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...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	George Veletsianos, Peter Shepherdson
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Athabasca University Press 2016
Materias:	MOOC online education research literature analysis and synthesis Special aspects of education LC8-6691
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/af222062174842ae8a877d2fe42f23a4
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:af222062174842ae8a877d2fe42f23a4
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:af222062174842ae8a877d2fe42f23a42021-12-02T19:20:43ZA Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–201510.19173/irrodl.v17i2.24481492-3831https://doaj.org/article/af222062174842ae8a877d2fe42f23a42016-03-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2448https://doaj.org/toc/1492-3831A 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. George VeletsianosPeter ShepherdsonAthabasca University PressarticleMOOConline educationresearchliterature analysis and synthesisSpecial aspects of educationLC8-6691ENInternational Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Vol 17, Iss 2 (2016)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	MOOC online education research literature analysis and synthesis Special aspects of education LC8-6691
spellingShingle	MOOC online education research literature analysis and synthesis Special aspects of education LC8-6691 George Veletsianos Peter Shepherdson A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015
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.
format	article
author	George Veletsianos Peter Shepherdson
author_facet	George Veletsianos Peter Shepherdson
author_sort	George Veletsianos
title	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_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_sort	systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical mooc literature published in 2013–2015
publisher	Athabasca University Press
publishDate	2016
url	https://doaj.org/article/af222062174842ae8a877d2fe42f23a4
work_keys_str_mv	AT georgeveletsianos asystematicanalysisandsynthesisoftheempiricalmoocliteraturepublishedin20132015 AT petershepherdson asystematicanalysisandsynthesisoftheempiricalmoocliteraturepublishedin20132015 AT georgeveletsianos systematicanalysisandsynthesisoftheempiricalmoocliteraturepublishedin20132015 AT petershepherdson systematicanalysisandsynthesisoftheempiricalmoocliteraturepublishedin20132015
_version_	1718376815642279936

A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2013–2015

Ejemplares similares