As I am currently in the process of revising and managing our MOOCs on the edX platform and proposing new MOOCs as part of my job at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University English Language Centre, I am interested in improving upon the design and pedagogy of MOOCs to provide better user experiences that are supported by both general learning theories and language learning theories. We also need to make some design and pedagogy choices in response to changing education models and business plans at universities and the online course companies. I believe the design of our MOOCs could be significantly improved to provide more personalized learning experiences, increase overall student engagement, encourage more communication and collaboration amongst participants, support different levels of language proficiency, and be relevant to a broader user base. Before entering the proposal and planning stages for a new English language learning Massive Open Online Course, I need to research the history, design principles, pedagogies and learning theories associated with MOOCs in order to make informed key decisions and utilize best practices in the future. Hopefully this research will eventually lead to an educational intervention at a regional school or university in Hong Kong or Macau, which will be the basis of my dissertation for the EPOL: LDL program.

Figure 1: "The augmented learner, sporting a MOOC helmet" (Roegiers, 2013)

In this literature review, I am going to explore the design principles, pedagogies and learning theories associated with three different types of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): cMOOCs (Connectivist MOOCs), xMOOCs (eXtended MOOCs) and hMOOCs (hybrid MOOCs). Before examining the specific details of the three types of MOOCs, the term MOOC will be generally defined and a taxonomy of common sub-categories used to classify MOOCs will be presented. This will be followed by two sections about cMOOCs and xMOOCs in which each type of MOOC will first be defined, described and linked with example courses from across the web. These descriptions and examples will be followed with analyses of the learning theories and pedagogies connected with each type of MOOC and summaries of the support and criticism of each in the literature. After this, I will introduce hMOOCs and attempt to contextualize current MOOC trends on a continuum between the extreme types that have been discussed in the literature. Finally, I will briefly survey alternative taxonomies and identify areas of inquiry relevant to future developments in MOOC design and pedagogy.

MOOCs can be broadly described as large online instructional platforms that contain elements of traditional courses and are accessible to anyone with the required technology. Common features of MOOCs can be plainly described in reference to each part of the acronym. “Massive” refers to every MOOC’s potential to host large numbers of participants, although the number of participants enrolled in or taking a MOOC can vary, and those with lower numbers are sometimes classified as SMOOCs or small/medium online courses (Blackmon & Major, 2017). “Open” refers to MOOCs being free of cost and featuring unrestricted enrollment for virtually everyone; however, many modern MOOCs are only open within a pre-set range of dates, and some content may only be open to paid participants. On the other end of the spectrum, some MOOC instructors go a step further with open access, “allowing course materials to be refashioned” (Blackmon & Major, 2017, p. 196) by other instructors and participants. “Online” refers to the fact that MOOCs are can be accessed with an internet connection and include common features of websites and other online platforms such as hypertext, multimedia, synchronous/asynchronous communication, and other interactive elements (Yousef, Chatti, Schroeder, Wosnitz, & Jakobs, 2015). “Course” refers to how MOOCs are similar in purpose and design to traditional courses, often comprising learning objectives, the transmission of content, assignments and evaluation (Bradshaw, Parchoma, & Lock, 2017). While the majority of MOOCs can be generally viewed as fitting into the above description, due to the ongoing evolution of online education and emerging variations in design, goals, pedagogy, and underlying learning theories, several MOOC sub-categories have been proposed.

Figure 2: "MOOC, every letter is negotiable" (Plourde, 2013)

One of the earliest distinctions to be made between MOOC types was propagated by early MOOC developers George Siemens and Stephen Downes. These Canadian academics created some of the first MOOCs, including Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (http://cck11.mooc.ca/). In response to the emergence of course platform providers such as Udacity, Coursera and edX, Siemens and Downes labeled their courses as Connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs) and the others as eXtended MOOCs (xMOOCs) in order to highlight pedagogical and philosophical differences between the MOOC models (Knox, 2016). In this broad categorization, xMOOCs “rely on the traditional lecture format supplemented with interactive exercises and discussion boards” while a cMOOC “invites learners to engage in a self-organized and social learning process” (Grünewald, Meinel, Totschnig, & Willems, 2013, p. 371-372). cMOOCs are often associated with connectivist learning theory while xMOOCs are associated with three other learning theories: behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism (Yousef et al., 2015).

