Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 18(1) The disruptive potential of the Massive Open Online Course: A literature review Jean Jacoby, Massey University, New Zealand Abstract The Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) is a rapidly evolving phenomenon which has stimulated discussion in universities around the world. A central theme of these discussions, and much of the published literature on the phenomenon, is the potential of the MOOC to disrupt the way universities do business. The aim of this narrative literature review is to clarify disruptive innovation theory, and to examine the influence of MOOCs on higher education. Evidence from this review suggests that although MOOCs might have had a significant effect on a range of issues (including definitions of completion pedagogical approaches, delivery methods, certification, and business models), more systematic research is needed to evaluate the level, extent, and permanence of any disruption that may occur. Keywords: MOOCs; massive open online courses; disruptive innovation theory; higher education trends and forecasts; online education Introduction Massive open online courses (MOOCs) first appeared on the horizon of higher education in 2008, with the launch of Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CCK08) facilitated by George Siemens and Stephen Downes (Downes, 2008). However, a number of open online courses were available before this date (Rodriguez, 2012). The term ‘MOOC’ is generally attributed to David Cormier, and was used by both Siemens and Cormier to describe an online course with large enrolments that was open not only in terms of enrolment, but also in terms of content, design, points of access, ways of application, and definitions of success (Weller, Siemens, & Cormier, 2012). In the years following CCK08, a number of MOOCS, which became known as cMOOCs, were based on this connectivist philosophy. They included CCK09, Personal Learning Environments, Networks and Knowledge (PLENK2010) and eduMOOC in 2011 (Rodriguez, 2012). A watershed occurred in 2011 with the launch of CS221: Introduction to Artificial Intelligence, facilitated by Sebastian Thrun. This online course, which was a simultaneously run online version of Thrun’s conventional Stanford face-to-face class, attracted online enrolments of over 160,000 students. Of these online students, 20,000 completed the course. In addition, of the 200 students enrolled in the conventional class, only 30 were attending lectures by the end of the course, with the rest opting to use the online resources instead (Thrun, 2012). This MOOC 73 Jacoby, J. format, based on a more traditional didactic or transmission model of teaching, later became known as the xMOOC, a term that refers to the nature of the content, which ‘extends’ a traditional curriculum (Downes, 2013). The large numbers of enrolments on CS221 and two subsequent Stanford MOOCs (Machine learning and Introduction to databases), the effect of the online offering on Thrun’s classroom students, and the feedback from the online students, attracted the attention of academics, educators, and university business and policy managers (Rodriguez, 2012). Thrun himself was so convinced of the potential of MOOCs that he resigned his Stanford tenure to form the startup MOOC provider, UDACITY (Thrun, 2012). Interest in MOOCs escalated so quickly that the New York Times declared 2012 ‘The Year of the MOOC’ (Boyd & Kasraie, 2013). Both UDACITY and a second startup, Coursera (also formed by ex-Stanford professors), were started with venture capital. In the same year, EdX, a self-funded non-profit provider, was formed by Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Since then, a number of universities around the world have entered into partnerships with these or other, newer consortia (The attack of the MOOCs, 2013). The MOOC phenomenon has been a topic of frequent debate, not only in academia, but also in the mainstream press and in social media, and a number of issues are being discussed. Key aspects include the impact of MOOCS on university teaching practice, quality assurance, accreditation, and business models; MOOC types and taxonomies; the concept of openness; definitions of success and completion; and the role and development of learning analytics. Common to all of these issues is a discussion of the potential of the MOOC to disrupt the way higher education is organised and delivered. This narrative literature review is presented in four parts. Firstly, a brief discussion outlines the challenges posed by conducting a literature review in a rapidly evolving research area that is still in its infancy. Secondly, the nature of disruptive innovation theory and the differing perspectives and approaches to disruptive innovation is briefly discussed. Thirdly, the key issues and theories surrounding MOOCS are reviewed. The debates within each of these issues will be outlined and their contribution to the disruption potential of the MOOC is explored. Finally, the influence of MOOCs in the New Zealand context will be evaluated. The challenge of reviewing the MOOC literature The short period since the first emergence of the phenomenon in 2008, and (more particularly) since the advent of the first truly ‘massive’ xMOOCs in 2011, means there is a relatively small body of substantive literature on cMOOCs, and even less on xMOOCs. In addition, whilst there is a recognised, authoritative core group of authors (in particular, Downes, Cormier, Siemens, Weller, & Kop) researching and writing in the area of cMOOCs, it is difficult to identify any authors of similar authority researching the xMOOC. Research into the MOOC phenomenon is predominantly qualitative: case-study and narrative research seems to predominate. In addition, the open nature, high enrolments, and low participation and completion rates of MOOCs make it difficult to identify and track participants to gather reliable long-term