Running Head: MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

MOOC Literature Review

Kate Sassatelli

ETT 501 Proseminar in IT

Spring 2014
Dr. Jason Underwood

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

Abstract
In this literature review, the concept of massive open online courses, or MOOCs, is
explored in depth. First, the review discusses the origin of MOOCs. Though the idea was
formed six years ago, the past three years have seen MOOCs rise to fame and spread to multiple
companies and institutions. Next, the review looks at multiple issues MOOCs bring to the
surface. There are experts who argue that MOOCs are just as good as, if not better than,
traditional teaching methods. On the other side, there are experts who claim that MOOCs are
missing major pedagogical foundations. Another issue that surfaces is whether MOOCs will
have a positive or negative effect on higher education. Finally, the global impact of MOOCs is
explored, as well as the 21st century learning that takes place within these courses.

Introduction: MOOCs and Education

Over the past three years, a new, progressive form of online education has emerged.
Massive open online courses, known as MOOCs, provide a free online learning experience
designed to be accessed by thousands of users (Barnes, 2013). Though the first MOOC was
developed by the University of Manitoba in 2008 (Barnes, 2013), the trend started to pick up in
2011 when Stanford University offered three online computer science courses in this format and
a combined 400,000-plus students signed up; from there, the MOOC phenomenon exploded in
what Stanfords president, John Hennessy, describes as a tsunami (Vardi, 2012). Seeing the
success of such a program, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) developed a notfor-profit MOOC start-up, which later partnered with universities such as Berkely, Wellesley,
Georgetown, and University of Texas (Holman Weisbard, 2013) to become edX (Barnes, 2013).
EdX is an open source online learning platform where partner universities can offer their own

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

MOOCs (Holman Weisbard 2013). Along with edX, for-profit companies Udacity and Coursera
have partnered with universities and companies to offer MOOCs as well (Barnes, 2013). As of
2013, Coursera had 33 partner institutions, 211 course offerings, and over 2 million students
(Holman Weisbard, 2013). In addition to these three major MOOC platforms, there are many
other start-up companies and universities that are joining the MOOC market.
No matter the platform, all MOOCs share some essential features. According to Vardi
(2012), the online learning experience is delivered through short, straightforward videos, online
quizzes, and some component of social networking. Skiba (2013, p. 136) describes MOOCs as
having resources located in a central repository, automated performance assessment through
quizzes and/or assignments, and social structures such as online forums, study groups, hangouts,
or meet-ups. Kukulska-Hulme (2013) mentions many of the same features, but also adds that
MOOCs are tolerant of casual participation. Participants are free to interact as much or as little
as they want; MOOCs are open to dedicated learners and casual students alike. In fact, the
dropout rates for MOOCs are around 90% (Cusumano, 2013). Even so, in the case of Coursera,
10% of 2 million is still 200,000 students who complete a course. It is also important to note that
courses which are more advanced have a better completion rate (Guzdial & Adams, 2014).
The concept of online learning experiences that can simultaneously reach millions people
across the globe definitely opens up the floor for instructional design. A 90% dropout rate
indicates that widespread access to education does not necessarily translate into a meaningful
learning experience for participants. While many MOOCs are developed by universities, mobile
education pedagogy is not the same as traditional classroom pedagogy. Instructional designers
will need to consider ways to adapt a course to suit people of varying demographics, geographic
locations, learning styles, and cultural norms. Clara & Barbera (2013) explain that the original

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

MOOCs were guided by specific pedagogical assumptions, but the wide array of MOOCs
available now has strayed from this pedagogy. Though most follow the standard format of
online videos, assessments, and social forums, there is an opportunity for instructional designers
to arrange these components in a more effective, far-reaching manner.
Organizational Strategy
This literature review will be divided into three essential questions, each subdivided into
two categories. The essential questions provide insight on the impact of MOOCs in different
areas of education. The first question asks if MOOCs are just as effective as traditional learning.
This question will explore both supportive and opposing arguments for the effectiveness of
MOOCs.
The second question asks how MOOCs will impact higher education. This question will
look at the possible benefits and the possible disadvantages MOOCs will bring to institutions of
higher learning.
The final question asks how MOOCs are redefining education. This question will discuss
the role of MOOCs in global access to education, as well as the role of MOOCs with 21st century
learning. By examining each of these questions, one will develop a greater understanding of the
far-reaching influence MOOCs.
Are MOOCs Just as Effective as Traditional Learning?
The main question up for debate is whether online education is truly a desirable
substitute for in-class learning and face-to-face interaction (Cusumano, 2013, p. 29). Opinions
on the effectiveness of MOOCs vary greatly, from those who claim it is just an experimental fad
to those who are convinced MOOCs are not only here to stay, but here to revolutionize
education.

