Drivers of MOOC Sustainability: A Comparison of the US and India

Abstract

The dynamics of online teaching and learning have been transformed through the development of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which are now available as a global commodity with access to an online computing device. This raises the question, whether the factors that drive MOOC sustainability in diverse socioeconomic country contexts differ across regions. The article examines this question through a review of the literature on MOOCs, shaped primarily by developments in the USA, and comparing the findings to implementation characteristics of MOOCs in India, identified based on expert opinions. Success factors for MOOCs are identified along four dimensions, (1) MOOC supply and stakeholders, (2) distribution channels, (3) intended learning outcomes and (4) the learning perspectives or demand for MOOCs within diverse contexts. Results point to the research need for formulation and validation of a differentiated MOOC success model, and the need for a careful understanding of regional, contextual characteristics to attain MOOC success in practice.

Full text

The Twelfth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, 11-12 December 2015, Thailand
1.1
Drivers of MOOC Sustainability:
a Comparison of the US and India
Mariam Aman Shah1
Murat Oztok2
Department of Educational Research,
Lancaster University, UK
1shahmariam@gmail.com
2m.oztok@lancaster.ac.uk
and Christian Wagner3
School of Creative Media and Department of Information Systems,
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
3c.wagner@cityu.edu.hk
Abstract - The dynamics of online teaching
and learning have been transformed
through the development of Massive Open
Online Courses (MOOCs), which are now
available as a global commodity with access
to an online computing device. This raises
the question, whether the factors that drive
MOOC sustainability in diverse socio-
economic country contexts differ across
regions. The article examines this question
through a review of the literature on
MOOCs, shaped primarily by developments
in the USA, and comparing the findings to
implementation characteristics of MOOCs
in India, identified based on expert
opinions. Success factors for MOOCs are
identified along four dimensions, (1) MOOC
supply and stakeholders, (2) distribution
channels, (3) intended learning outcomes
and (4) the learning perspectives or demand
for MOOCs within diverse contexts. Results
point to the research need for formulation
and validation of a differentiated MOOC
success model, and the need for a careful
understanding of regional, contextual
characteristics to attain MOOC success in
practice.
Keywords - Contextualized Online
Education, MOOCs, MOOC Success
Factors, Sustainability
I. INTRODUCTION
Over the past few years the dynamics of
online teaching and learning have been
transformed through the development of
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).
MOOCs have changed online learning from
being a privilege of university students (in
well developed economies), to a commodity in
reach of anyone with access to the internet and
a computer or mobile device. Initiated through
projects at Ivy League universities in the US
such as Coursera, edX, or Udacity, MOOCs,
have evolved into open and free courses from
across the globe (Liyanagunawardena et al.,
2013).
Much has been made of the success and
sustainability of MOOCs (Zhan et al. 2015), as
they require significant resources to develop
and distribute, frequently provide little or no
profitable returns to their creators, and draw on
a student group that declines considerably
throughout course operation. The question is
particularly relevant for developing nations,
which face considerable resource limitations
but which potentially also can benefit greatly
from educating their vast population through
highly scala ble e duc atio n s olu tio ns
(Charmonman et al. 2014). India, for instance,
with its 1.2 billion population and role as
“largest contributor to the global workforce”
of over 950 million people (Ernst & Young