data. Consequently, there is little research (beyond individual reflection) available on participants’ experience. As more research from a wider range of contexts and using a wider range of methodologies becomes available, better triangulation of data will create a more reliable picture of the emergent phenomenon. In early October 2013 a Google Scholar search for peer-reviewed articles with the term ‘MOOC’ or the phrase ‘massive open online course’ in the title returned approximately 200 results (citations and non-English language results were excluded). The same search of peer-reviewed 74 Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 18(1) academic journals in the Discover database yielded 31 results. By contrast, a similar search on Google itself, which included sources that were neither conventionally academic nor peer- reviewed, returned over 20 000 results. The small quantity of systematic scholarly writing and the contrastingly enormous amount of non-academic, frequently promotional, writing on the topic poses significant challenges to the researcher (Daniel, 2012), and informed the choice of a narrative approach to this literature review. In addition to the dearth of the academic research, there is also considerable variation in the quality of the research, as people use niche publications to publish MOOC-related research. This variety in quality of research was evident in the literature gathered for this review. One author fails to distinguish between the MOOC and the MOOC provider, and describes the approach of the xMOOC as ‘connectivist’ (Flynn, 2013). Others produce ‘puff’ pieces with little academic underpinning—such as Skiba (2012), who pronounces definitively that MOOCS “are definitely a disruptive innovation” without providing any evidence or references to support the assertion (p. 417). The increased blurring of the lines between traditional academic and non-academic sources of information poses a challenge to many academics, and some may question the quality of research distributed in non-traditional ways (Guy, 2012; Weller, 2011). Several key authors in the field (including Downes, Cormier, & Siemens) embrace openness of information as a key principle for the dissemination of their research and use blogs and social media such Twitter and YouTube to share their theory and research. As a result, some of the sources cited in this literature review are not conventional scholarly sources. However, care has been taken to ensure that any such sources used in this review are primary sources, produced by highly regarded and credible experts in their field, who are speaking to, and frequently commented on by, audiences of their peers. Consequently, it is argued that these sources are suitable for inclusion in an academic literature review. Irrespective of the origin of articles, the term ‘disruptive innovation’ is frequently associated with MOOCS (Cooper, 2013; DiSalvio, 2012; Kolowich, 2013; Skiba, 2012). Understanding the nature of disruptive innovation theory is central to evaluating the potential of the MOOC to disrupt higher education. The nature of disruption theory Disruptive innovation theory was first proposed by Christensen in 1997, and then modified by him in a series of subsequent publications between 2003 and 2004 (Schmidt & Druehl, 2008). The theory originates in business research, and is used to explain the process whereby technological innovation allows sectors of business or industry to transform from being complicated, exclusive, and expensive to being simple, accessible, and affordable (Christensen, Horn, Caldera, & Soares, 2011). In the process, a product or model initially rejected by the main customer base is later embraced by them (Schmidt & Druehl, 2008). According to Christensen, there are two key enablers required for disruption to occur. Firstly, there must be a technology enabler that makes the innovation available to people previously not served by the industry. Secondly, the business model must change. To be truly disruptive, a new model must be developed. Christensen argues that disruption does not occur if an existing model co-opts an innovation to ensure its own continuation (Christensen et al., 2011). Considerable debate exists within disruption theory. Some authors distinguish between disruptive innovations, which are innovations that enter the market at the low end and diffuse upwards (such as Toyota disrupting the United States auto-manufacturing industry in the 1960s when it entered the market with small, cheap cars), and sustaining innovations (such as iPads) which, 75 Jacoby, J. although equally disruptive, enter the market at the high end and diffuse downwards (Schmidt & Druehl, 2008). Others distinguish between disruptive business model innovations and disruptive product or technology innovations (Markides, 2006). Whilst a detailed discussion of these debates might appear to be beyond the scope of this literature review, one of the main areas of discussion about MOOCs focuses on the potential of the MOOC to disrupt the teaching approaches (Conole, 2013; Cooper, 2013; DiSalvio, 2012; Kolowich, 2013) and business models (Marshall, 2013; Rodriguez, 2012; Yuan & Powell, 2013) of higher education institutions. Understanding the process and implications of disruption will be essential for university administrators and policy makers. Key issues This section explores three key issues of the MOOC debate. The literature relating to MOOC taxonomies and theoretical underpinnings will be discussed. Different interpretations of ‘openness’ will be explored as part of this discussion. The literature exploring the impact of MOOCS on teaching and learning, business models and accreditation will be reviewed, and the potential of these for disruption evaluated. MOOC taxonomies and theoretical foundations MOOCs are usually categorised in two main groups: cMOOCs (connectivist MOOCs), which are based on principles of connectivism, openness, and