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

Supportive Arguments
Those in favor of MOOCs as an effective teaching method point out that so many users
provide a wealth of data to use when informing decisions on best practices and learning theories.
Holman Weisbard (2013) points out that edX is using data from its courses to research how
students learn and how technology can transform learning. Having large populations of students
provides real-time data and allows professors to test and evaluate different educational strategies
(Skiba, 2013). Barnes (2013) acknowledges that first generation MOOCs were more chaotic and
open-ended, adopting a connectivist approach to learning. However, he goes on to say that the
more recent generations of MOOCs follow the educational mainstream, designed with
instructivist pedagogies in mind. Additionally, he points out the advantage of collecting data on
how students learn online in order to evaluate best practices, particularly related to mobile
learning (Barnes, 2013).
Fox (2013) admits that MOOCs are not a one-size-fits-all solution to learning, but
encourages teachers to use MOOCs as a supplement to their classroom teaching rather than a
replacement for it. Fox goes on to say that certain learning activities can be covered in a
classroom setting, but teachers should not ignore the benefits to online learning. Autograders
can free up time for the teacher to focus on tutoring and one-to-one interactions with students,
for example. When considering the role of MOOCs within an educational setting, he says to ask
the essential questions,
What can be delivered effectively through this medium in a way that helps our oncampus students, and has the valuable side effect of helping the hundreds of thousands
who will not have the privilege of attending our universities in person...andunder what
conditions and with what types of materials do online communities foster learning, and

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

how can social networking technology help foster both online and in-person community
building (Fox, 2013, p. 39)?
According to Holman Weisbard (2013), Skiba (2013), and Barnes (2013), the main
advantages of MOOCs seem to be data access and the ability to enhance classroom teaching.
The immediate access to large amounts of data can provide valuable insights into student
learning and effective teaching practices. In addition, Fox (2013) points out that MOOCs can be
used as a supplement to classroom teaching, in a way that is beneficial to not only current
students, but also in a way that can reach out to potential online students around the world.
Opposing Viewpoints
Other experts and educators view MOOCs as a substandard approach compared to
traditional teaching. Joseph Urgo, president of St. Marys College of Maryland, says, Our
defining pedagogy is rooted in interpersonal interaction and face-to-face exchange and dialogue
(as cited in Foster, 2013). Traditionalists tout the importance of student-teacher interaction
within the learning process. Baggaley (2013) states that online education has been used for over
20 years, and the pros and cons of various pedagogical approaches have already been identified;
MOOCs, however, have failed to utilize these tried-and-true methods. MOOCs, by definition,
place responsibility for learning directly on the learners. Baggaley cautions against this
approach, saying that collaborative and student-centered learning needs to be carefully designed
and supervised in order to ensure success. Naidu (2013) explains that students need more
personal support in order to be successful in online education. What MOOCs are lacking,
according to Naidu, is a sense of community and instructor feedback to students. Without it,
students feel overwhelmed by the massive amount of information on discussion forums and they
identify a need for more guidance (Baggeley, 2013). Along with students, staff require just as