Drivers of MOOC Sustainability: a Comparison of the US and India
The Twelfth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, 11-12 December 2015, Thailand
1.2
LLP, 2013, p.7) would seem to be an ideal
candidate. Traditional classroom environments
in India “can’t keep up with the masses”
(Pushkar 2014). Therefore, the prospect of
MOOCs has become real to India as it
identified "of the 2.9 million registered users
of Coursera in March, 2014 more than
250,000 were from India, second only to those
from the United States (Agarwal 2013).
The question of sustainability is particularly
important for developing nations such as India,
as the sustainability drivers for developed
economies may not apply in less developed
regions, thus requiring different models for the
creation, distribution, and maintenance of
MOOCs, so as to sustain their broader success.
For example, a MOOC student in North
America may be happy to enroll in a course
for self development or personal enjoyment,
given the only incremental cost being time
spent to participate. In contrast, a MOOC
student in India without prior access to a well
developed online infrastructure, may choose to
take a MOOC only if it provides employment-
relat e d rewards , g iv en t he poten tially
significant costs to obtain the needed
computing device and Internet access. India is
furthermore interesting as a comparison case
because it has (unlike China) a large English
speaking population, so MOOCs developed in
North America could potentially be successful
in India, if similar sustainability drivers
existed in both regions. In order to be
sustainable, MOOCs are expected to meet a set
of success criteria, the determination of which
is the subject of this article.
Conseuquently, this study aims to answer
the following research question: What are the
factors contributing to the success of MOOCs
in a developing region, here India, and how do
they differ from success factors in the United
States?”
The article addresses this question in
relationship to MOOC development in India,
but with the expectation that findings are
applicable to a larger group of developing
nations. The research, being early stage, is
exploratory in nature, and will draw on expert
opinions to preliminarily answer the above
question.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Determinants of MOOC Success
E-learning services usually attribute their
levels of success to two main factors: content
and delivery (Romiszowsky, 2004). Although
content and delivery are highly important, by
themselves they cannot assure long term
success (McGraw, 2001). Whereas short term
success for the “product” MOOC can possibly
be measured meaningfully in terms of these
two factors, MOOCs as a sustainable
education system require a broader set of
success criteria. For long term (product)
sustainability, the literature (Cooper &
Kleinschmidt, 2000), (Janelle & Hodge, 2000)
and (McNally et al., 2010) identifies the
following key areas, Stakeholders and Supply,
Product Distribution, Predicted Customer
Intentions, and Product Demand.
Stakeholders and Supply - Cooper &
Kleinschmidt (2000) stress the impact of
support or lack thereof, from top
ma nagement ( Coop er & Kleinschmidt,
2000). Other well- known studies, Rothwell
(1972) and Maidique & Zirger (1984), have
also stressed the significant role which the
buy-in of stakeholders and other “top
management support” plays on the success or
failure of new and developing products
(Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 2000, p.21). The
buy-in of stakeholders, however, should not be
limited to financial resources (Johansson,
2002). Truly successful products require
stakeholders which examine the external
environment in which the product is launched,
and thus, must provide both “financial and
political resources” which are “critical for
product development success” (Johansson,
2002, p.100). For MOOCs, stakeholders and
supply identify the key elements in the supply
chain of MOOCs.
Distribution - The continual expansion of
“informat ion soc iet ies” o r plugg ed-in
societies, has led the technological impact on
products to become a core component which

Mariam Aman Shah, Murat Oztok, and Christian Wagner
The Twelfth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, 11-12 December 2015, Thailand
1.3
may lead to their success (Janelle & Hodge,
2000, p.211). Studies have identified factors
insuring product success as not only
technological continuity and stability, but also
the level of “technological discontinuity” that
is required for the product (McNally et al.,
2010, p.992), referring to whether a product
fits within the demands of the technological
infrastructure of its contextual market
environment, or if new technological
processes and infrastructures are required
(Ibid). The reverse concept of examining
discontinuity contributes as a success factor,
as it enable the identification of required
acquisitions, product adaptations and
managing skills best suited to the context of
the target market to emerge (Silva et al., 2007,
p.741). This is an essential aspect of online or
e-products. For MOOCs, distribution defines
the distribution channel, by which online
courses are delivered to learners.
Predicted Customer Intentions - Similar to
technological discontinuity, product success is
also associated with “customer discontinuity”
(McNally et al., 2010, p.992). This examines
the possible intentions of customers and the
likelihood to which they will be willing and
able to change their known behaviour patterns
to what is required for the adoption of a new
product (Ibid). In a learning environment,
customer intentions translate into intended
learning outcomes.
Demand - Predicted demand for a
product, that is identifying potential customer
attitudes and awareness or “customer
meaningfulness”, runs parallel to the concept
of identifying customer discontinuity
(McNally et al., 2010, p.991). This focuses
on the significance which the customer may
place on a product. For MOOCs, this
describes the demand for open online
learning.
III. METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
Fig. 1 depicts a model for MOOC
sustainability with 4 independent variables,
each of which together with corresponding
propositions will be described below.
A. MOOC Supply Chain (Academic and
Platform Stakeholders)
Fig 1. Model of MOOC Success
MOOC Supply Chain is our construct to
describe the delivery capability for MOOCs
in the region. The delivery capability of the
supply chain refers to the region’s ability to
create and maintain a set of MOOCs. This
delivery capability may be defined by
available funding, presence of content
providers, such as universities, and expertise
in MOOC creation (Liyanagunawardena et al.,
2013). The assumption is that a stronger
delivery capability will lead to greater MOOC
success (P1). The stakeholders in the supply
chain for MOOCs are likely to be different
according to the region in which the MOOC
is developed (Winkler 2014). Based on past
research we conjecture that:
(Proposition 1) MOOC success in the US
will be based on a supply chain dominated by
platform stakeholders (Liyana-gunawardena et
al., 2013) whereas in developing nations
(here India), success will be based on a supply
chain that is built around academic and local
support institutions (Jain et al., 2014).
B. MOOC Distribution Channel
Studies have identified contextual
environmental conditions play a role in the
development of networks (Li & Atuahene-
Gima, 2001). As a predominantly virtual
product online, MOOCs will rely on a
transmission and delivery infrastructure to be