participatory teaching; and xMOOCs (extended MOOCs), which tend to focus on pre-set course content with a more behaviourist approach to teaching (Conole, 2013; Downes, 2013). Other taxonomies which have been proposed, but are not yet widely adopted, will be outlined later in this section. The first cMOOC is generally regarded to be CCK08, which was launched in September 2008 and was designed according to connectivist principles. These principles state that learning is an immersive process that takes place in the creation, formation, and removal of connections (Downes, 2012) between individuals and groups, rather than within individuals alone. Early cMOOCs used the internet and online technologies to increase access to information and reduce content whilst increasing the role of learning through connection (Weller, Siemens, & Cormier, 2012). A number of online courses existed before CCK08. However, Downes and Weller both argue that the transformation from online course to MOOC took place when they used the affordances of the web to create an effective distributed system based on the principles of autonomy, diversity, openness, and interactivity (Downes, 2012; Weller, Siemens, & Cormier, 2012). Downes proposes two things that separate the cMOOC from earlier online courses. Firstly, distributed technology means that there is not a central cMOOC site—the course takes place across a network of differently connected sites and services. Secondly, distributed knowledge means that participants create and learn in a system in which knowledge flows via a series of connected networks both to and from the individual, rather than being taught one fact after another (Downes, 2012). Openness Openness is a critical factor in the cMOOC. Although the subject of openness is a research topic in itself, it is worth noting briefly as it is a key point of difference between the cMOOC and the xMOOC. Proponents of the cMOOC discuss openness in broad categories, including transparency of design, content, and curriculum; open delivery; and ways of access and application (Weller, Siemens, & Cormier, 2012). These authors also present a strong case for open definitions of success and completion, arguing that success can simply be defined as a point 76 Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 18(1) at which a participant has gained what they wanted from the course, and completion can be measured by assessments designed by the participants themselves, rather than by the completion of a specific number of tasks or enrolment for a specific period of time (Weller, Siemens, & Cormier, 2012). This argument for open assessment has the potential to be particularly disruptive for universities, where assessment is traditionally strictly regulated and monitored, and programme funding can depend on pass rates. Downes (2012) explores three categories of openness: content, instruction, and assessment. Open content refers to information that is freely shared through peer-to-peer networks, rather than through conventional publication and copyright. Information is not regarded as a commodity. Open instruction refers not only to completely open access to the course, but also to learning activities designed by the learners themselves. Open assessment refers to task suggestions and rubrics that are published without restrictions on use or copyright, so they are available for any external agency that wishes to use them to credential students seeking credit. No single method of assessment is defined by the course itself (Downes, 2012). The democratisation of education that takes place in the cMOOC has the potential to be enormously disruptive to higher education. Changing the models of access and de- commercialising knowledge means that the cMOOC meets Christensen et al.’s (2011) disruption criteria by transforming the expensive and inaccessible higher education sector into one that is open, accessible, and affordable. The fact that these qualities align with those of the Open Education Resources (OER) movement that is gaining momentum at some universities such as the University of Otago, adds strength to the disruptive potential of the cMOOC. The rush by the global tertiary sector to deliver MOOCs, and the mass of industry opinion pieces and grey literature available on the subject, suggests that the principles of open content, instruction, and assessment have caused the higher education sector to re-evaluate both processes and products in ways that had not previously been considered. There is, however, one key area in which the cMOOC could be argued to fail to meet the criteria of a disruptive innovation: simplicity. Christensen et al. (2011) argue that simplicity is a critical element of a disruptive innovation. One of the criticisms levelled at the cMOOC is the complexity of the unstructured networks that develop, and the challenges that this poses, especially for novice learners. These learners may find the range of topics, platforms, conversations, and assessment options distracting, and may require more careful scaffolding (Kop, Fournier, & Sui Fai Mak, 2011). It should be noted that Rodriguez identifies two forms of cMOOC (Rodriguez, 2012). He describes these as Format A courses (such as CCK08), which are conducted on a range of sites and networks as determined by the participants, and Format B courses (such as eduMOOC). Format B is a more centralised version of the cMOOC as the course is conducted from a single web or wiki page. Although these Format B cMOOCs still generate a large network, it could be argued that the simpler format makes these cMOOCs more likely to meet Christensen et al.’s (2011) criteria of a disruptive innovation. Unlike the cMOOC, the xMOOC evolved almost by accident when Sebastian Thrun’s online version of a Stanford course, which had an expected enrolment of 500, attracted over 160,000 participants. Possibly because of its slightly unplanned origins and the fact that Thrun’s area of speciality is artificial intelligence, the xMOOC is significantly more techno-centric in its design, structure and philosophy. Thrun (2012) acknowledges that the unexpected interest in the course meant that he had to find quick, techno-centric solutions to meet the demand. The solution involved videos of experts explaining a concept, followed by a quiz to test the participant’s understanding. Thrun describes this as flipping the way they taught in order to “empower students to learn new skills” (Thrun, 2012). This reviewer, however, would argue that the flipped classroom concept involves more than an online version of the transmission model. 