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

much support, since teaching online is very different from teaching in a traditional classroom
(Naidu, 2013).
Others point out that MOOCs do not take advantage of opportunities for synchronous
communication and connectivity; rather, they simply seek to replicate traditional teaching
practices such as lecture and assessments (Naidu, 2013). Naidu claims this represents a failed
pedagogy, and that eventually MOOCs will need to incorporate what is already known and
researched about online learning. Clara and Barbera (2013) expand on this idea, claiming that
Coursera and edX MOOCs assume pedagogies based on connectivist theory, which is
inadequate. They argue that the Vygotskian tradition of cultural psychology is a more valid
learning theory for MOOCs. According to their research, connectivism downplays the
importance of interaction and dialogue, where cultural psychology encourages social interaction
and community learning (Clara & Barbera, 2013).
The disadvantages to MOOCs stem from the lack of a pedagogical foundation based on
existing research regarding online learning. MOOCs do not foster the supportive, collaborative
environments necessary to encourage success in most learners. Instead, MOOCs seem to be
haphazardly created, with little concern for the true instructional design process.
How Will MOOCs Impact Higher Education?
On the surface, the idea of offering free online courses to anyone with internet access
seems like it could only be a good thing. However, MOOCs may have a yet-to-be-determined
impact on higher education, specifically when it comes to cost and value. Many university
professors are mixed on whether online courses are a good investment (Foster, 2013). Will
MOOCs enhance universities current educational offerings, or could the advent of MOOCs
prove to be detrimental to higher education?

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

Possible Disadvantages
The Great Recession, which created financial crisis among the real-estate market,
business investments, and later the global economy, also impacted higher education; private
universities received smaller endowments and public institutions saw a decline in state funding
(Vardi, 2012). Because of this, Vardi explains that the value of universities has come into
question, forcing people to weigh the cost of student loans against the chances of finding a job in
such a challenging market. He claims that the popularity of MOOCs has more to do with the
free price tag than their educational value. Unfortunately, the concern is that universities that
have started offering these free courses may have opened a Pandoras box that will be difficult
to close (Cusumano, 2013).
Universities have costs to cover, and once they start offering free online courses, they
will need to find other ways to generate surplus income (Cusumano, 2013). Cusumano compares
universities offering free courses to magazine or newspaper companies that put their content
online, only to go bankrupt once paid subscriptions decreased. He points out that when similar
products or services are offered, people tend to gravitate toward whichever costs less; in the case
of university course options, students are more apt to choose the free online course than the faceto-face course that costs hundreds of dollars. This sets a new cost expectation among students,
but ignores the university expenses associated with research, development, marketing, sales,
infrastructure overhead, quality control, and administration (Cusumano, 2013, p. 28).
Another concern is that MOOCs are offered as individual courses, independent of any
particular course of study; according to Portmess (2013), this de-emphasizes the curricular vision
of universities. This parallels Jansens (2013) point that most MOOCs are taken by casual
students, who have no serious interest in pursuing a degree. If this is the case, will universities

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

reap any benefits from offering free online courses? Portmess (2013) is also concerned that
MOOCs are too detached and out of context; she even goes so far as to compare MOOC
professors to drone pilots, who are oblivious to the humanity of their targets. She acknowledges
that MOOCs are transforming teaching and learning, but she has suggestions for future
implementations. Her suggestions include a greater reach for remedial/low income students,
more meaningful certification, course scaffolding and degree access, and more holistic
conceptions of the meaning of an x course (Portmess, 2013, p. 6).
A final concern regarding MOOCs involves their impact on the roles of both professors
and librarians. According to Baggaley (2013), the faculty at Harvard and Stanford are divided
over how MOOCs will affect their intellectual ownership of course content. This is a valid
concern, since Baggaley points out that several universities in the 1990s maintained exclusive
rights to online course materials created by faculty members. Another common concern,
according to Fox (2013), is that universities will use MOOCs to lower costs by firing faculty
members. He goes on to dispel this myth, which is covered in the advantages section below.
When it comes to academic librarians, the concern is that they simply wont have a role, since
current MOOCs do not make much use of them (Barnes, 2013). As MOOCs continue to
develop, it will be important to consider their future impact on university faculty members.
Overall, the difficulties for universities that jump on board with MOOCs include finding
ways to generate income while offering free courses, maintaining curricular integrity even with
free-floating MOOCs, and identifying the future roles of faculty members as MOOCs become
more prevalent.