Drivers of MOOC Sustainability: a Comparison of the US and India
The Twelfth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, 11-12 December 2015, Thailand
1.4
successful. The better this infrastructure, the
more successful the MOOC is expected to be.
The infrastructure will incorporate a range of
factors at the technology level and also with
portable technology devices. Thus it will
include bandwidth and availability of
rec ept ion d evice s (Ra t wat t e 2 013) .
Furthermore, the network will also include
intermediaries, such as the large MOOC
“integrators” we see emerging through
Coursera, Futurelearn and other platforms
(Wintrup et al., 2015). Once again, we expect
differences between developing regions and
developed ones, namely the high importance
of the technical network as the possible
Achilles’ heel in developing regions, such as
in parts of India and the importance of
intermediaries to organize the vast supply of
MOOCs in more developed regions. We thus
state:
(Proposition 2) MOOC success in
developing nations (here India) will depend
on a working IT infrastructure, whereas
MOOC success in developed nations will
depend on a well-developed intermediary
network.
C. MOOC Intended Learning Outcomes
MOOCs are by definition open and usually
delivered on a no-fee basis. Nevertheless, for
most viewers they incur costs, both in terms of
time spent (opportunity cost) and resources
required to watch (e.g., computing and
communication costs) (Masters 2009). From a
viewer’s perspective, their sustained
investment, beyond early curiosity, should
therefore only make sense if the MOOC
achieves the desired learning outcome. It is
the refore thr ough r eac hing gr eate r
achievements with the intended learning
outcomes, that a greater level of sustained
MOOC success is possible. We expect
intended outcomes to differ between a
developed region and a less developed region.
Studies have indicated that for developing
regions course content needs to be geared
around skills based training, along with
language also playing a key role (Boga &
Mcgreal, 2014), and that courses will have
“distinguishable features compared to MOOCs
popularised in North America” and these
features are essential for their success (Perris
2014). Whereas MOOCs course design in
India would be “based on application (rather
than personal interest)" (Perris, 2014), MOOCs
in the US would be geared towards further
personal development (Palin 2014). We thus
expect:
(Proposition 3) MOOCs in developing
nations to target skills and application based
learning outcomes, whereas US MOOCs will
target personal interest and developmental
achievements.
D. Demand (Learning Perspectives)
Through examining previous studies,
“demand” is based on “Learning Perspectives”
which are either norms based or needs based
(P4). It is anticipated if users identify MOOCs
to be out of their reach, their demand and
attitudes towards them will be negative and
thus effect MOOCs success and sustainability.
Studies have identified norms based learning
perspectives generate a demand for MOOCs in
circumstances where the learners are
“knowledgeable”, “are capable of paying for
education”, and do not necessarily identify
MOOCs as a means through which
employability is acquired (Palin 2014). Such
learners are on a career track and also have
access to MOOCs in an understood language
(Kop 2011). The ‘needs based’ learning
perspective is likely to be based around the
learners contextual cirumstances and ‘need’
to expand their knowledge base if they were
otherwise “left out of the higher education
system” (P4) (Ernst & Young LLP, 2011,
p.11). This is considered a “critical starting
point” affecting the demand for MOOCs if
students believe such online learning may
harness for them a sense of upward mobility
and greater opportunities for employment
(Nath et al., 2014, p.156). Based on these
recognized perspectives, we formulate:
(Proposition 4) MOOC demand in
developing nations, here India, will be
predominantly need based, whereas MOOC
demand in the US will be predominantly
interest based.