Figure 3: "The key characteristics of cMOOC vs. xMOOC" (Yousef et al., 2015, p. 312)

Some argue that classifying MOOCs in this way is an oversimplification and does not accurately portray the varieties of designs and practices employed in many modern MOOCs. Haber (2014) suggested “while it’s tempting to characterize xMOOCs and cMOOCs as representing opposing pedagogies or ideologies with regard to their approach to large-scale online learning, such reductivism threatens to blur more interesting distinctions and overlaps between the two ways MOOCs have manifested themselves to date” (p. 40). However, the cMOOC/xMOOC distinction has been widely discussed in the literature and some see it as useful to analyze elements of MOOCs that have been borrowed from both models, and viewing MOOCs on a continuum between the two extremes can help bring attention to the underlying theories and pedagogies being implemented. According to Knox (2016), “this idea of a bifurcation in the design and delivery of these courses has gained significant traction, and reveals some of the dominant ideas that have fed into the MOOC story, influenced pedagogical approaches, and shaped the design of course infrastructure” (p. 8). With this in mind, the design, pedagogies and learning theories associated with cMOOCs and xMOOCs will be examined in the next two sections. This will be followed by a section about Hybrid MOOCS (hMOOCs), whose proponents claim are an amalgamation that exploit the best features of both cMOOCs and xMOOCs.

cMOOC design is predominantly based on open networking, divergent self-directed learning paths and learner-generated content. Steffens (2015) described the cMOOC experience as “collaborative learning that takes place in a community of people who are interested in a specific subject” (p. 53). cMOOCs are usually not constrained to a single platform; although an instructor often provides limited content on a centralized site, and participants are often then asked to go outside of the confines of the course structure and interact by producing and consuming content on various openly accessible platforms such as blogs, social networking sites, webcasts, and wikis (Anderson & Dron, 2011). Participants are encouraged to create their own path and support their learning through social networking by adapting or remixing course content to fit their own interests and needs, and they connect with others with shared interests and needs both within the course and outside of the course (O’Donnell, Lawless, Sharp, O’Donnell, 2015). According to Knox (2018), “The educational content in cMOOCs is distributed amongst various social networking platforms, and is often generated by participants, necessitating highly motivated, self-directed individuals capable of navigating and evaluating diverse online resources…successful learning in these courses is determined by the capacities of the individual alone, and the digital technologies of the cMOOC are largely considered as passive instruments for cohesive community networking” (p. 163). Some notable examples of cMOOCs include CMC11: Creativity & Multicultural Communication (http://www.cdlprojects.com/cmc11blog/) and EduMOOC: Online Learning for Today and Tomorrow (https://sites.google.com/site/edumooc/). The following 2010 video by Dave Cormier exemplifies some of the principles and pedagogies associated with cMOOCs:

cMOOCs have been deeply influenced by the connectivist learning theory espoused by Stephen Downes and George Siemens. Downes identified four primary principles of connectivist learning: “autonomy, diversity, openness, and connectedness/interactivity” (Milligan, Littlejohn, & Margaryan, 2013, p. 150). Siemens outlined eight principles of connectivism in his 2004 article Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age:

Principles of connectivism:

• Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
• Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
• Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
• Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.
• Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
• Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
• Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision (Siemens, 2004, p. 6-7).

Andreson and Dron (2011) summarized the principles postulated by Downes and Siemens: “Connectivist learning focuses on building and maintaining networked connections that are current and flexible enough to be applied to existing and emergent problems. Connectivism also assumes that information is plentiful and that the learner’s role is not to memorize or even understand everything, but to have the capacity to find and apply knowledge when and where it is needed” (p. 87). Connectivist pedagogy relies on the autonomy of learners and allowing them to form their own connections with resources and other learners without direct instruction or intervention of a “centralized authority” (Anders, 2015, p. 41). In contrast to more traditional pedagogies, an instructor is not the only person "responsible for defining, generating, or assigning content", and instead students and instructors collaborate to create content and re-create the same content for future students' use (Anderson & Dron, 2011, p. 88). Thus, one of the central goals of cMOOCs is to “facilitate emergent, self-organized patterns of collaborative learning” (Anders, 2015, p. 41).