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

10

Possible Advantages
The option of creating a MOOC could be advantageous for professors who are tired of
delivering the same lecture over and over; in fact, in many cases students were already
videotaping their professors lectures to share with classmates, resulting in half-empty
classrooms (Vardi, 2012). Rather than being cause for faculty members to worry about job
security, Fox (2013) explains how they can use this as an opportunity to combine MOOCs with
their traditional teaching methods. MOOCs offer professors the option to videotape their lecture
on their own terms, creating a flipped classroom approach. Then instructors can use class time to
work with students on labs or problem-based learning activities (Fox, 2013). Fox also explains
that with this method, educational quality actually increases and productivity is enhanced, since
professors are working with students rather than giving lectures. In a pilot program at San Jose
State University, which used this flipped classroom method, students scores were higher than in
traditional courses and the number of students receiving credit increased from 59% to 91% (Fox,
2013). MOOCs might provide the basic understanding of a subject, but it leaves the
development of critical thinking, personal interactions, and hands-on learning to the universities
(Jansen, 2013).
Some universities are beginning to offer credit for specific MOOCs, and the American
Council on Education plans to recommend selected courses for college credit (Holman
Weisbard, 2013). Holman Weisbard points out that these for-credit courses could charge a fee,
generating income for universities. Even when MOOCs are not accepted for college credit, they
seem to have a positive impact on enrollment. For example, at the University of Texas, three
quarters of students who took a free online course later enrolled in an additional class (Foster,
2013). There are additional opportunities for income, as well; for example, textbook publishers

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

11

sometimes pay to have ads appear within the course, and Amazon has provided kickbacks to
MOOC developers when a student purchases the recommended textbook (Holman Weisbard
2013). The free price tag may not be as detrimental as some experts think; universities may just
need to be more creative in their sources of income.
Librarians may not be out of luck, either. Many Coursera-affiliated institutions see
librarian inclusion in MOOC project teams as best practice (Barnes, 2013). Barnes suggests
several possible roles for librarians, including copyright clearance, content licensing, alerting
MOOC developers to open content, helping ensure MOOC content is accessible to all users,
including those using assistive technology, providing instruction in information literacy, and
encouraging use of open licensing (2013, p. 166).
While it may not be easy, it seems that universities may be able to generate income while
still offering free online courses. Additionally, MOOCs do not automatically mean faculty
members jobs are in jeopardy; rather, the roles of professors and librarians simply need to be reexamined and applied more appropriately.
How Are MOOCs Redefining Education?
No matter ones opinion on the benefits or disadvantages of MOOCs, there is no doubt
that they have transformed education as we know it. MOOC companies have created a goal to
democratize education by making it available to people who would not have access otherwise
(Guzdial & Adams, 2014). The hope is to create global access through the use of mobile
learning technologies.
MOOCs and Global Access to Education
The world-wide web has been fully exploited in this venture to democratize education,
and judging by the MOOCs rapid international adoption, it is the most easily implemented

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

12

form of education ever invented (Baggaley, 2013, p. 368). Mobile devices are seen more and
more as a means to solve global problems in education because not only do mobile devices
expand access to education, they also provide the channels for international communication and
collaboration (Kukulska-Hulme, 2013). Kukulska-Hulme goes on to explain how mobile
technologies can provide education for people who have previously been excluded due to
disabilities. With assistive technologies, learners with visual or auditory impairments can access
education in revolutionary ways, opening up doors that may have seemed closed previously.
Additionally, Kukulska-Hulme points out how mobile technologies can bridge the barrier
between poverty and education. Even in places where education is often interrupted due to war
or other conflicts, MOOCs provide a way to continue learning (Kukulska-Hulme, 2013).
According to Jansen (2013), one of MOOCs greatest impacts is the ability to share ideas
in languages other than English. Jansen explains that for many learners, the barrier is not
grasping a subjects concepts, but rather learning English in order to understand what is being
taught. Then again, even if the goal is to learn English, mobile technologies can help; in
Bangladesh, mobile technology has been used to improve English language skills in 25 million
people (Kukulska-Hulme, 2013). Technology has made it possible to spread education across
the globe for minimal cost. Khan Academy, for example, has almost 4,000 lectures that anyone
in the world can access for free (Cusumano, 2013). In his book, the founder of Khan Academy,
Salman Khan, coined the term The One World School House (as cited in Naidu, 2013, p. 253)
as a way to describe the revolutionary way MOOCs have provided a means for global education.
The goal of democratizing education is a lofty one, and Guzdial & Adams (2014) believe
the attempt has not yet been successful. According to them, MOOCs have so far drawn mostly
degree-holding men from the United States and other developed countries. Still others would

