Higher education from premier institutions remains a dream for the majority of students across the globe, especially for learners from emerging economies. Millions of students, especially from the developing nations, were denied access to it, but now massive open online courses (MOOCs) are providing cost-effective access for a huge number of students across the world. Therefore, MOOCs have attracted the attention of educational researchers in the last decade. Some MOOC courses are free and are provided by some of the best institutions. Many MOOC courses are also available in languages other than English, like Italian, German, Chinese, French, Portuguese and Spanish. These courses not only inspire the learners but are also widely accepted by educational institutes and employers as a mark of educational excellence.1
MOOCs can serve underprivileged people through affordable education from the likes of Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to make them ready for employment. The MOOC courses are no compromise; instead, research and surveys have found these courses to be more interesting and enriching than a standard course. For example, edX’s first offered course, an MIT introductory course on circuits, had more than 155,000 students, which was greater than the total number of MIT alumni in its entire 150-year history. MOOCs have much more to offer than any traditional classroom-based system. The advantages of anytime learning, peer discussions on online forums, blended learning, instructor feedback, international exposure to a diverse group of learners and inclusivity make them potentially a significant agent for change for higher education and employment.2
The expanding workload and expectations for higher education institutions due to ever-increasing demand and limitation of resources can be addressed through mainstreaming MOOCs. Integration of MOOCs into regular university curricula could increase the enrolment base. It can provide flexible learning schedules and would radically change the learning process by shifting the authority from the instructors to the learners and giving equal opportunities to access resources to all participants through various online means.3
The potential of MOOCs to improve education quality for very high numbers of learners has attracted several higher education institutions and policymakers towards them. Albelbisi4 has shown that the characteristics of such a MOOC-based education system must be developed with a lot of consideration. Service quality is one of the major parameters affecting self-directed learning (SRL) using MOOCs. Along with the service quality, another parameter is the MOOC learning environment provided to the learners. Academic libraries have immense potential to offer both service quality and the learning environment to support a MOOC-based curriculum. The current research explores this connection to draw some meaningful implications for practical use.
In India, even after spending more than three per cent of the country’s GDP on higher education, the per-student spending is still among the lowest, as compared to other countries. This has been caused by the opening of more universities, subsequently producing higher university enrolment. Though the number of enrolments has increased, this has, unfortunately, further reduced the per-student spending, which has consequently led to a scarcity of faculty and deterioration in the quality of education.5
Various government bodies, ministries and other institutes of national importance in India have already started the initiative of using MOOCs via the Study Webs of Active Learning for Young Aspiring Minds (SWAYAM) platform6 to bridge the digital divide for disadvantaged students. To add to it, the University Grants Commission (UGC)7 and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)8 have also issued Regulation 2016 instructing universities to transfer credits for courses studied on SWAYAM, which will ultimately be added to students’ academic records.
The above steps were taken by the Indian Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), now known as the Ministry of Education, and it has been clearly shown that, since their inception, MOOCs have gained significance in the country. On the one hand, the government is making continuous efforts to spread quality education in the remotest parts of the country, and, on the other hand, these aids are still confined to a handful of elite institutes. Private universities are still lagging behind in making the best use of resources available online. Their students are not yet familiar with the MOOC platforms as a result.
To put it in a nutshell, India needs to focus on balancing both quality assurance and cost reduction in its higher education system. The possible solution for this issue could be the efficient utilization of technology, specifically MOOCs could be the key to developing a new educational environment in the country.
Creating MOOCs is an expensive and difficult process. For private sector higher education (HE) institutions in India, financing such an activity is a challenging decision to take due to limited budgets and the rapidly changing educational landscape. The elite institutions in India and across the globe have led the MOOC movement through developing MOOC courses. The other institutions, for whom the budget is a barrier, can still benefit from the MOOC movement by becoming MOOC consumers.9
MOOCs are concentrated mostly within the premier institutions in India. This is contrary to the idea of MOOC, where the focus audience is huge and spread across the world. This unwanted centralization of MOOCs in India is against its basic principle of being distributed and diversified.10
|MOOC as a service model||Students study MOOCs voluntarily, with no similarity of its content to the current curriculum and no support from the institution.|
|MOOC as an added value||Students study MOOCs of their choice, with no similarity to the existing curriculum, but the institution provides support for students to complete their MOOC course.|
|MOOC as replacement||MOOC replaces existing courses due to the high similarity between its content and the existing curriculum.|
|MOOC as driver||Institution course is designed according to the MOOC.|
The framework has assumed that the MOOC course to be used in the integration is readily available to the institution. On closely examining the H-MOOC model, it can be stated that for adopting either ‘MOOC as a replacement’ or ‘MOOC as driver’, which is a desirable condition in our argument, institutional support plays a vital role. The institute needs to first recognize the benefits of adopting a MOOC-based curriculum and then allocate resources accordingly.
The institutional adoption of MOOC-based curricula in the Indian context faces certain challenges due to the lack of available funds within HE institutions. Private sector HE institutions especially will evaluate the decision about MOOC integration in terms of a business proposition. Marrhich et al.12 have identified that the institutions do not adopt a MOOC-based curriculum due to no return on investment on such an initiative. Hence, only a few private sector HE institutions can be expected to take such a course.
