A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015
A deluge of empirical research became available on MOOCs in 2013–2015 and this research is available in disparate sources. This paper addresses a number of gaps in the scholarly understanding of MOOCs and presents a comprehensive picture of the literature by examining the geographic distribution, pu...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Athabasca University Press
2016-03-01
|
| Series: | International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2448 |
| _version_ | 1818407372190646272 |
|---|---|
| author | George Veletsianos Peter Shepherdson |
| author_facet | George Veletsianos Peter Shepherdson |
| author_sort | George Veletsianos |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | A deluge of empirical research became available on MOOCs in 2013–2015 and this research is available in disparate sources. This paper addresses a number of gaps in the scholarly understanding of MOOCs and presents a comprehensive picture of the literature by examining the geographic distribution, publication outlets, citations, data collection and analysis methods, and research strands of empirical research focusing on MOOCs during this time period. Results demonstrate that (a) more than 80% of this literature is published by individuals whose home institutions are in North America and Europe, (b) a select few papers are widely cited while nearly half of the papers are cited zero times, and (c) researchers have favored a quantitative if not positivist approach to the conduct of MOOC research, preferring the collection of data via surveys and automated methods. While some interpretive research was conducted on MOOCs in this time period, it was often basic and it was the minority of studies that were informed by methods traditionally associated with qualitative research (e.g., interviews, observations, and focus groups). Analysis shows that there is limited research reported on instructor-related topics, and that even though researchers have attempted to identify and classify learners into various groupings, very little research examines the experiences of learner subpopulations. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-14T09:26:47Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-af222062174842ae8a877d2fe42f23a4 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1492-3831 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-14T09:26:47Z |
| publishDate | 2016-03-01 |
| publisher | Athabasca University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning |
| spelling | doaj.art-af222062174842ae8a877d2fe42f23a42022-12-21T23:08:11ZengAthabasca University PressInternational Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning1492-38312016-03-0117210.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015George Veletsianos0Peter ShepherdsonRoyal Roads UniversityA deluge of empirical research became available on MOOCs in 2013–2015 and this research is available in disparate sources. This paper addresses a number of gaps in the scholarly understanding of MOOCs and presents a comprehensive picture of the literature by examining the geographic distribution, publication outlets, citations, data collection and analysis methods, and research strands of empirical research focusing on MOOCs during this time period. Results demonstrate that (a) more than 80% of this literature is published by individuals whose home institutions are in North America and Europe, (b) a select few papers are widely cited while nearly half of the papers are cited zero times, and (c) researchers have favored a quantitative if not positivist approach to the conduct of MOOC research, preferring the collection of data via surveys and automated methods. While some interpretive research was conducted on MOOCs in this time period, it was often basic and it was the minority of studies that were informed by methods traditionally associated with qualitative research (e.g., interviews, observations, and focus groups). Analysis shows that there is limited research reported on instructor-related topics, and that even though researchers have attempted to identify and classify learners into various groupings, very little research examines the experiences of learner subpopulations.http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2448MOOConline educationresearchliterature analysis and synthesis |
| spellingShingle | George Veletsianos Peter Shepherdson A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015 International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning MOOC online education research literature analysis and synthesis |
| title | A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015 |
| title_full | A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015 |
| title_fullStr | A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015 |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015 |
| title_short | A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015 |
| title_sort | systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical mooc literature published in 2013 2015 |
| topic | MOOC online education research literature analysis and synthesis |
| url | http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2448 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT georgeveletsianos asystematicanalysisandsynthesisoftheempiricalmoocliteraturepublishedin20132015 AT petershepherdson asystematicanalysisandsynthesisoftheempiricalmoocliteraturepublishedin20132015 AT georgeveletsianos systematicanalysisandsynthesisoftheempiricalmoocliteraturepublishedin20132015 AT petershepherdson systematicanalysisandsynthesisoftheempiricalmoocliteraturepublishedin20132015 |