77 Jacoby, J. The xMOOC model is behaviourist and cognitivist in approach (Conole, 2013; Kop, 2011). Participants receive knowledge via prepared modules (video tutorials, quizzes, etc.) developed by experts in the field. Although large peer-to-peer teaching groups develop spontaneously on many xMOOCs, the course design itself is individualist (Conole, 2013). Thrun’s basic model has served as the template for a number of subsequent MOOCs run by UDACITY, as well as other organisations such as Coursera and EdX. Critics of the model argue that it simply replicates traditional didactic university teaching; the only difference being the automation of teaching and testing. Siemens argues that the xMOOC “duplicates the structural constraints of classroom” and, in so doing, produces learners designed for the current education structures and exclusive models of expertise (Weller, Siemens, & Cormier, 2012). This would suggest that, rather than disrupting the existing model of higher education, the MOOC has been co-opted to ensure its continuance. Unlike the cMOOC’s broad definition of openness, many of the providers of xMOOCs have much more restrictive terms. Rodriguez (2013) identifies some key differences in the xMOOC terms of use: custom copyright licences that prevent sharing, remixing, or reuse; and the explicit prevention of MOOC-wrapping (the institutional reuse of a MOOC as part of that institution’s for-credit programme) (Coursera, 2013; EdX, 2013). In addition, Rodriguez notes that the xMOOC design model means that neither instruction nor assessment is open. Instruction is by “world class professors” (Coursera, 2013) and assessment is only through stipulated tasks credited (at a cost to the participant) by the providing institution (Coursera, 2013; Rodriguez, 2013). Although the two categories discussed above still predominate in the literature, proposals for more detailed categorisation have started to emerge in the literature as the MOOC phenomenon evolves. Holotescu, Grosseck, and Cretu (2013) propose a third MOOC type, the pMOOC, which is project- or task-based. The authors cite the Online Learning Design Studio (OLDS) MOOC which was run in 2013 as an example of this MOOC type. However, although this MOOC did have an identified outcome (the project) and thus was not completely open in the ways described by Siemens and Downes above, the approach to teaching and learning remained strongly connectivist (Cross, 2013). Clarke (2013) goes even further, proposing eight types of MOOCs based on pedagogical approach and learning functionality. Although this taxonomy is proposed in a blog post, it is subsequently cited in two highly credible publications (Conole, 2013; Mackness, Waite, Roberts, & Lovegrove, 2013). However, the original blog post provides no supporting literature or research, and a search of the author’s credentials suggests commercial as well as academic interests. Hence, whilst the taxonomy is worth noting, more evidence is needed before Clarke’s proposal can be fully evaluated. In the most recent addition to the taxonomy discussion, Conole (2013) argues that, instead of attempting to assign distinct categories, MOOCs should be measured against twelve dimensions: the degree of openness, the scale of participation (massification), the amount of use of multimedia, the amount of communication, the extent to which collaboration is included, the type of learner pathway (from learner centred to teacher-centred and highly structured), the level of quality assurance, the extent to which reflection is encouraged, the level of assessment, how informal or formal it is, autonomy, and diversity.” (Conole, 2013, p. 11) Conole’s proposed dimensions have yet to be evaluated in the literature. However, they are particularly useful when considering the increasing number of MOOCs that incorporate aspects of both cMOOC and xMOOC, described as hybrid MOOCs by Waite, Mackness, and Roberts (2013). 78 Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 18(1) The impact of MOOCs on teaching and learning A discussion of teaching and learning in any MOOC should recognise that neat definitions may be undermined by what happens on the course itself. Stewart (2013) notes that no matter what the design ethos of the MOOC, the online interaction of large numbers of people has what she calls a “Trojan horse effect” (Stewart, 2013, p. 229) on the development of digital literacies. Whether this happens by design in a cMOOC, or by accident in the large-scale forum discussions that characterise many xMOOCs is, she argues, less important than the fact that it does happen. This argument suggests that, no matter whether the MOOC is behaviourist/cognitivist in approach, the increasing numbers of digitally literate participants will nevertheless create a distributed, participatory, and inclusive (connectivist) environment. Stewart goes further, arguing that despite any course design intention, the massive nature of the MOOC means that it is simply impossible for the focus to remain on the course facilitator. This decentralisation of the teacher’s role as expert may lead to participants recognising their own expertise and shifting toward a more networked approach to learning (Stewart, 2013). If this happens, the potential of the MOOC to disrupt higher education is much