Contrarily, if a curriculum based on MOOCs were to be made mandatory for all HE institutions in the country by the policy-making bodies such as the MHRD, the institutions would comply with the policy, whether they belong to the public sector or the private sector. Such a policy would not only provide guidelines for MOOC integration but also provide all-round support to enable such an initiative.
Deng14 suggested that the internet and mobile devices have vastly changed the way we acquire information and knowledge. The adoption of MOOCs in universities in Europe, America and China have led their libraries to provide MOOC information services. The complementarity of MOOCs and the role of academic libraries can be clearly seen, and their inter-relation can be established.
On the face of it, MOOC is an online model of education and academic libraries are considered as a support service for teaching and research. But on detailed comparison and analysis, the role of academic libraries in providing support to the MOOC courses can be established:
Luan15 proposes that the university library is a specialized centre of information, and it must involve itself in the integration and development of MOOCs due to its access to information and its service advantage. Information and communication technology (ICT) is the main driver of MOOCs. It also involves a service paradigm, as MOOCs require resources and support for their successful consumption. When the integration of MOOCs into the academic curriculum is the question, the most suitable university department for the leading role in enabling such integration is the academic library.
Chatterjee and Nath16 have discussed the challenges of implementing MOOCs in India on a large scale. They suggest a need for a governing body at national level for monitoring and facilitating blended learning in formal higher education. MHRD has already taken several steps to promote MOOC-based curricula under the National Mission on Education through Information Communication Technology (NMEICT) Programme. To provide the best quality learning resources for HE institutions across the nation, the SWAYAM project was started. SWAYAM provides national MOOC courses on an online platform using ICT. It encompasses a range of courses from high school level to higher education and includes skills development programmes. SWAYAM, under the auspices of the MOOCs National Committee (MNC), which consists of technical experts, academicians, administrators etc., would establish other supporting environments for a MOOC-based curriculum such as proctored examination centres, credit transfer guidelines and credit mobility across educational institutions.
The UGC has been appointed as national co-ordinator for non-technology postgraduate courses; it has developed 145 MOOCs and has offered 208 courses online on the SWAYAM platform. Since March 2021, according to the latest UGC guidelines on MOOC credit recognition, online courses offered on the SWAYAM platform constitute up to 40 per cent of total credits in each semester.
SWAYAM, under NMEICT, would develop e-content with the National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (NPTEL) with a network of seven Indian institutes of technology (IITs) and Indian institutes of science (IIScs). NPTEL has developed e-content for 933 courses in 23 disciplines. The Consortium for Educational Communication (CEC) has also developed MOOCs for 29 undergraduate subjects and is working on a further 58 subjects in four quadrants. The Four Quadrant Approach is explained in Table 2.
|Quadrant 1||E-tutorial||Video and audio content, simulations, video demonstrations, animation, virtual laboratory, etc.|
|Quadrant 2||E-content||E-books, PDFs, text, illustrations, interactive simulations, practical assignments|
|Quadrant 3||Web resources||Open education resources (OERs), related links, case studies, journals, research papers, anecdotes, historical overview, etc.|
|Quadrant 4||Self-assessment||Problems and solutions, multiple-choice questions (MCQs), quizzes, frequently asked questions (FAQs), doubt clearance, peer assessment|
All content on SWAYAM is hosted on the National Integrated Portal (NIP), known as e-Acharya, at a data centre hosted at the Information and Library Network (INFLIBNET) Centre, Gandhinagar. NIP and NMEICT are linked by a cloud known as Baadal, hosted at the National Informatics Centre (NIC). The system is able to support 30 million users, with one million concurrent users. This network makes use of content delivery network (CDN) systems for faster delivery of video content to meet the ever-increasing demand for MOOCs.
Skimming the literature on the issues with MOOC integration into higher education curriculum provides valuable insights on the role of institutions and the role of the central policy-making authority, MHRD, in a developing country like India, as well as the role of the academic library. The issues identified from the review of literature are summarized in Table 1. Taking MOOC penetration as the driver for higher education quality, the following gaps have been exposed by the literature review:
Gap 1: Integration of MOOCs into the higher education curriculum has several challenges. Many such challenges can be addressed with the involvement of a centralized institution with a professional approach towards information management and dissemination. Academic libraries have many functions and attributes which make them suitable for providing MOOC services at university level. The role of the academic library in a MOOC-based curriculum has not been discussed properly in the available literature.
Gap 2: The literature fails to identify the role of the policy-making body, like the MHRD in the case of India, in driving the MOOC integration programme. Although a few authors have discussed what the governments or policymakers are doing to support MOOCs, the literature shows no evidence of any correlation being established between these two.
The current research aims to integrate the theoretical framework of MOOC penetration in a developing country like India through defining the role of the academic library and the MHRD for enhancing the quality of higher education and to test the model empirically, to understand their relationship and to derive inferences for decision-making and practice.
In the literature, the research gaps identified for influencing the quality of higher education include the integration of MOOCs into the curriculum, the role of academic libraries and the policy and support of MHRD. These antecedents form the basis of this article’s research model, which has five latent variables: integration into the curriculum, the MOOC services of the academic library, MHRD policy and support, MOOC penetration and improved quality of higher education (HE). Their interrelations can be understood clearly from Figure 2.