Connectivism as a learning theory and the relative value of cMOOCs have been the target of some criticism. Several academics have argued that connectivism functions more as a “pedagogical view” or “tool to be used in the learning process for instruction or curriuculum” rather than a comprehensive learning theory (Steffens, 2015, p. 53). Anderson and Dron (2011) reported that students often complain about feeling somewhat lost in connectivist learning environments due to unclear goals and sequencing, unfamiliarity with non-traditional and less formal course models, and difficulties navigating and learning to use multiple platforms across the internet. Kop and Hill (2008) questioned if many learners are autonomous enough to develop the skills and motivation needed to successfully participate in cMOOC environments. Haber (2014) observed that some of these factors may be limiting the overall popularity and participant numbers of cMOOCs: “as interesting as connectivist educational models might be, and as important as cMOOCs were in breaking down barriers to large-scale online classes, the number of people who have chosen to participate in xMOOC classes surpasses cMOOC participants by at least two orders of magnitude…it does seem as though the emerging MOOC market is driven more by content and association with prestige universities than it is by either technology or pedagogical theory” (p. 41).

xMOOC design is often regarded as an extension of didactic or mimetic pedagogies already being employed in traditional courses at universities and companies. According to Yuan and Powell (2013), xMOOCs employ a much more instructivist approach “dominated by the ‘drill and grill’ instructional methods with video presentations, short quizzes and testing” (p.7). xMoocs commonly feature short recorded lectures, that may or may not be accompanied with readings, which are followed by comprehension activities such as multiple-choice and short answer questions. Sometimes discussion forum activities are included to support limited interactions between students and instructors. Steffens (2015) described how xMOOCs tend to be quite similar to formal college courses: “xMOOCs seem to support adaptive learning…they help students to acquire knowledge, but do not encourage them to create knowledge. Depending on the individual course, the content may be presented using different media (texts, pictures, videos) and students may or may not be provided with different forms of interaction, with the learning content and with tutors and peers (through blogs, forums, chatrooms, skype sessions)” (p. 53). A major distinction between cMOOCs and xMOOCs is that the majority of the content and activities of an xMOOC course are hosted on a single platform, and students are often not required to leave the central site as part of the learning process. Additionally, “xMOOCs tend to use learning materials with proprietary licenses and a relatively closed, predetermined schedule” (Grünewald et al., 2013, p. 372). The MOOC providers most often cited as hosting xMOOCs are all associated with higher education institutions and include the education companies Udacity (https://www.udacity.com/), Coursera (https://www.coursera.org/) and edX (https://www.edx.org/). A classic examplar of what would be considered an xMOOC is Intro to Psychology on Udacity (https://www.udacity.com/course/intro-to-psychology--ps001).

Figure 4: "MOOCs and Open Education Timeline" (Yuan & Powell, 2013, p. 6)

In terms of learning theories and pedagogy, Haber (2014) highlighted one of the significant differences between the MOOC types: “unlike cMOOCs, xMOOCs are not built around a specific educational theory or pedagogy, even if most of them can be characterized as replicating traditional classroom models designed around lectures, homework assignments, and assessments” (p. 41). However, xMOOC design and pedagogy are often linked with the learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism. Behavioral learning theory entails “notions of learning which are generally defined as new behaviours or changes in behaviours that are acquired as the result of an individual’s response to stimuli” (Anderson & Dron, 2011, p. 82). According to O'Donnell et al. (2015), “Cognitive learning theory is more concerned with how knowledge is absorbed into the learner’s mind and connected to other knowledge structures which already exist, than how learners respond to external stimulus as in behaviourism…Cognitive learning theory is associated with the concept of integrating new information with existing information to build on a learner’s overall knowledge” (p. 101). Anderson & Dron (2011) described cognitive-behaviorist pedagogies for distance education as focusing on learning as a self-paced, semi-autonomous individual process as opposed to a social process. Instruction is usually presented in linear, structured lessons. Although xMOOC pedagogy is similar in some respects to traditional classroom practices, the learning process entails “guided didactic interaction” (p. 82) as a student's direct interactions with instructors and other students are reduced, and the learning process is facilitated through a mediated teaching presence delivered through text and pre-recorded lectures. This system allows for scaling up and hosting larger numbers of students in comparison to traditional courses.