greater. Cormier expresses concerns about the effect of features such as automated exercise generation or assessment developing in response to massification. He describes these features as ‘robograde’ (Weller, Siemens, & Cormier, 2012). However, others are attracted to the potential such technologies offer for subjects such as computer modelling and mathematics (Sadigh, Seshia, & Gupta, 2012), where repetition is central to improving skills. Sadigh et al. (2012) also acknowledge the potential of technological solutions to provide customised feedback for students. Others argue that what is being described as customised feedback is nothing of the sort, because automated or computer-generated feedback is not individualised and offers no encouragement or support (Bates, 2012; Pisutova, 2012). The potential of the MOOC to disrupt teaching in higher education will depend, to some extent, on which side of this particular discussion proves to be more important. The open nature of MOOCs could offer some unique opportunities for pedagogical change. Sharples et al. (2012) note the influence of a lack of course fees on pedagogy, arguing that this changes the contract between learner and provider, and creates space for experimentation and innovation. In addition, the online ‘cloud’-based nature of MOOCs means that institutions can experiment with strategies without disrupting their existing courses (Marshall, 2013). Using open education resources in MOOCs could also create a wider pool of education resources, and the exposure to teachers from different institutions can provide students with access to better teaching (Daniel, 2012). There seems to be little doubt that the cMOOC model has a transformative effect on both learning and teaching, because participants adapt to and interact within a complex network (Waite, et al., 2013; Weller, 2011). However, some argue that despite their providers’ marketing, xMOOCs do not represent innovation at all, but instead make use of an outdated transmission model of teaching and automated, computer-marked assessment (Bates, 2012). One of the major marketing approaches used by the xMOOC providers is the potential of the MOOC to transform learning by providing students in developing countries with access to higher education (Koller, 2012). However, whilst access to the MOOC and the information it contains might be open, students who seek certification for completion have to pay for it. In addition, very few MOOCs are currently recognised for credit by the offering institutions (Coursera, 2013; EdX, 2013; Pisutova, 2012). Some critics of the MOOC also cite the very low participation and completion rates as evidence that they are not fulfilling their potential to improve access to disadvantaged students (Rodriguez, 2012; Waite, Mackness, & Roberts, 2013). In addition to these concerns, Siemens also raises the issue that the xMOOC transmission model of teaching represents a form of knowledge colonisation. He notes that universities in many developing 79 Jacoby, J. countries are joining MOOC consortia and operating within imposed structures, missing the opportunity to create their own innovation structures (Weller, Siemens, & Cormier, 2012). At the time of writing this review, there is a scarcity of published scholarly literature documenting the experiences of students who participate in MOOCs. However, Zutshi, O’Hare, and Rodafinos’s (2013) analysis of blog postings by MOOC participants shows that students have mixed responses to their MOOC experience, and they suggest that managing the workload is one of the biggest challenges for students. This finding is supported by Mazoue (2013), who suggests that the MOOC format favours the more advanced student over the novice. The impact of MOOCs on university business models The widespread coverage of MOOCs and the enthusiasm with which universities around the world are entering into agreements with MOOCs belies the important fact that there appears to be little clarity about how the MOOC will earn money (Dellarocas & Van Alstyne, 2013) and no consistency in the business approach. (EdX is a non-profit organisation funded by contributions from the member institutions; Coursera and UDACITY are both for-profit organisations founded with venture capital.) Although there is not yet a confirmed business model, proposals for earning income include advertising, selling student information to employers, payment for assessment or certification, payment for access to discussion forums, and course fees (Yuan & Powell, 2013). Marshall (2013) uses Porter’s Five Forces model to evaluate the potential of the MOOC to change the way universities conduct business. The model looks at the threat of new market entrants, substitute products or services, rivalry among competitors, and the bargaining powers of suppliers and buyers to an established market. Viewed against this model, it is clear that the MOOC has a high potential to influence the business of higher education. Coursera and UDACITY are relatively new entrants to the higher education market and, judging by their enrolments, they offer an attractive substitute product that is easier to access than the existing higher education model. However, despite the significant rivalry within the competitive higher education market, the speed with which many institutions have joined together to establish MOOC consortia indicates a degree of collaboration (Marshall, 2013) which may undermine the potential of the MOOC to change the university business model. There may be little competitive edge to be gained when everyone is doing the same thing. ‘Buyers’ (in the university context these are students) and ‘suppliers’ have significant bargaining power in the modern business model of the university. The power of the supplier might not be fully recognised by many institutions, but vendors such as Blackboard, Google, and Pearson are essential to the operation of many universities (Marshall, 2013). Although