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

13

say that democratizing education may not even be a good thing. Portmess (2013) is concerned
that MOOCs create a sense of noblesse oblige where elitist institutions share knowledge
without recognizing different cultural contexts and purposes for education. She points out that
MOOCs may claim to offer a world-class education from top universities with the best
professors, but the best is only in relation to particular purposes of particular places at
particular times (Harding, 2011, as cited in Portmess, 2013, p. 3). Her concern is that the
massification of education may lead to de-culturing of knowledge led by those with the most
resources to make it happen (Portmess, 2013).
It is important to remember that MOOCs are still in their infancy, so only the coming
years will tell whether democratized education can be achieved, or whether the fears associated
with such a goal will be realized.
MOOCs and 21st Century Learning
According to their blog, Udacitys intent is to reinvent education for the 21st century by
bridging the gap between real-world skills, relevant education, and employment (as cited in
Holman Weisbard, 2013, p. 19). Coursera promises free access to a world-class education, with
research that suggests their online outcomes are equivalent or better than traditional instruction
(Portmess, 2013). MOOC companies are discovering that the internet, mobile technologies, and
web 2.0 tools are revolutionizing learning as we know it. Currently, 52% of American children
have a smart device, 1.5 million iPads are used in U.S. schools, and there are over 20,000
educational apps for the iPad alone (Kukulska-Hulme, 2013). The future of education has
already arrived; learners are invited to interact with materials rather than just passively learn
from them. For example, Kukulska-Hulme mentions that simply being able to annotate and
comment on an e-textbook changes a learners status.

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

14

Kukulska-Hulme (2013) goes on to discuss the myriad ways mobile technologies have
enhanced education. Mobile learners are able to access visual or audio information on demand,
allowing them to practice learning activities anywhere and anytime. With the digital tools
available to learners, a blog post or a video can generate conversation in the same way a
classroom discussion can; this interactive multimedia has the capability to link contexts and
provide authentic problems for students to solve (Kukulska-Hulme, 2013). She continues,
pointing out that immediate access to information changes the pace and direction of learning; the
locus of control shifts away from the pre-planned curriculum and allows learners to become
more adventurous and independent. Teachers may find this 21st century learning makes
classroom management more challenging. However, Kukulska-Hulme suggests that education
policy makers can help facilitate the transition to more student-centered learning.
Student-centered learning means more autonomy for learners, and traditional forms of
assessment may fall to the wayside to make room for personal inquiries or problem-solving
challenges (Kukulska-Hulme, 2013). Coursera has started an initiative which would create realworld meet ups for students in larger cities (Portmess, 2013); such an idea would allow students
to create individual learning communities. In addition to fostering more independence for
students, MOOCs can also pave the way to a more independent future for university faculty
(Portmess, 2013). Professors who find success with creating MOOCs could freelance or even
break ties with their university in order to work on projects they are passionate about.
MOOCs have created a culture of global learning that has shifted away from the
traditional in favor of student-centered education. MOOCs have provided a revolutionary way
for learners to gain more independence and control over their learning, using 21st century tools
and techniques.