Rambe and Moeti17 have provided a model for understanding the inclusion of MOOCs in African higher education through three models: micro level, meso level and macro level. They have discussed the provision of MOOC open source content and integrating them into the curriculum. Such initiatives are being followed at Tanzania’s Kinu, Kenya’s iHub, South Africa’s Jozi Hub and Nigeria’s CcHub.18 Democratizing MOOCs would require both breadth and depth of participation. The institutional involvement in the MOOC movement would address both physical and psychological barriers, such as access barriers due to the availability of broadband and computers, promote the quality of participation of students and provide a meaningful learning experience due to the involvement of the educators.19 The derived hypothesis can therefore be stated as:
H1: The extent of the MOOC’s integration into the academic curriculum determines the level of MOOC penetration.
MOOCs are a form of disruptive technology which challenges the traditional forms of learning and instruction. The challenges posed by MOOCs have presented great opportunities to academic libraries. These opportunities also pose subsequent challenges to be addressed by the libraries and information professionals.20 Libraries have always played the role of knowledge disseminator, and they have a key role in enabling MOOC penetration and adoption in curricula by supporting the instructors, students and the institutions.21 Hence, the derived hypothesis can be stated as:
H2: The academic library services available for MOOCs influence the level of MOOC penetration.
Government policy and support are required in many areas for MOOC adoption, such as trained instructors for MOOC-based pedagogy, online and offline access to MOOC digital platforms, development of MOOCs in regional languages, credit recognition and credit transfer policies, as well as the implementation of MOOCs in a blended format of instructor-facilitated flipped classrooms. Such initiatives would also assist economically and provide official status for MOOC-based education.22 The MHRD is responsible for the implementation of national policy on education. Therefore, the next hypothesis can be framed as:
H3: MHRD policy and support for MOOC integration determine the level of MOOC penetration.
Zhang23 has related the integration of MOOCs into the curricula to a low-cost and high-quality education model. Albelbisi and Yusop24 have listed several empirical pieces of evidence for the proposition of MOOCs leading to improvement in the quality of higher education. The Malaysian Ministry of Education, in its 2015 report, expressed its plan to leverage the benefits of MOOC to improve the quality of learning and to extend access to education in Malaysia.25 So, the relationship between MOOC penetration and the quality of higher education may be formed into a hypothesis as:
In this empirical research, a questionnaire-based study was used to find the extent of the relationship between the proposed attributes of the research model. A printed survey schedule was prepared with a five-point Likert scale for measuring the respondent’s attitude, with a range of 1 to 5, representing ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Similar scales have been used in other research articles on attitude measurement. The questionnaire language was English, as it is the medium of instruction and evaluation in the higher education system in Jaipur. The following scales were used in the questionnaire, which have been derived from the extant literature: integration in the curriculum (five items), the MOOC services of the academic library (eight items), MHRD policy and support (five items) and improved quality of higher education (five items). Demographic data on age, gender and education was also collected. The full scales are available in Appendix 1.
The content validity of the scale was determined with the help of three subject area experts. The experts’ personal experience and knowledge played a crucial role in establishing the content validity. There are no specific rules for deciding upon the number of experts to use, although validation from many experts might reduce the probability of reaching a decision. Hence, the number of three to five experts is suggested to increase the chance of agreement.28 This step helps in refining the language of the instrument and also in understanding whether the instrument is able to achieve the desired research objectives.
The survey engaged faculty and library professionals who have had prior experience with at least one MOOC course. Data was collected from a sample of ten private universities from the capital territory of Rajasthan state in India. A survey method was used for this research because of its potential for generalizing the findings for a larger population with similar characteristics. The survey used a printed form and a tailored design method as proposed by Dillman.29 The purpose and usefulness of the study were explained to the respondents before they took part, and they were reassured that their responses would be kept confidential. The respondents were guided through the questionnaire followed by a short thank you message. Data has been collected from 300 participants; 236 complete responses were received, which were then considered for inclusion in the final analysis, meaning that the survey had a 78.67 per cent response rate. The average age of participants in this survey was 34.4 years. There were more female (154) than male (82) participants in the survey out of the 236 selected responses.
Confirmatory factor analysis has been used to determine the psychometric properties of the measured attributes. As previously stated, all items have been measured using a five-point Likert scale. The instrument’s reliability and discriminant validity were determined using the Fornell-Larcker ratio (FLR), average variance extracted and the composite reliability. The observed values for these measures are recorded in Table 3.
|Integration in Curriculum||0.93||0.69||0.83|
|Academic Library Services for MOOCs||1.17||0.66||0.74|
|MHRD Policy and Support||0.95||0.64||0.71|
|Improved Quality of HE||0.91||0.63||0.81|
According to Bagozzi and Yi,30 the construct’s ability to measure the desired characteristics is called the construct validity. Construct validity is determined using convergent and discriminant validity. The FLR is used to estimate the convergent validity of the measure.31 The discriminant validity is determined by plotting the square root of average variance extracted (AVE) values along with their correlation with other items in the construct, according to Fornell and Larcker.32 On doing the plotting for this construct, the values of the square root of AVEs were higher than their correlation values when all other items in the construct were included. As a result, it was concluded that the research model achieved satisfactory values for discriminant validity. Chin33 suggested an AVE greater than 0.50 as the indicator of acceptable measurement error. The observed values of AVEs for this research have passed the recommendation. The convergent validity is determined using the composite reliability (CR) values. Chin34 suggested a CR greater than 0.60 as the indicator of achieving convergent validity. All observed values had CR values more than 0.60, meaning that the construct achieved convergent validity also.