xMOOCs that use discussion forums and other tools for communication reflect a more constructivist or social-constructivist approach in contrast to the cognitive-behaviorist approaches that are featured in many online courses. O'Donnell et al. (2015) posited “Constructivism is practically the opposite of behaviourism. In constructivism learners are encouraged to learn through active engagement, by associating new information with existing information, to form new knowledge or understanding of the meaning of concepts” (p. 103). In many xMOOCs, learners are encouraged to discuss the content, answer open questions, pose their own questions, and respond to the ideas shared by other learners. This follows a more social-constructivist model as the learners are building and negotiating knowledge through interactions with their peers.

While some authors have criticized xMOOCs for lacking underlying learning theories and specific pedagogies, others have criticized xMOOCs for their the limitations and failed implementation of pedagogies. For example, the instructivist approach in xMOOCs is supported as being an appropriate method for novices in a field but may be limited in respect to advanced skills and knowledge production. Grünewald et al. (2013) surmised that the pedagogy of xMOOCs is good for mastering and reinforcing domain knowledge through repetitive practice, but pedagogies similar to those employed in cMOOCs may be more effective in developing “higher order creative skills” (p. 372). Behaviorism inspired learning activities involving one-size-fits all activities, pre-determined responses, and rewards such as badges or brief positive feedback may not encourage creative or critical thinking and may not account for individual differences that affect learning processes. Although badges and certifications may be a motivating factor for students to enrol and complete more parts of a course, they may not necessarily lead to the most effective learning practices by design. Some argue that xMOOCs could provide more personalized learning experiences by being designed to use learning analytics and adaptive learning systems to guide students through their learning by suggesting or requiring certain content and activities based on immediate needs at any given point it time. According to O'Donnell, et al. (2015), "the learning requirements of students are dynamic and will change daily/hourly/annually depending on their commitment, exposure to learning resources and ability to open their minds and learn” (p. 103). The efficacy of xMOOC course structure and discussion boards in reaching social-constructivist goals has also been questioned. Haber (2014) summarized early responses to the xMOOC format: “Complaints lodged by educators regarding this new huge-scale form of learning focused on the efficacy of an educational format where information was delivered by video lecture and measurement performed largely through multiple-choice quizzing, with student-to-student interaction facilitated by overcrowded discussion boards and student-to-teacher interaction virtually nonexistent” (p. 90). Not every xMOOC may exhibit this lack of interaction, but some of the current designs and functionality of discussion boards and other chat options in xMOOCs may not be effectively encouraging or facilitating authentic communication between users.

In response to the relative strengths and weaknesses of cMOOCs and xMOOCs, some have suggested designing MOOCs that borrow from both types: hMOOCS (hybrid MOOCs). For example, Bradshaw, Parchoma, & Lock (2017) developed a hybrid MOOC From Frankenstein to Post-Humanism, which was designed to allow students to cross the boundaries between informal learning of cMOOCs and the formal learning of xMOOCs by incorporating both “instructor-designed tasks” and “emergent, autonomous and collective, participant activities” (p. 40-41). Another notable example referred to as a hMOOC in the literature is DS106: Digital Storytelling (http://ds106.us/). Anders (2015) has suggested the application of several hybrid variants, including Content-Based Hybrids, Community and Task-based Hybrids, and Network-based Hybrids. The following table shows how hMOOCs can be positioned between xMOOCs and hMOOCs:

