Massive open online courses or MOOCs were predicted to achieve world domination and completely transformation of higher education. Today, these predictions are seen to have been overblown. But with several years of experience now behind them, MOOC providers and users are adjusting both their perceptions about online learning and the courses themselves. Mainly based on empirical research articles and reports and interviews with K-MOOC providers, this paper examines impacts of MOOCs on higher education and analyze K-MOOC as an illustrative case. For this, it asks such questions as: 1) have MOOCs expanded higher education and provided access for all, especially for the socially marginalized groups? 2) have MOOCs improved the quality of campus-based higher education? 3) have MOOCs reduced the costs to the providers and users? It will conclude with discussion of the emerging issues and future directions.

1. Impacts of MOOCs
on Higher Education:
Access, Quality, and Cost
Insung JUNG
International Christian University, Japan
Ilju RHA
Seoul National University, Korea
International Conference for Media in Education (ICoME) 2017
University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA
August 2 – 4, 2017
Roundtable Session on Aug. 2

2. 2012, the Year of the MOOC
The New York Times

3. By the Numbers: MOOCs in 2016
Reference: https://www.class-central.com/report/mooc-stats-2016/
• 700+ Universities
• 6850 courses
• 58 Million Students

4. • Coursera https://www.coursera.org/
– 2588 courses; 23 M
• edX https://www.edx.org/
– 1603 courses; 10 M
• XuetangX http://www.xuetangx.com/
– 400+ courses; 6 M
• FutureLearn https://www.futurelearn.com/
– 596 courses; 5.3 M
• # K-MOOC http://www.kmooc.kr/ (2015 - )
– 283 courses; 2 M
MOOC Providers

5. MOOC Providers’
Promises
Access
“Enrich education”
“Transform higher education”Quality
Cost

6. Methodology
Jung, I.S. (2016). MOOCs: What have we learned so far?
Journal of Cyber Education, 10(2), 1-11.
- 33 research articles (2012 – 2016)
MOOC providers’ reports
and other publications
Personal interviews

7. The MOOC Impact
• Access
• Quality
• Cost
At Global and Local (K-MOOC) Levels

8. Global Level

9. Access
Have MOOCs expanded
higher education?
Yes, but NOT reaching out to:
less educated; the disadvantaged;
people in the developing countries

10. • Mainly over 30, highly educated, males and
from the developed countries
• Less than 15%, from BRICS countries. (Brazil,
Russia, India, China & South Africa)
• Students from well-known MOOCs hold a
Bachelor’s degree or above.
- Coursera: 79.4%
- HarvardX: 71%
- FutureLearn: 73%
Access

11. • No relevant increase in gender equity
through the adoption of MOOCs.
Coursera
57%: Male / Developed countries
67.9%: Male/ BRICS
HarvardX
70 %: Male
Access

12. Quality
Have MOOCs improved
the quality of higher education?
Little evidence found,
but brought some changes

13. Support conventional higher
education through:
Quality
• Course development teams.
• Team teaching.
• Use of visiting lecturers &
experts.
• Educators’ competencies
development.

14. Cost
Have MOOCs helped reduce
college tuition costs?
Have MOOCs brought
high returns on investment?
Little evidence…
But, more diversified
sustainability models emerged

15. Major MOOC providers
– Collaborating with conventional
universities
– Also creating their own credentials:
Udacity’s Nanodegrees, Coursera’s Specializations
in business, computer science and data science,
and edX’s Xseries
(Ruth, 2014; Shar, 2015)
Cost

16. Cost
For-profit providers: Credentials as the
main source of revenue
Non-for-profit providers: Offering
credits through MOOCs for university
students (edX and ASU, Global Freshman
Academy)
(Ruth, 2014; Shar, 2015).

17. Now adding MOOCs for high school
students & test takers.
• “Advanced Placement Exams” &
“CLEP” (By edX)
• “Going to University MOOCs”
(By FutureLearn)
Cost

18. K-MOOC

19. Founded in 2015 as an initiative of the
National Institute for Lifelong Education (NILE)
Vision
1) To expand lifelong learning opportunities for
higher education
2) To contribute to national human resources
development
## ACCESS is the main goal.
2015 – 27 courses from 10 universities
2017 – 283 courses from 24 universities (will be 320 courses)
Overview

20. • Reached to some marginalized groups
• Still a long way to go:
- Age: 20s (37.0 %) and 30s (16.4 %)
- Education: Around 37 %: bachelor’s degree
(much less than those enrolled in global
MOOCs); 13 % master’s degree, and 4 %
doctoral degree. Around 33 %: Middle or
high school diploma.
- Gender: 55.5 % are males
- Region: Mostly Seoul and Metropolitan cities
Access

21. Positive changes in faculty
- Serious discussion on teaching methods
- Closer attention to the use of technologies
- More systematic and systemic approaches to
course design
Challenges observed
- Digital divide between technology-rich and
technology-poor among faculty & students
- Lack of trust in the quality of online learning
in general.
Quality

22. Cost reduction was not the goal.
Government Initial Funding:
- 40,000 – 45,000 USD per MOOC
- 10,000 USD implementation
Challenges
- No sustainable business models
- Begin to discuss nano-degrees and
collaborating closely with conventional
universities
Cost

23. Conclusion

24. MOOC Impacts?
MOOCs have not democratized
higher education.
But they have
opened up opportunities
for free higher education study.

25. MOOC Impacts?
Stimulate discussion on pedagogy
(how to teach) among faculty.
Bring some quality changes
in teaching

26. MOOC Impacts?
MOOCs, maybe free for users for
now; but not free for providers.
Yet to develop
sustainable models

27. 1. Explore various means of providing widened
learning opportunities and useful qualifications to
marginalized groups of people with no or low cost
2. Seize capability of MOOCs in providing flexible
learning paths to students with diverse needs and
backgrounds.
3. Develop faculty & students’ MOOC competencies.
Our suggestions