Exploratory factor analysis using principal component analysis and varimax rotation was carried out to understand the factor structure of the research instrument. All factors with a loading of more than 0.60 were selected for the study. This step is important as it helps us to remove the items with non-significant effects. All items falling below 0.60 factor loading had to be removed from the instrument.
The confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine the fit indices of the research model. Chi-square values were non-significant for this construct. The fit indices included in this study are goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), Tucker Lewis index (TLI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). All fit indices produced satisfactory values. The usually acceptable value for all these indices is more than or equal to 0.90, and the RMSEA values are acceptable under 0.08. All the tested values are shown in Table 4 below.
|goodness of fit index||0.953||comparative fit index||0.948|
|adjusted goodness of fit index||0.896||incremental fit index||0.955|
|Tucker Lewis index||0.925||root mean square error of approximation||0.073|
|normed fit index||0.908||chi-square value||171.546|
|degrees of freedom||152||significance value||0.110|
|chi-square/degrees of freedom||1.128|
The gamma values (γ) represent the regression coefficients of the endogenous variables (dependent variable) on the exogenous variables (independent variables). The results of the confirmatory factor analysis are shown in Figure 3 below with the symbol ***.
The research model tested for this study shows a positive relationship between the academic library services provided for MOOCs and MOOC penetration. The literature review of this current research showed that the academic library’s roles in facilitating integration and management of a MOOC-based curriculum can be classified into two broad categories:
Table 5 contains the classification of the academic library services for MOOCs based on (i) extension of existing library services and (ii) new library services.
|MOOCs as an extension of Existing Library Services||Citations||Scope of New Library MOOC Services||Citations|
|Teaching reference services for MOOCs||35||Support services for development of new MOOCs||36|
|Copyright services for MOOC resources||37||Digital platform for peer discussion on MOOCs||38|
|Provide physical space for MOOC learning||39||Development and management of a university-wide digital MOOC platform for access, instruction, evaluation, feedback and support, based on artificial intelligence||40|
|Reliable broadband access||41||MOOC technical support||42|
|Library network for sharing of digital resources||43||Centralized MOOC administration||44|
|Training students and instructors on latest technology to use MOOCs||45||MOOC pedagogy training for instructors||46|
|Index, ranking, organizing and cataloguing MOOCs||47||Student counselling for MOOCs||48|
|Technical infrastructure for MOOCs||49||MOOCs with embedded links for resources||50|
|Promoting MOOCs||51||MOOC knowledge services for students||52|
|Training students in English language to understand MOOCs||53||Development of FAQs for student self-service||54|
|Preserving and archiving MOOCs||55||Mobile access of MOOCs, resources and services||56|
|Learning resources for MOOCs||57||Information retrieval training for MOOCs||58|
|Continual improvement of digital learning resources for MOOCs||59||Technical team for MOOC support||60|
|Digitization of traditional resources||61||Co-ordinate in MOOC instruction, design, development and management||62|
|Developing open educational resources for MOOCs||63||Evaluation of prospective MOOCs for inclusion||64|
|Programmes for information literacy of MOOC students||66|
|Inter-departmental co-ordination for MOOC-based education||67|
The quality of higher education has a direct relationship with the degree of MOOC penetration, according to this study. Figure 4 illustrates the relationship between the level of MOOC penetration in higher education institutions in India and its relationship with the educational quality parameters of these institutions. Based on this figure, three cases can arise, which are discussed in Table 6.
|Case 1||MOOC adoption by individual users||Low MOOC penetration||High dropout rate. Not affordable for everybody. Language constraints, lack of resource availability, guidance and motivation|
|Case 2||Institutional adoption (voluntary)||Medium MOOC penetration||Based on sparingly dispersed cases. The adoption rate and effect if localized and not translated to the masses|
|Case 3||Institutional adoption (policy based)||High MOOC penetration||Pan India institutional adoption under central policy. MHRD will provide guidelines, policy framework, resources and training under NME-ICT programme|
MOOCs are playing an important role for students and young professionals for skill and career development.68 The recent advancement in technology, mobile device adoption and internet penetration in India has supported the growth of the MOOC movement. According to the Coursera impact report of 2020, there were around ten million registered MOOC users in India for Coursera. As per the statistics, India has the second highest number of registered MOOC users, after the United States. Although the statistics look very attractive, the reality is that there is a high dropout rate, with only five to ten per cent of people completing an entire course.69 The major challenges for MOOCs in India are the digital divide, language barrier, lack of proctored evaluation, low motivation, lack of support and guidance and the high dropout rate. These issues make this case the least desirable to increase MOOC penetration and adoption in a developing nation like India.