their role in MOOCs is still developing, their interest is clear. Pearson has already partnered with both EdX and UDACITY to support the assessment processes of MOOCs (Guthrie, Burritt, & Evans, 2013). Google collaborated with EdX to produce the experimental platform, Course Builder, in 2012, and entered into a partnership with UDACITY to form The Open Education Alliance, with the aim of increasing technology education (Open Education Alliance, 2013). On September 10, 2013, Google also announced the launch of MOOC.org (Google, 2013). The ramifications of this development remain to be seen, but it is unlikely that the results of for-profit companies of this scale entering the higher education market will go unnoticed. Their increasingly active involvement in the online learning environment significantly increases the risk of knowledge colonisation (Weller, Siemens, & Cormier, 2012) referred to earlier, and the potential for disruption is significant. 80 Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 18(1) The impact of MOOCs in the New Zealand context New Zealand tertiary providers have been active in the open online course environment for a number of years. Although Data mining with Weka is recognised as the first New Zealand MOOC (University of Waikato, 2013), Otago Polytechnic has been involved with open online courses that follow the cMOOC format, most notably Facilitating Online Communities (FOC), since 2008 (Blackall, 2008). The first formal New Zealand MOOC partnership was Massey University’s collaboration with Australian provider Open2Study, which was announced in July 2013 (Massey University, 2013). This was followed in October by the announcement of Auckland University’s collaboration with FutureLearn (University of Auckland, 2013). The rationales for involvement in MOOCs vary from the desire to explore the opportunities for innovation and develop collaborative relationships (Massey University, 2013) to the apparently more commercial recognition of the opportunity to increase the reach of the university (University of Auckland, 2013). Clearly, the very recent entry and small number of courses offered means that it is still too early to draw conclusions about the long-term influence of MOOCs on New Zealand institutions. Conclusion The MOOC phenomenon is still in its early stages. It is still evolving, and the body of literature is growing rapidly, making it difficult to definitively evaluate the disruptive potential of the massive open online course. If one accepts Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation, it seems that the only way to respond to a disruption is to accept and adapt to a new way of doing things (Christensen et al., 2011). Whilst Christensen argues convincingly of the disruptive potential of online learning, a purist interpretation of his theory would suggest that the xMOOC, at least, is not a disruptive phenomenon at all. Christensen et al. (2011) argue that a truly disruptive innovation is not assimilated by the existing players in the market. However, the xMOOC has been adopted in various forms by a number of universities around the world, including several in New Zealand. Whilst the long-term consequences and success of the adoption needs to be evaluated, the fact that universities are attempting to assimilate the model suggests that the phenomenon is not truly disruptive. Markides (2006), however, would challenge this argument, citing examples of apparently disruptive innovations (such as internet banking) which have had a significant effect on an industry without completely replacing it. He goes even further—proposing that, when faced with a potentially disruptive innovation, the incumbent should not attempt to replicate or fight the innovation. Instead, existing industries should focus on what they are good at and guide the innovation into the wider market. Whichever argument proves correct, it is clear that the impact on higher education of the MOOC, in all its incarnations, will be significant. The phenomenon has forced teachers, administrators, and policy makers to evaluate a range of issues, from definitions of completion and success to pedagogical approaches, delivery methods, and certification. More systematic research over the next few years will create a clearer picture of the level, extent, and permanence of any disruption that may occur. 81 Jacoby, J. References The attack of the MOOCs. (2013, June 20). Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/business/21582001-army-new-online-courses-scaring-wits- out-traditional-universities-can-they Bates, T. (2012, August 5). What’s right and what’s wrong about Coursera-style MOOCs? [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/05/whats-right-and-whats- wrong-about-coursera-style-moocs/ Blackall, L. (2008, December 19). Looking back on FOC08. [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://learnonline.wordpress.com/tag/facilitating-online/ Boyd, G., & Kasraie, N. (2013). Can MOOC fires bring light to shadow education? International Journal of Learning and Development, 3(4), 87–95. Christensen, C., Horn, M., Caldera, L., & Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting college: How disruptive innovation can deliver quality and affordability to postsecondary education. Centre for American Progress. Retrieved from http://newfaculty.mst.edu/media/campussupport/newfaculty/documents/2012/DisruptingColle ge.pdf Clarke, D. (2013). MOOCs: Taxonomy of 8 types of MOOC. Donald Clark Plan B. Retrieved from http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk/2013_04_01_archive.html Conole, G. (2013). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: Strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. [Preprint]. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/19388/ Cooper, S. I. (2013). MOOCs: Disrupting the university or business as usual? Arena Journal, 39/40(11), 182–202. Coursera. (2013). Terms of use. Retrieved from https://www.coursera.org/about/terms Cross, S. (2013). Evaluation of the OLDS MOOC curriculum design course: Participant perspectives, expectations and experiences. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University. Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3. Retrieved from http://www- jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/viewArticle/2012-18/html Dellarocas, C., & Van Alstyne, M. (2013). Economic and business dimensions: Money models for MOOCs, Communications of the ACM, 56(8), 25–28. DiSalvio, P. (2012). Pardon the disruption... Innovation changes how we think about higher education. New England Journal of Higher Education, 1. Retrieved from http://www.nebhe.org/thejournal/disruptive-innovation-changing-how-we-think-about-higher- education/ Downes, S. (2008). Places to go: Connectivism and connective knowledge. Innovate Online 5(1). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/2869475/Places_to_go_Connectivism_and_connective_knowledge Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays on meaning and learning networks. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/files/Connective_Knowledge- 19May2012.pdf 82 http://www.economist.com/news/business/21582001-army-new-online-courses-scaring-wits-out-traditional-universities-can-they http://www.economist.com/news/business/21582001-army-new-online-courses-scaring-wits-out-traditional-universities-can-they http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/05/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-about-coursera-style-moocs/ http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/05/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-about-coursera-style-moocs/ http://learnonline.wordpress.com/tag/facilitating-online/ http://newfaculty.mst.edu/media/campussupport/newfaculty/documents/2012/DisruptingCollege.pdf http://newfaculty.mst.edu/media/campussupport/newfaculty/documents/2012/DisruptingCollege.pdf http://eprints.rclis.org/19388/ https://www.coursera.org/about/terms http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/viewArticle/2012-18/html http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/viewArticle/2012-18/html http://www.nebhe.org/thejournal/disruptive-innovation-changing-how-we-think-about-higher-education/ http://www.nebhe.org/thejournal/disruptive-innovation-changing-how-we-think-about-higher-education/ http://www.downes.ca/files/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf http://www.downes.ca/files/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 18(1) Downes, S. (2013). What the ‘x’ in ‘xMOOC’ stands for. Retrieved from https://plus.google.com/109526159908242471749/posts/LEwaKxL2MaM EdX. (2013). EdX terms of service. Retrieved from https://www.edx.org/terms Flynn, J. (2013). MOOCS: Disruptive innovation and the future of higher education. Christian Education Journal. Retrieved from http://www.napce.org/documents/!pdfs/papers- 2013/flynn.pdf Google. (2013). Course Builder. Retrieved from https://code.google.com/p/course-builder/ Guthrie, J., Burritt, R., & Evans, E. (Eds.) (2013). The virtual university: Impact on Australian accounting and business education (Report No. 9). Retrieved from http://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/business/centres/cags/docs/Publications_Thought%20Leaders hip/0213-28%20CC_Virtual%20University%20Publication_WEB_FA2i.pdf Guy, R. (2012). The use of social media for academic practice: A review of literature. Kentucky Journal of Higher Education Policy and Practice 1(2), Retrieved from http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=kjhepp Holotescu, C., Grosseck, G., & Cretu, V. (2013, April 25–26). Technology: Microblogging as the MOOC’s control centre. 9th International Scientific Conference: eLearning and Software for Education, Bucharest. (pp. 312–319). Koller, D. (2012). What we’re learning from online education. [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/daphne_koller_what_we_re_learning_from_online_education.html Kolowich, S. (2013). The MOOC ‘disruption’ proves less than revolutionary after all. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(45). Retrieved from http://chronicle.texterity.com/chronicle/20130816a?pg=6#pg6 Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 12(3), Retrieved from http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc- cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?action=rtdoc&an=18150443&lang=en Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Sui Fai Mak, J. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. International Journal of Research in Open and Distance Learning 12(7), Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1041/2025 Mackness, J., Waite, M., Roberts, G., & Lovegrove, E. (2013). Learning in a small, task- oriented, connectivist MOOC: Pedagogical issues and implications for higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(4). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1548/2636?utm_source=ednak.com&utm_ medium=link&utm_campaign=edtech-trending Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 19–25. Marshall, S. (2013). Evaluating the strategic and leadership challenges of MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 216–227. 