample for data collection
and analysis was restricted to engineering students at PUC. 650 (N=650) students were
admitted in engineering first year, from which 232 (N=232) had to mandatorily partici-
pate in the traditional Progressions and Summations course. At the end of this course,
students had to take an exam to evaluate their progress.
As it was explained in section 2.2, students’ participation and learning benefits are
relevant for evaluating the success of any hybrid MOOC-based model. According to

Research Track
Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2016
170
the students’ Participation KPI, a third of the students that failed on the pre-test items
about progressions and summations used the MOOC. Activity patterns showed that
these students were mostly active during the dates a remedial on-campus mini-course
was imparted, regarding the fact that this traditional course was also about progressions
and summations. Regarding the Learning Benefits KPI, the use of the MOOC affected
positively students’ performance, but learning gains were not statistically significant.
By applying the H-MOOC framework to this case of study, decision makers were ca-
pable of acknowledging the fact that the MOOC was used as a service, so the results
previously described were expected. First, students did not earned any credit for using
the MOOC, so curriculum alignment was low. Additionally, the MOOC target popula-
tion had to take more than one mini-course on-campus, so students have little time left
for interacting with the online course. Therefore, the hybrid MOOC-based initiative
served students’ learning effectively, but higher institutional effort and curriculum
alignment is needed if decision makers want to use this MOOC as a significant driver
of students’ learning.
4 Conclusions and future work
This paper has presented the H-MOOC framework. H-MOOC provides a systematic
way to define the space of hybrid learning initiatives from the viewpoint of organiza-
tions by establishing two key dimensions: curriculum alignment and institutional effort.
According to these dimensions, four different hybrid MOOC-based models are pro-
posed: (1) MOOC as a service, (2) MOOC as a replacement; (3) MOOC as a driver,
and (4) MOOC as an added value. In a way, these models are a natural extension of
how HE institutions think of traditional residential activities, and how they are set up:
the university and the department decides on what educational activities are needed to
support the curriculum they create, and what institutional support is needed. Some of
these activities align strongly with the curriculum, and some could complement learn-
ing experiences, requiring more or less support from the institution. Coupled with
KPIs, the H-MOOC framework help institutions evaluate which initiatives are more
suited for their curriculum, students and faculty. So, different MOOC-based initiatives
Describing MOOC-based Hybrid initiatives
M. Pérez-Sanagustín, I. Hilliger, C. Alario-Hoyos, C. Delgado Kloos & S. Rayyan
171
within and across several institutions can be compared, and HE decision makers can
share what they have learned from their experiences and decision-making processes.
However, H-MOOC is only a first approach and presents some limitations that need
further study. First, the H-MOOC might fall short to help redefine the way in which
institutions deal with MOOCs and curriculum resources (e. g. figuring how to offer
courses across institutions). Second, the framework needs to define a systematic way of
applying KPIs to evaluate various hybrid MOOC-based initiatives.
As future work, we plan to analyze more initiatives to validate the usage of this frame-
work. We expect running experiments where the same MOOC is used in various mod-
els, in order to evaluate their impact using the KPIs defined. During these experimental
processes, new KPIs could be redefined and new ones could be proposed. Also, future
studies include working with different institutions and report the results obtained from
comparing models across universities. Finally, we plan to analyze how this could be
used not only as an analytical framework, but also as a means to inspire internal inno-
vations in the use of MOOCs in HE institutions.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by 14ENI2-26862, S2013/ICE-2715, FPDI-2013-
17411, TIN2014-53199-C3-1-R, and 561533-EPP-1-2015-1-ES-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP.
References
Bruff, D. O., Fisher, D. H., McEwen, K. E., & Smith, B. E. (2013). Wrapping a MOOC:
Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 9(2), 187-199.
Delgado Kloos, C., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Alario-Hoyos, C., Ayres, I. E., & Fernández-
Panadero, C. (2015). Mixing and Blending MOOC Technologies with Face-to-Face
Pedagogies. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 967-971).

Research Track
Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2016
172
Firmin, R., Schiorring, E., Whitmer, J., Willett, T., Collins, E. D., & Sujitparapitaya, S.
(2014). Case study: using MOOCs for conventional college coursework. Distance
Education, 35(2), 178-201.
Ghadiri, K., Qayoumi, M. H., Junn, E., Hsu, P., & Sujitparapitaya, S. (2013). The
transformative potential of blended learning using MIT edX’s 6.002 x online MOOC content
combined with student team-based learning in class. Environment, 8, 14.
Griffiths R. et al. (2014). Interactive online learning on campus: Testing MOOCs and other
hybrid formats in the University System of Maryland. New York: Ithaka S+R.
Ho, A. D., Chuang, I., Reich, J., Coleman, C. A., Whitehill, J., Northcutt, C. G., Williams,
J. J., Hansen, J. D., Lopez, G., & Petersen, R. (2015). HarvardX and MITx: Two Years of
Open Online Courses Fall 2012-Summer 2014. Available at SSRN 2586847.
Joseph, A., & Nath, B. (2012). Integration of Massive Open Online Education (MOOC)
System with in-Classroom Interaction and Assessment and Accreditation: An extensive
report from a. Weblidi.info.unlp.edu.ar. Retrieved from
http://weblidi.info.unlp.edu.ar/WorldComp2013-Mirror/p2013/EEE3547.pdf
Soffer, T., & Cohen, A. (2015). Implementation of Tel Aviv University MOOCs in academic
curriculum: A pilot study. Int. Rev. of Research in Open and Dist. Learning, 16(1), 80-97.
Zhang, Y. (2013). Benefiting from MOOC. World Conference on Educational Multimedia.
Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2013(1), 1372-1377.
173
A Conceptual Business Model for MOOCs
Sustainability in Higher Education
Nor Fadzleen SA DON, Rose Alinda ALIAS & Naoki OHSHIMA
Malaysia-Japan International Institute of Technology,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, nor@fadzleen.com
Abstract
The exponential growth of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) has initiated
multiplier discussions on viable business models for higher education due to the
disruptive innovation in the democratization of learning, encompassing
heterogeneous participation worldwide. Nonetheless, based from past studies,
business models for MOOCs sustainability are under-researched albeit its
importance in perpetuating the competitive advantage of global higher education.
Although there is more than 21 million end-users worldwide and millions had been
invested in the development and execution of MOOCs in higher education, there is
a deficit in research on MOOCs sustainability in global higher education. Hence,
this paper aims to explore the past studies on MOOCs business models to
propagate its sustainability in higher education. By exploring, studying and
analysing the existing MOOCs business models as well as sustainability in higher
education, a Conceptual Business Model for MOOCs Sustainability in Higher
Education is developed via synthesis and integration of all the constructs and
elements of meta-analysis and literature review. The development of the
Conceptual Business Model for MOOCs Sustainability is hoped to be be a
guideline for policy makers, practitioners and researchers on perpetuating MOOCs
sustainability in the hyper-speed era of innovation.
Keywords
MOOCs, business model, sustainability, higher education