The institutional adoption of a MOOC-based curriculum is ideal, but very few institutions in India are known to have adopted MOOCs. The proportion of private institutions is even lower. The reason for this is the high cost of infrastructure and human resources required to manage and maintain a MOOC-based curriculum and lack of senior management control in administering MOOC-based courses. Another reason is that there is no return on investment for the institution on adopting a MOOC-based curriculum.70 For this scenario, the higher education institution would need to decide upon the right strategy for adopting a MOOC-based curriculum. The decision would depend upon several parameters, such as the level of resources available within the institution, the quality of the teaching staff, the type of courses they offer and the level of student performance.
The policy-based integration of MOOC courses in the traditional higher education framework would lead to the highest level of MOOC penetration in the Indian higher education system. This would also streamline the usual institutional challenges faced in adopting H-MOOCs. From the student perspective, the completion rates of MOOCs would increase71 due to the availability of facilitator instruction for students for the MOOC-based curriculum72 and the availability of guidance to the students, which plays a crucial role in the timely completion of MOOCs.73 The students would also benefit from academic library services for MOOCs such as information retrieval, technology training, reading, writing and language skills before undertaking MOOC courses.74
The legitimacy and acceptance of the MOOCs would enhance due to credit transfer and credit recognition of MOOCs.75 The confidence of employers and institutions in MOOCs can be addressed by arranging proctored assessment of MOOC coursework.76 Due to centralized administration of a MOOC-based curriculum, there would be efforts to include every department77 and the workload on faculty and staff would be distributed and managed accordingly.78
This would be instrumental in overcoming the obstacle of the tradition barrier for MOOCs by providing instruction, discussion, support and resources for students and instructors.79
Based on the levels of instructor autonomy on the course and the corresponding levels of student autonomy, there could be four types of MOOC integration model. This can be illustrated using a quadrant model based on a continuum of two factors:
Instructor autonomy can be defined as the level of control available to the course instructor to manage the content and the pedagogy. In other words, the instructor is in a position of authority.80 A low instructor autonomy means that the instructor has less control to manage the course. A high instructor autonomy means that the instructor can control the pedagogy, content and delivery of the course, as is the case with traditional classroom-based teaching.
Student autonomy can be defined as a high level of self-directed and personalized learning.81 Student autonomy refers to the flexibility of the learners to self-regulate their learning. A low level of student autonomy means that the student is under the control of the instructor or the institutional policies to gain course credits. However, a high level of student autonomy means that the students have the flexibility to choose their course, the course platform and the learning process.
This model provides four strategies of MOOC integration based on the combination of the level of autonomy the institution’s policymakers need to provide the instructors and the students. The choice of the MOOC integration model depends on the design and development of the course. The course design has three important curriculum components: (1) learning outcomes, (2) learning activities, and (3) learning assessments. The right choice is the one where these three curriculum components align and reinforce one another.82
Zhang83 has discussed the integration of MOOCs into curricula based on the principle of alignment. The four models proposed were:
These four MOOC integration models can be categorized in the proposed MOOC integration model based on the continuum of autonomy for instructors and students, as shown in Table 7.
|Quadrant 1||Flipped classroom||This model uses the best of both worlds. The traditional lecture and homework are reversed. The students learn from MOOCs as homework and then discuss the learning with their peers and the instructor in the classroom for problem solving and activities. The instructor may offer only relevant sections of MOOCs as homework, as per their curriculum design. This model engages students in higher-order learning through proper discussions and active engagement. In this case, the content from more than one MOOC can be used.|
|Quadrant 2||MOOC credit transfer||According to the latest UGC guidelines on MOOC credit recognition, online courses offered on SWAYAM platform can constitute up to 40 per cent of the total credits in each semester. Major MOOC providers like Coursera and EdX have started to associate credits based on online proctored exams with their monetized MOOCs. If the MOOCs are approved by an institution due to their fit to the curriculum, credit transfer becomes possible. This model provides maximum autonomy to the students, as they are free to choose their course and can self-regulate their learning process. Instructor autonomy is the least in this case, as there is no role for the instructor in such a MOOC integration model.|
|Quadrant 3||Bridge course/exam||When the learning outcomes of the traditional course and the MOOC are similar, the courses are considered equivalent. The institute can save on the delivery cost of the course by adopting MOOCs in such a case. But the credit transfer cannot be done due to problems of potential plagiarism and cheating in the online assessment. In such a case, the institute may add a few tutorials, laboratory sessions and assessments to compensate for the quality issues with the MOOCs. In this model, the level of autonomy is low for both the students and the instructor. The students need to adhere to the institutional requirements to get the course credits, and the instructor will not get to design and manage the curriculum as the majority of learning takes place on the MOOCs.|
|Quadrant 4||MOOC as content||MOOC components are used in regular teaching as learning objects, e.g. videos, reading resources, quizzes, activities, etc. Content from more than one MOOC can be used. In this case, the instructor has maximum autonomy on the curriculum.|
This decision model for MOOC integration into the academic curriculum can be understood in the form of a quadrant diagram (Figure 5).
The idea of MOOCs has been at the centre stage of academia and learners since 2012, when the pioneers of educational excellence, like Harvard and MIT, started developing and delivering the first courses. This disruptive innovation has opened tremendous opportunities for learners across the globe to get access to high-quality education and peer learning affordably or for free. The elite institutions get involved in developing new MOOCs because of the availability of resources and prowess to gain revenue and reputation; at the same time, the other higher education institutions from emerging economies may benefit from the MOOCs by integrating them into their curricula through hybrid courses. This not only increases their educational quality but also reduces their delivery costs.84
Higher education in India, especially in private institutions, suffers from poor and declining quality of education due to lack of funds and high enrolments. This has affected the student’s employability.