83 https://plus.google.com/109526159908242471749/posts/LEwaKxL2MaM http://www.napce.org/documents/!pdfs/papers-2013/flynn.pdf http://www.napce.org/documents/!pdfs/papers-2013/flynn.pdf https://code.google.com/p/course-builder/ http://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/business/centres/cags/docs/Publications_Thought%20Leadership/0213-28%20CC_Virtual%20University%20Publication_WEB_FA2i.pdf http://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/business/centres/cags/docs/Publications_Thought%20Leadership/0213-28%20CC_Virtual%20University%20Publication_WEB_FA2i.pdf http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=kjhepp http://www.ted.com/talks/daphne_koller_what_we_re_learning_from_online_education.html http://chronicle.texterity.com/chronicle/20130816a?pg=6%23pg6 http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?action=rtdoc&an=18150443&lang=en http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?action=rtdoc&an=18150443&lang=en http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1041/2025 http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1548/2636?utm_source=ednak.com&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=edtech-trending http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1548/2636?utm_source=ednak.com&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=edtech-trending Jacoby, J. Massey University. (2013). Massey first in NZ to join free online learning venture [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about- massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_uuid=21323ED0-D776-C340-6B5F-E037FA90D20E Mazoue, J. G. (2013). The MOOC model: Challenging traditional education. Educause Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/mooc-model-challenging- traditional-education Open Education Alliance. (2013). Creating the workforce of tomorrow. Retrieved from https://www.udacity.com/opened Pisutova, K. (2012, November). Open education. Emerging elearning technologies and applications (ICETA), 2012. IEEE 10th International Conference, 297–300. Rodriguez, O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning, Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2012/Rodriguez.htm Rodriguez, O. (2013). The concept of openness behind c and x-MOOCs. Open Praxis, 5(1), 67–73. Sadigh, D., Seshia, S., & Gupta, M. (2012). Automating exercise generation: A step towards meeting the MOOC challenge for embedded systems. Workshop on Embedded Systems Education (WESE): ACM. Tampere, Finland. Schmidt, G., & Druehl, C. (2008). When is a disruptive innovation disruptive? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(4), 347–369. Sharples, M., Mcandrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., Fitzgerald, E., Hirst, T., & Yishay, M. G. (2012). Innovating pedagogy, 2012. Milton Keynes: UK: Open University. Skiba, D. (2012). Disruption in higher education: Massively open online courses (MOOCs). Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(6), 416–417. Stewart, B. (2013). Massiveness + openness = new literacies of participation? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 228–238. Thrun, S. (2012). University 2.0 [Video file]. Munich: Digital Life Design Conference. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkneoNrfadk University of Auckland. (2013). University of Auckland to offer free online courses [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED1310/S00041/university-of- auckland-to-offer-free-online-courses.htm University of Waikato. (2013). University of Waikato launches MOOC on data mining. [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.waikato.ac.nz/news-events/media/2013/08university-of- waikato-launches-mooc-on-data-mining.shtml Waite, M., Mackness, J., & Roberts, G. (2013). Liminal participants and skilled orienteers: Learner participation in a MOOC for new lecturers. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9(2), 200-215. Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic. 84 http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_uuid=21323ED0-D776-C340-6B5F-E037FA90D20E http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_uuid=21323ED0-D776-C340-6B5F-E037FA90D20E http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/mooc-model-challenging-traditional-education http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/mooc-model-challenging-traditional-education https://www.udacity.com/opened http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2012/Rodriguez.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkneoNrfadk http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED1310/S00041/university-of-auckland-to-offer-free-online-courses.htm http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED1310/S00041/university-of-auckland-to-offer-free-online-courses.htm http://www.waikato.ac.nz/news-events/media/2013/08university-of-waikato-launches-mooc-on-data-mining.shtml http://www.waikato.ac.nz/news-events/media/2013/08university-of-waikato-launches-mooc-on-data-mining.shtml Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 18(1) Weller, M., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2012). MOOCS: An interview with Dave Cormier and George Siemens [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUyxGjHJz2S-b5DHDVPkMu- w&v=l1G4SUblnbo&feature=player_embedded Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.smarthighered.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MOOCs-and- Open-Education.pdf Zutshi, S., O’Hare, S., & Rodafinos, A. (2013). Experiences in MOOCs: The perspective of students. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 218–227. Biographical notes Jean Jacoby J.M.Jacoby@massey.ac.nz Jean is a teaching and online consultant at the Manawatu Centre for Teaching and Learning of Massey University. Her research interests include online materials design and delivery, and the design of teaching for academics’ professional development. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Jacoby, J. (2014). The disruptive potential of the Massive Open Online Course: A literature review. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 18(1), [73–85.]. 85 http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUyxGjHJz2S-b5DHDVPkMu-w&v=l1G4SUblnbo&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUyxGjHJz2S-b5DHDVPkMu-w&v=l1G4SUblnbo&feature=player_embedded http://www.smarthighered.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MOOCs-and-Open-Education.pdf http://www.smarthighered.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MOOCs-and-Open-Education.pdf mailto:J.M.Jacoby@massey.ac.nz http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/