Mariam Aman Shah, Murat Oztok, and Christian Wagner
The Twelfth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, 11-12 December 2015, Thailand
1.5
IV. INFORMANTS
AND DATA COLLECTION
This study gathered data from three India
MOOC experts. All three are professors with
more than 17 years education-related
experience in India, and strategic involvement
with MOOCs, with respect to development,
distribution and maintenance of MOOCs in
India. All are also keenly aware of the nature
of MOOCs in the US. They were chosen
according to what Groenewald (2004) has
expressed as “purposive sampling”
(Groenewald, 2004, p.8). Therefore, they were
selected based on the purpose and
requirements for this study, that is, the experts
were identified as a more neutral sounding
board. As this study is exploratory the
differentiating factors for the development and
sustainability of MOOCs, the MOOC experts
were identified as the most relevant
participants for this study (Suri 2011). Three
experts was considered a reasonable number
along with being a pragmatic method through
which to collect and manage data for this
exploratory study (Suri 2011) (Forker &
Mendez 2001). Semi-structured interviews of
45-75 minutes, conducted via Skype, were
used to capture the experts’ knowledge
following Lester’s (1999) pragmatic design of
“minimum structure maximum depth” (Lester,
1999, p.2).
V. FINDINGS
A. Supply (Academic and Platform
Stakeholders) (P1)
It was examined here if there was a
contextualized differentiation in the
requirements of the “Supply” of MOOCs with
key providers or “Academic and Platform
Stakeholders”. Through the perspectives of the
experts it has been both identified and agreed
upon, that the key providers of MOOCs are
subject to the environment for which the
MOOCs are developed. All experts stated this
divide due to India’s contextual environment
and they advocated the need for government
stakeholders and town mayors.
Expert 2: “Government would be the
central agency and stakeholder for this because
universities will have limited resources and
limited reach. It has to be localized. So the
change agents will have to be the district
agents (town Mayors) of the local government
offices in each district.”
Expert 1: “MOOCs are looked at as part of
an investment in education by the government
of India.”
Expert 3: “MOOCs will not be sustainable
as a business but MOOCs will be sustainable
as a social obligation, so government is
important. The Ministry of Education in India
is taking a very serious interest in this, because
for them it is part of party politics.”
B. Distribution Channel Conditions (P2)
The n ece ssity fo r techn olo gical
infrastructure along with identifying the
learner markets reliance and prevalent use of
the type of technology was essential to
examine here. All experts confirmed the
differentiation between the US and Indian
context with access to technology and
bandwidth speeds to support the Indian
MOOCs. They also highlighted MOOC
success in an Indian context may require
distribution through mobile devices.
Expert 3: “You need to have access to
technology…MOOCs which run on mobiles
and use a lot of voice…with technology speed
or lack of, we many need to use mobiles like
this more creatively.”
Expert 1: “Technology is a problem if you
want to reach people. Internet access is not
widely available in India, even if they use
phones, 3G doesn’t work that well…we need a
new architecture for this.”
Expert 2: “Smartphones and tablets are
very cheap; the cost of 3G data is expensive
but this is not necessarily limiting.”
C. Intended Learning Outcomes (P3)
All experts agreed about the importance of
localization and saw unique outcomes needed
in a market such as India as depicted through