There are several issues about the inclusion of MOOCs in the regular university curricula. This article has evaluated the available research literature to explore these issues. Based on these findings, the research model for improving the quality of higher education through the integration of MOOCs into the curriculum with the help of academic libraries and a central policy-making authority, like the MHRD (Ministry of Education) in the case of India, was developed. The research model has been tested empirically to understand the relationships between the proposed variables.
Integration of MOOCs into the university curricula, the MOOC services of the academic library and MHRD policy and support together lead to MOOC penetration into the higher education system. The higher the MOOC penetration, the greater would be the improvement in the quality of higher education. This assertion has its merit, particularly in the case of developing economies like Malaysia85 and Africa.86
Although the governments of several nations have started initiatives for facilitating MOOC-based learning, these efforts would require synchronized contributions from all the major stakeholders, as discussed in this research, to increase the MOOC penetration, quality and reach of higher education.
The supplemental file for this article can be found as follows:Appendix 1
Survey items. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.577.s1
The data collected in the current study are not publicly available since this study is part of ongoing research.
A list of the abbreviations and acronyms used in this and other Insights articles can be accessed here – click on the URL below and then select the ‘full list of industry A&As’ link: http://www.uksg.org/publications#aa.
The authors have declared no competing interests.
Devon Haynie, “5 reasons international students should consider MOOCs,” US News & World Report, 2013, https://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/articles/2013/06/25/5-reasons-international-students-should-consider-moocs (accessed 29 April 2022).
Thomas Friedman, “Revolution hits the universities,” New York Times, January 26, 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/friedman-revolution-hits-the-universities.html (accessed 29 April 2022).
Souhem Badi and Manal Elsayed Ahmed Ali, “Massive open online courses (MOOC) Their Impact on the full quality in higher education institutions ‘Rwaq: Saudi educational platform for MOOC’,” Journal of Library and Information Sciences 4, no. 1 (2016): 73–101, DOI: https://doi.org/10.15640/jlis.v4n1a6 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Nour Awni Albelbisi, “The role of quality factors in supporting self-regulated learning (SRL) skills in MOOC environment,” Education and Information Technologies 24, no. 2 (2019): 1681–1698, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-09855-2 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Asoke Nath, Karmakar Abhijit, and Totan Karmakar. “MOOCs Impact in higher education institution: A pilot study In Indian context,” International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications 4, no. 7 (2014): 156–163, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276176439_Moocs_Impact_in_Higher_Education_Institution_A_Pilot_Study_In_Indian_Context (accessed 29 April 2022).
Jyoti Chauhan and Anita Goel, “An overview of MOOC in India,” International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology 49, no. 2 (2017): 111–120, DOI: https://doi.org/10.14445/22312803/IJCTT-V49P117 (accessed 29 April 2022).
SWAYAM, (2016 a, July 19). https://storage.googleapis.com/swayam1-pub-data/wqimgtest_4b7e7943-c324-486b-b1fb-ddd036afc64e.pdf (accessed 29 April 2022).
SWAYAM. (2016 b, August 17). https://storage.googleapis.com/swayam1-pub-data/wqimgtest_9da02ba8-bdd8-409c-afdb-645e6dbc544f.pdf (accessed 29 April 2022).
Paul Morrow Nissenson and Angela C. Shih, “MOOC on a budget: Development and implementation of a low-cost MOOC at a state university,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (2015): 26–1168, https://peer.asee.org/mooc-on-a-budget-development-and-implementation-of-a-low-cost-mooc-at-a-state-university (accessed 4 May 2022).
Parag Chatterjee and Asoke Nath, “Massive open online courses (MOOCs) in education – A case study in Indian context and vision to ubiquitous learning,” 2014 IEEE International Conference on MOOC, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE) (2014): pp. 36–41, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MITE.2014.7020237 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Mar Pérez-Sanagustín et al., “H-MOOC framework: reusing MOOCs for hybrid education,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education 29, no. 1 (2017): 47–64, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9133-5 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Aicha Marrhich et al., “A Khan Framework-Based Approach to Successful MOOCs Integration in the Academic Context,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) 15, no. 12 (2020): 4–19, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i12.12929 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Yazhong Deng, “Construction of higher education knowledge map in university libraries based on MOOC,” The Electronic Library (2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2019-0003 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Xiumei Luan, “Research on service innovation of university library under MOOCs,” International Conference on Education, Management and Computing Technology (ICEMCT) (2015): 1496–1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/icemct-15.2015.315 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Patient Rambe and Mamello Moeti, “Disrupting and democratising higher education provision or entrenching academic elitism: towards a model of MOOCs adoption at African universities,” Educational Technology Research and Development 65, no. 3 (2017): 631–651, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9500-3 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Joel Macharia, “Internet access is no longer a luxury: Fibre-optics could leap-frog Africa into the future,” Africa Renewal 28, no. 1 (2014), DOI: https://doi.org/10.18356/34eaf284-en (accessed 29 April 2022).