Figure 5: "A Taxonomy of Hybrid MOOC Design" (Anders, 2015, p. 52)

Content-Based Hybrids feature high-quality content from xMOOCs that could be implemented through blended/wrapped learning classes or self-organized social networks. Community and Task-based Hybrids involve a small group from an open network of participants completing structured “activities, assignments, and/or projects that facilitate engaged practice leading to the development of skills and creation of learning artifacts” (Anders, 2015, p. 48). Network-based Hybrids are quite similar to cMOOCs but integrate “more scaffolding for technology and provide more “structured approaches to learning activity and social engagement” (Anders, 2015, p. 51). The results of Anders (2015) case studies indicate that hMOOCs can support a wider range of diverse learners to develop “capacities for networked and emergent learning styles” (p. 40-41) and identified content-based hybrids implemented in blended or wrapped courses as the most feasible hMOOC variant. Others have come to this same conclusion, as evidenced in the following chart by Caulfield (2013) that illustrates how xMOOCs that introduce core skills and concepts could be embedded in a larger framework of both face-to-face meetings and a larger, more encompassing cMOOC-like community:

Figure 6: "A Hybrid MOOC Design" (Caulfield, 2013)

Although the xMOOC-hMOOC-cMOOC continuum may be useful to understand MOOC design practices, pedagogies and learning theories, it is by no means the only classification system that has been used to categorize the variety of the thousands of MOOCs available worldwide. Clark (2013) has identified 8 sub-categories in his taxonomy:

Figure 7: "Clark taxonomy of Massive Open Online Courses" (Mahajan, Gupta, & Singh, 2019, p. 490)

Pilli & Admiraal (2016) include even more categories in their taxonomy; types include gMOOCs (Game-Based MOOCS) that are centered on immersive learning and play, pMOOCs (Project-Based MOOCs) that focus students on innovation and problem-solving, POOCs (Personalized Open Online Courses) that are customizable and adjust their content based on user needs, and Flex-MOOCs that allow students to choose content and modules based on their own objectives and preferences. An example of a MOOC instructors have classified using one of these sub-categories is the gMOOC Rhetoric and Composition: The Persuasive Power of Video Games as Paratexts (http://bit.ly/rgmoocourse).

As MOOCs continue to develop, more variants and sub-categories are likely to emerge. A more formalized taxonomy could be useful as a basis for the constructions of templates that could be adopted across multiple institutions to pursue specific learning objectives. It may also be more constructive to classify MOOC learning objects that could be incorporated into any MOOC rather than focusing on isolating MOOCs into particular genres and sub-genres. Haber (2014) seems to support this notion: “Regarding overlap between various flavors of MOOC, keep in mind the experimental nature of the entire massive open course undertaking, a culture of research, assimilation, and trial-and-error…many creators of xMOOCs see classes like Connectivism and Connective Knowledge just one more set of precedents to draw from as they put together and continued to tinker with their own massive online courses” (p. 41-42). Other classifications that could be investigated in the future could center on intended learners rather than on general design, pedagogies and learning theories. Perhaps there are specific design principles and learning objects that work better for college-age learners, older learners or nontraditional learners. There may be an emerging field that will be devoted to designing MOOC content, activities and interventions for learners whose native language is not the language of the MOOC they are taking.

As education systems endure rapid changes, it will be interesting to see the variety of MOOCs that will emerge to meet the needs of future learning. MOOCs will most likely be a defining part of future education as, according to Haber (2014), “MOOCs have already demonstrated an enormous global appetite for high-quality, college-level courses and have succeeded in triggering a transformation within institutions of higher learning where schools are now eagerly sharing assets that once might have been kept locked inside ivied bunkers” (p. 167). Although many modern MOOCs may currently fall somewhere on the continuum between xMOOCs and cMOOCs, new designs and pedagogies will continue to develop as technologies change and ideas are exchanged across institutions and societies. Although the types of MOOCs and the people and organizations who run them may not be the same in a few years’ time, it is crucial to cultivate an understanding of the past to create better designs for the future.