Drivers of MOOC Sustainability: a Comparison of the US and India
The Twelfth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, 11-12 December 2015, Thailand
1.6
P3. All experts identified “skills” as a
differentiating factor for the Intended
Learning Outcomes of MOOCs in an Indian
context as opposed to the US context of
learning for personal development.
Expert 2: “In terms of content, what is the
unique skill set that the course is providing,
this is of particular interest for India… we
require relevant programs for relevant skills,
we do not have the leisure for other
things…This could be to spread awareness of
health and sanitation, farming etc., here it may
need professionals teaching rather than
professors teaching. 80 % of MOOCs in the
US are not relevant courses I think, there are
good things about it, but they are not
necessarily taken seriously.”
Expert 1: “MOOCs here have a different
mentality and are not the same that Coursera is
running, there is an entirely different scenario
that we are facing. MOOCs designs are for
skills for development to empower the people
who take it in their situations.”
Expert 3: “We have lots of young people
unemployed, there is such a big gap in skills
learning and application, so MOOCs design
would be to support very large scale skills
building. Whether its carpentry or agriculture
skills, there are about 100 or 200 million
people which need to be skilled in less than a
few years’ time.”
D. Demand (Learning Perspectives Attitudes
towards MOOCs) (P4)
The focus here was to identify if there is a
differentiation for the demand and thus a
difference in the “learning perspective” for
MOOCs, based on specific contextualized
environments. When examining the “needs
based” learning perspective, it was confirmed
by all three experts that the tradtional US
model of MOOCs may be elitist and therefore
not cater to the needs of its learner market. All
experts also indicated that the “norms based”
learning perspective is relevant as they
suggested MOOCs in India should be
developed with more than the “privileged
class” or knowledgeable learners in mind.
Expert 3: “India, with this scale, the reality
is there are those unreached people…Initially
MOOCs look a bit farfetched and a bit elitist,
but this in the years to come will change.”
Expert 2: “The lead has to be taken by the
top notch universities to begin with, and they
have to make it much more inclusive rather
than exclusive. If they really want to reach out
on a mass scale, they have to create an
ecosystem which supports it.”
Expert 1: “Here MOOCs are about outreach
for learners to pull themselves up, if we can
impart skills, then we can move beyond the
privileged class.”
VI. DISCUSSION
The conversation with the three experts
validated all the expectations of our model. In
describing the uniqueness of MOOCs in India,
the experts drew attention to and made clear
the contextual differences which exist with
MOOCs in the US and India. Therefore, while
there appears to be a general model of MOOCs
which consists of prominent factors such as
stakeholders, distribution channels, intended
learning outcomes and demand, the contextual
factors impacting these are very strong which
differentiates the model into factors that are
required for sustainability in the US vs the
factors that are required for MOOC
sustainability in developing nations such as
India. Although the requirements and process
for MOOCs appear similar on a global scale,
there is in fact a disconnect, which impacts on
educational needs (Santandreu Calonge, 2015).
A similar view is represented in the literature
by Fasihuddin et al. (2013), who also suggests
the clarity of an existing MOOC model in the
West is shaken when examined in further
detail through the lens of various contextual
environments, such as through the context of
developing nations like India.
In addition to these four factors, the experts
specifically identified language as a key
success factor of MOOCs for developing
countries. India was discussed as being a
country which is composed of several