Anna Kaushik and Ashok Kumar, “MOOC-ing through the libraries: Some opportunities and challenges,” International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology 6, no. 1 (2016): 21–26, https://ijidt.com/index.php/ijidt/article/view/6.1.5/268 (accessed 4 May 2022).
S. M. Pujar, R. K. Kamat, and M. N. Savadatti, “Library as a change agent in liberation and deliberation of higher education through MOOCs,” in Recent trends in Library and Information Science: A Way Forward for the Future (Naples: LIS Academy International, 2014), 251–261.
Sangeeta Trehan et al., “Critical discussions on the massive open online course (MOOC) in India and China,” International Journal of Education and Development using ICT 13, no. 2 (2017): 141–165, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1153318.pdf (accessed 4 May 2022).
Youdan Zhang, “Benefiting from MOOC,” in EdMedia+ Innovate Learning, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2013: 1372–1377 https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/112136/ (accessed 4 May 2022).
Nour Awni Albelbisi and Farrah Dina Yusop, “Systematic review of a Nationwide MOOC initiative in Malaysian higher education system,” Electronic Journal of e-Learning 18, no. 4 (2020): 287–298, DOI: https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.4.002 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Mansor Fadzil, Latifah Abdol Latif, and Tengku Amina Munira Tengku Mohd Azzman Shariffadeen, “MOOCs in Malaysia: A preliminary case study,” in E-ASEM forum: Renewing the lifelong learning agenda for the future (2015), http://library.oum.edu.my/repository/1022/ (accessed 4 May 2022).
Gérard Escher, Dimitrios Noukakis, and Patrick Aebischer, “Boosting higher education in Africa through shared massive open online courses (MOOCs),” Education, learning, training: Critical issues for development (2014): 195, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004281158_011 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Vahid Zamanzadeh et al., “Design and implementation content validity study: development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication,” Journal of caring sciences 4, no. 2 (2015): 165, DOI: https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2015.017 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Richard P. Bagozzi and Youjae Yi, “Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models,” Journal of the academy of marketing science 40, no. 1 (2012): 8–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x (accessed 29 April 2022).
Claes Fornell and David F. Larcker. “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error,” Journal of marketing research 18, no. 1 (1981): 39–50, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Wynne W. Chin, “Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling,” MIS quarterly (1998): vii–xvi, https://www.jstor.org/stable/249674 (accessed 4 May 2022).
Vincenzo Lombardo, Fabrizio Piana, and Dario Mimmo, “Semantics–informed geological maps: Conceptual modeling and knowledge encoding,” Computers & Geosciences 116 (2018): 12–22, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2018.04.001 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Luan, “Research on service,” 1496; Yong Chen, “Investigating MOOCs through blog mining,” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15, no. 2 (2014), DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1695 (accessed 29 April 2022); Khe Foon Hew and Wing Sum Cheung, “Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges,” Educational research review 12 (2014): 45–58, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Steven Ackerman et al., “Libraries, massive open online courses and the importance of place: Partnering with libraries to explore change in the Great Lakes,” New Library World (2016), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-08-2016-0054 (accessed 29 April 2022); Rita Kop, Hélène Fournier, and John Sui Fai Mak, “A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses,” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 12, no. 7 (2011): 74–93, DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i7.1041 (accessed 29 April 2022); Janet Sit et al., “Experiences of online learning: students’ perspective,” Nurse Education Today 25, no. 2 (2005): 140–147, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2004.11.004 (accessed 29 April 2022).
A. Yu. Mazurov, “Massive open online courses in the context of modern educational processes within universities,” Open Distance Educ 1, no. 57 (2015): 20–26, http://journals.tsu.ru/uploads/import/1169/files/57_020.pdf (accessed 4 May 2022); Luan, “Research on service,” 1496; Qi Ning et al., “Research on the College Library Information Literacy Education in MOOC Environment” Advances in Computer Science Research 37 (2016): 782–784, https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/emcs-16/25848727 (accessed 4 May 2022).
Chatterjee and Nath, “Massive Open,” 36–41; Christina Mune, “Massive open online librarianship: Emerging practices in response to MOOCs,” Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning 9, no. 1–2 (2015): 89–100, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2014.946350 (accessed 29 April 2022); Ning et al., “Research on the,” 784; Yingpei Wang, “Current Situation, Problems and Countermeasures of MOOC Service in University Library,” in 2017 International Conference on Humanities Science, Management and Education Technology (HSMET 2017): 602–606, (Atlantis Press, 2017) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/hsmet-17.2017.118 (accessed 29 April 2022); Jie Sun, “Innovative Work of University Libraries for Assisting MOOC Instruction,” Cross-Cultural Communication 15, no. 1 (2019): 7–12, http://flr-journal.org/index.php/ccc/article/view/10879/0 (accessed 4 May 2022).
Yong Chen, “Investigating MOOCs through blog mining,” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15, no. 2 (2014), DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1695 (accessed 29 April 2021).
Sarah M North, Ronny Richardson, and Max M. North, “To Adapt MOOCs, or Not? That Is No Longer the Question,” Universal Journal of Educational Research 2, no. 1 (2014): 69–72, DOI: https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2014.020108 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Saijing Zheng et al., “Understanding student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs,” in Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (2015): 1882–1895, https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675217 (accessed 29 April 2022); Jie, “Innovative work,” 12.