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

15

Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research

Those in favor of MOOCs highlight the wealth of data available regarding student
learning styles and best practices for online teaching; however, none of the experts specifically
state what the data is saying. If so much data is being generated, then what can educators learn
from the information? What exactly is being done with it? Further research needs to be done in
this area, so that the large amounts of student data prove useful and guide future generations of
MOOCs.
Those who prefer traditional teaching methods over MOOCs point out that the online
courses do not offer enough student-teacher interaction, feedback, and support. It does seem
necessary as MOOCs continue to evolve, that these components require much more
consideration. How can online courses be designed in order to provide optimal levels of support
for learners? As Baggaley (2013) mentions, online learning is not new; there are over 20 years
worth of research and experience that could be applied to MOOCs moving forward. What can
MOOC developers use to ensure the best learning experience for students?
When it comes to the impact MOOCs have on higher education, there do seem to be
legitimate concerns. If universities plan to offer free online courses, they will have to find ways
to maintain profits at the same time. What are successful means of doing so? Another
consideration when it comes to MOOCs and higher education is finding ways to support faculty
in their quest to enhance current teaching with online material. Along with that, professors are
understandably concerned about the intellectual copyright of their work. Do professors maintain
rights to course content they provide during the development of MOOCs? Or, if the MOOC is
developed for a specific university, does that institution gain rights to the material? When

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

16

educational content is being distributed on a global scale, intellectual copyright law may need to
be revisited.
Finally, the impact MOOCs have on global, 21st century education is undeniable. If
MOOC companies wish to democratize education, what steps are being taken to achieve such a
goal? Guzdial and Adams (2014) stated that MOOCs are mostly comprised of educated men
from developed countries. How then can the reach be expanded to include people of various
genders, races, cultures, and socioeconomic status? How are MOOCs being marketed, and are
citizens of underdeveloped countries seeing the possible value?
In the three years since MOOCs arrived on the scene, they have created many benefits
and just as many concerns. One thing is certain: MOOCs have changed the way people access
education across the globe. It will be interesting to see the direction MOOCs take in the coming
years.

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

17

References
Baggaley, J. (2013). MOOC rampant. Distance Education, 34(3), 368378.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.835768
Barnes, C. (2013). MOOCs: The Challenges for Academic Librarians. Australian Academic &
Research Libraries, 44(3), 163175. doi:10.1080/00048623.2013.821048
Clar, M., & Barber, E. (2013). Learning online: massive open online courses (MOOCs),
connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34(1), 129136.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.770428
Cusumano, M. A. (2013). Are the Costs of Free Too High in Online
Education? Communications of the ACM, 56(4), 2629. doi:10.1145/2436256.2436264
Foster, M. (2013). Coursera, Sera: A mixed message about MOOCS and other online college
offerings. American Scholar, 82(2), 120120. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=85985791&site=ehost
-live
Fox, A. (2013). From MOOCs to SPOCs. Communications of the ACM,56(12), 3840.
doi:10.1145/2535918
Guzdial, M., & Adams, J. C. (2014). MOOCs Need More Work; So Do CS
Graduates. Communications of the ACM, 57(1), 1819. doi:10.1145/2555813
Holman Weisbard, P. (2013). Going Mooc: Massive Open Online Courses.Feminist Collections:
A Quarterly of Womens Studies Resources,34(1/2), 1922. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=89287716&site=ehost
-live

MOOC LITERATURE REVIEW

18

Jansen, R. (2013). A massive challenge. TCE: The Chemical Engineer, (869), 7373. Retrieved
from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=92722419&site=ehost
-live
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2013). Limelight on Mobile Learning. Harvard International
Review, 34(4), 1216. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=86388520&site=ehost
-live
Naidu, S. (2013). Transforming MOOCs and MOORFAPs into MOOLOs.Distance
Education, 34(3), 253255. doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.842524
Portmess, L. R. (2013). Mobile Knowledge, Karma Points and Digital Peers: The Tacit
Epistemology and Linguistic Representation of MOOCs / Savoir mobile, points de karma
et pairs numriques: lpistmologie tacite et la reprsentation linguistique des
MOOC. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de
lapprentissage et de la technologie,39(2). Retrieved
fromhttp://www.ulib.niu.edu:7083/index.php/cjlt/article/view/705
Skiba, D. J. (2013). On the Horizon: The Year of the MOOCs. Nursing Education
Perspectives, 34(2), 136137. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=90494999&site=ehost
-live
Vardi, M. Y. (2012). Will MOOCs Destroy Academia? Communications of the ACM, 55(11), 5
5. doi:10.1145/2366316.2366317