Mariam Aman Shah, Murat Oztok, and Christian Wagner
The Twelfth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, 11-12 December 2015, Thailand
1.7
languages which vary within each of its
unique regions. This uniqueness and diversity
of languages used in India, was discussed as
being overlook by existing MOOCs and could
hamper the success of this form of online
learning for developing nations.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Examining the research of this study, the
greater perspective on MOOCs illustrates
India is different from the US in its
requirements for MOOC success despite in the
similarity of the underlying success model, as
shown in Fig. 1. Details of the contextual
environment define uniqu e succ ess
characteristics and drive MOOC demand. This
insight clearly needs to become more
widespread, as India’s population of 1.2 billion
will require education at some point in the
future, whereas 250,000 Coursera registered
students from India appear to fall very short of
the need and potential of MOOCs to educate
millions.
VIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The research reported in this article was
supported in part by the Hong Kong SAR
Research Grants Council under Project No.
CityU 194613 awarded to the second author.
REFERENCES
(Arranged in the order of citation in the
same fashion as the case of Footnotes.)
[1] Agarwal, P. (2013). “An Opportunity
for India”. Scientific American, 309 (2),
pp. 58-59.
[2] Charmonman, S., Mongkhonvanit, P.,
and Patthamasoot, K. (2014). “MOOC
and E-Learning 2014”. International
Journal of the Computer, the Internet and
Management, 22(3), pp. 8-17.
[3] Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J.
(2000). “New Product Performance:
What Distinguishes the Star Products”.
Australian Journal of Management,
25(1), pp. 17-46.
[4] Ernst and Young LLP. (2013). “Higher
Education in India: Vision 2030”.
[5] Forker, L.B. and Mendez, D. (2001).
“An Analytical Method for
Benchmarking Best Peer Suppliers”.
International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 21(1/2), pp.
195-209.
[6] Groenewald, T. (2004). “A
Phenomenological Research Design
Illustrated”. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 3(1), pp. 1-26.
[7] Janelle, D.G. and Hodge, D.C. (2000).
“Information, Place and Cyberspace:
Issues in Accessibility, Springer Science
& Business Media”.
[8] Johansson, G. (2002). “Success Factors
for Integration of Ecodesign in Product
Development - A Review of State-of-
the-art”. Environmental Management
and Health, 13(1), pp. 98-107.
[9] Kop, R. (2011). “The Challenges to
Connectivist Learning on Open Online
Networks: Learning Experiences during
a Massive Open Online Course”.
International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning,
12.3(March), pp. 19-38.
[10] Lester, S. (1999). “An Introduction to
Phenomenological Research”. In
Taunton, UK: Stan Lester
Developments, pp. 1-4.
[11] Li, H. and Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001).
“Product Innovation Strategy and the
Performance of New Technology
Ventures in China”. The Academy of
Management Journal, 44(6), pp. 1123-
1134.
[12] Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Adams, A.A.,
and Williams, S.A. (2013). “MOOCs: A
Systematic Study of The Published
Literature 2008-2012”. The International
Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 14(3), pp. 202-227.
[13] Masters, K. (2009). “A Brief Guide To
Understanding MOOCs”. The Internet
Journal of Medical Education, 1(2).
[14] McNally, R.C., Cavusgil, E., and
Calantone, R.J. (2010). “Product
Innovativeness Dimensions and Their
Relationships with Product Advantage,
Product Financial Performance, and
Project Protocol”. Product Development

Drivers of MOOC Sustainability: a Comparison of the US and India
The Twelfth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, 11-12 December 2015, Thailand
1.8
& Management Association, pp. 991-
1006.
[15] Nath, A., Karmakar, A., and Karmakar,
T. (2014). “Moocs Impact in Higher
Education Institution : A Pilot Study In
Indian Context”. Journal of Engineering
Research and Applications, 4(7), pp.
156-163.
[16] Palin, A. (2014). “MOOCs: Young
Students from Developing Countries are
Still in the Minority”. The Financial
Times Limited.
[17] Perris, K. (2014). “MOOC on
MOOCs?”. A Novel Yet Pragmatic
Approach. University World Nerws.
[18] Pushkar, P. (2014). “Why India’s
Universities Can’t Keep Up With The
Masses”. The Conversation.
[19] Ratwatte, C. (2013). “MOOCs And The
Developing World”. Colombo
Telegraph.
[20] Santandreu Calonge, D. (2015). “A New
and More Effective MOOC Model?”
LinkedIn.
[21] Silva, S. and et al. (2007). “Critical
Success Factors on Product
Development Management in Brazilian
Technological Based Companies”. In
Complex systems Concurrrent
Engineering. London: Springer London,
pp. 739-747.
[22] Suri, H. (2011). “Purposeful Sampling in
Qualitative Research Synthesis”.
Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), pp.
63-75.
[23] Winkler, K. (2014). “MOOCs in India =
Indian MOOCs?”. EDUKWEST.
[24] Wintrup, J. and et al. (2015). “Liberating
Learning: Experiences of MOOCs”. The
Higher Education Academy.
[25] Zhan, Z. and et al. (2015).
“Sustainability Education in Massive
Open Online Courses: A Content
Analysis Approach”. Sustainability, 7,
pp. 2274-2300.