Anna Kaushik, “Five laws of library science in MOOCs environment,” Library Hi Tech News 38, no. 1 (2021): 6–8, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-12-2019-0094 (accessed 29 April 2022); Khaled M. Alraimi, Hangjung Zo, and Andrew P. Ciganek, “Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation,” Computers & Education 80 (2015): 28–38, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.006 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Amy C. York and Jason M. Vance, “Taking library instruction into the online classroom: Best practices for embedded librarians,” Journal of library administration 49, no. 1–2 (2009): 197–209, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01930820802312995 (accessed 29 April 2022); Starr Hoffman and Lilly Ramin, “Best practices for librarians embedded in online courses,” Public services quarterly 6, no. 2–3 (2010): 292–305, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2010.497743 (accessed 29 April 2022); Luan, “Research on service,” 1496.
Luan, “Research on service,” 1496; Li Yuan and S. J. Powell, “Partnership model for entrepreneurial innovation in open online learning,” E-learning Papers 41 (2015), https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/619528/ (accessed 4 May 2022).
Chatterjee and Nath, “Massive Open,” 36–41; Antonio Fini, “The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08 course tools,” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 10, no. 5 (2009), DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i5.643 (accessed 29 April 2022); Yuwanuch Gulatee and Prachyanun Nilsook, “MOOC’s barriers and enables,” International Journal of Information and Education Technology 6, no. 10 (2016): 826–830, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.800 (accessed 29 April 2022).
York and Vance, “Taking library,” 209; Hoffman and Ramin, “Best practices,” 305; Junying Yang, “Study on the Development Strategy of the Future Library under Information Environment,” in 2015 International Conference on Industrial Technology and Management Science, pp. 964–966, (Atlantis Press, 2015), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/itms-15.2015.232 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Ackerman et al., “Libraries massive,”; Heather B Shapiro et al., “Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers,” Computers & Education 110 (2017): 35–50, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003 (accessed 29 April 2022); Carolyn Hart, “Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature,” Journal of interactive online learning 11, no. 1 (2012), http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/11.1.2.pdf (accessed 4 May 2022).
York and Vance, “Taking library,” 209; Lu Yanxiang, “Service innovations of university libraries in the MOOC Era,” in 2016 8th International Conference on Information Technology in Medicine and Education (ITME), (IEEE, 2016): 744–747, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ITME.2016.0173 (accessed 29 April 2022); Hoffman and Ramin, “Best practices,” 305.
Curtis L. Kendrick and Irene Gashurov, “Libraries in the Time of MOOCs,” Educause Review Online 48, no. 6 (2013), https://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/11/libraries-in-the-time-of-moocs (accessed 4 May 2022); Mune, “Massive open,” 100; Yanxiang, “Service innovations,” 744–47.
Laura Pappano, “The Year of the MOOC,” The New York Times 2, no. 12 (2012), https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html (accessed 4 May 2022).
Bert De Coutere, “To MOOC, or not to MOOC,” Training Journal 1, no. 4 (2014):18–22, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html (accessed 4 May 2022).
Jane Sinclair et al., “Massive open online courses: a review of usage and evaluation,” International Journal of Learning Technology 10, no. 1 (2015): 71–93, https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1504/IJLT.2015.069450 (accessed 4 May 2022); Kop, Fournier, and Mak., “A pedagogy,” 74–93; Gulatee and Nilsook, “MOOCs barriers,”826–30.
Lucy Barnard et al., “Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments,” The internet and higher education 12, no. 1 (2009): 1–6, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.005 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Marcel S. Kerr, Kimberly Rynearson, and Marcus C. Kerr, “Student characteristics for online learning success,” The Internet and Higher Education 9, no. 2 (2006): 91–105, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.03.002 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Pérez-Sanagustín et al., “H-MOOC framework,” 47–64; Arnab Kundu and Tripti Bej, “Perceptions of MOOCs among Indian State University students and teachers,” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education (2020), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-08-2019-0224 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Long Ma and Chei Sian Lee, “Understanding the barriers to the use of MOOCs in a developing country: An innovation resistance perspective,” Journal of Educational Computing Research 57, no. 3 (2019): 571–590, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118757732 (accessed 29 April 2022); Chatterjee and Nath, “Massive Open,” 36–41.
Michael Beaudoin, “The instructor’s changing role in distance education,” American Journal of Distance Education 4, no. 2 (1990): 21–29, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649009526701 (accessed 29 April 2022); Catherine McLoughlin and Mark J.W. Lee, “Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software,” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26, no. 1 (2010), DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1100 (accessed 29 April 2022).
Gary W. Matkin, “National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE),” 2012 https://www.slideshare.net/garymatkin/ncseonline (accessed 29 April 2022).
Escher, Dimitrios and Patrick, “Boosting higher,” 195; Bernard Nkuyubwatsi, “Evaluation of massive open online courses (MOOCs) from the learner’s perspective,” (2013), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290075408_Evaluation_of_massive_open_online_courses_MOOCs_from_the_learner’s_perspective (accessed 4 May 2022).