Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015) 1541 1547

The 6th International Conference Edu World 2014 Education Facing Contemporary World
Issues, 7th - 9th November 2014

MOOCs in Our University: Hopes and Worries

Catalina ULRICH*, Anca NEDELCU
University of Bucharest, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, Bucharest050655, Romania

Abstract
MOOCs (massive open online courses) were reported as the buzzword of 2012. Inspired by FOMO syndrome, we investigate
perceptions on MOOCs in University of Bucharest, Education Sciences faculty and students` perceptions. It focuses on students`
motivation, course structure, types of assignments, sophistication of quantitative records on students` participation and quality of
pedagogy. Through focus group interviews, online questionnaires, observation, interviews and content analysis (on forums,
blogs, Moodle etc.) we reflect on perceptions and expectations regarding MOOCs. Main question will be how to convert a
fashionable trend into a realistic and inspirational transformative area within the higher education pedagogy?

Published
by by
Elsevier
Ltd.Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
2015
2015The
TheAuthors.
Authors.
Published
Elsevier
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of The Association Education for tomorrow / [Asociatia Educatie pentru maine].
Peer-review under responsibility of The Association Education for tomorrow / [Asociatia Educatie pentru maine].
Keywords:MOOCs; higher education; learning, FOMO

1. Paper rationale
This paper investigates perceptions and expectations related to MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) from the
perspective of Education Science students and faculty within the University of Bucharest. As educationalists, the
authors themselves experienced the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) syndrome described by Sherry Turkle in her
2011 book Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. FOMO syndrome
seems to be shared amongst actual academic communities regarding MOOCs. Even if many people and universities
have an unclear vision and rationale to join MOOCs trend, many feel like We cant fall behind. We cant be left
out.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 0040744526693; fax: 004031 425 3446

E-mail address:catalina.ulrich@fpse.unibuc.ro, anca.nedelcu@fpse.unibuc.ro

1877-0428 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of The Association Education for tomorrow / [Asociatia Educatie pentru maine].
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.304

1542

Catalina Ulrich and Anca Nedelcu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015) 1541 1547

2. Paper theoretical foundation and related literature

Michael Gaebel`s brief history of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) Courses shows that MOOCs have been
developing successfully since 2008, with the clear purpose not only to provide more learning opportunities, but also
to improve the learning experience. Briefly, MOOCs are online courses, with no formal entry requirement, with no
participation limit, free of charge and students enroled do not earn credits. (Gaebel, 2013, page 3) In 2012, Ivy
League US universities started launching free online courses, in collaboration with private companies. These courses
are open to an unlimited number of students, 50,000 students per course being apparently no exception.
Siemens (2012) describes two types of MOOCs. The cMOOC model emphasises creation, creativity, autonomy
and social networking learning, whereas the xMOOC model emphasises a more traditional learning approach
through video presentations and short quizzes and testing. Put another way, cMOOCs focus on knowledge creation
and generation whereas xMOOCs focus on knowledge duplication. (Siemens, 2013, page 5). From the very
beginning this initiative raised dilemma like: is this a learning revolution or a new business?, is it possible personal
interaction or are we exposed to a kind of corporatized learning?, are we dealing with a democratization of
education or new cultural imperialism, does it bring open access or deeper digital divide?
The need to innovate the educational system is nowadays taken for granted. However there are not robust
and relevant data to prove the success of MOOCs. The MOOCs Forum, aninternational journal dedicated
to discussing and resolving the pedagogical, legal, academic, record keeping and security issues related to
MOOCs highlights a number of key issues to gravitate around:
x technical and logistic issues (e.g. adaptive and intelligent systems, next generation of educational
technology)
x policy issues (universal design, massive customization and restructuring of education, concerns
and participation, international consideration and security, security and accreditation of MOOCs,
development of meaningful standards
x financial issues: sustainable revenue models
x pedagogy related issues: the shift between open and traditional online education, the role of key
faculty, misconceptions, content creation and open accessibility to knowledge and research.
There are voices expressing the hope that MOOC is new gold rush in higher education. MOOCs provide study and
learning opportunities. So-called elite universities rushing into MOOCs gained their reputation in research. In terms
of pedagogy, Self-Driven Mastery in Massive Open Online Courses highlights positive impact on learners (Do et al.,
2013, page 14). However, adapting to an open course with an undefined and potentially large grop of learners is a
new challenge. MOOCs are also used as a marketing tool for universities, in order to increase visibility and prestige
and attract new regular (on campus or online) students. MOOCs have benefits and limits. It requires adaptation to a
new public, composed by both net generation and also older adults from allover the world. Amongst widely shared
strong point of MOOCs, we can mention the freedom and wide range of options, self paced learning, wiki-based
collaborative learning. Teaching is provided by leading (and charismatic) university professors, textbooks are
replaced by videos (which provide same info but more entertainment), quizzes are generating feed back, group
discussions, forums allow peer to peer contact and also meeting up groups for real contact are encouraged. Student
has the oportunity to follow own pace, but he or she can feel alone in the study endeavour as long as little feed back
on progress is provided. Many analysists agree that MOOCs represent a good oportunity for blended learning
revolution in universities.
Highly ranked universities scrutinize pros and contras joining this trend. Why arent we hosting a MOOC yet? or
Shall We MOOC? (Dennen & Chauhan, 2013) represent key questions of current debates. More specifically,
debates gravitate around quality issues and ethical dilemas. Peter Sloep (2013) consider that in order to truly
democratize and globalize education, MOOCs will need to do a better job of addressing the 3Cs of computing,
communication, and the cognitive sciencesto create live online communities of learners and mentors who have
meaningful interactions with rich resources, engaged peers, and even hands-on experiences. Second, they will need

Catalina Ulrich and Anca Nedelcu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015) 1541 1547

1543

to find a financial model that allows the creation, distribution, and operation of these highly engaging environments
peers, and even hands-on experiences. Second, they will need to find a financial model that allows the creation,
distribution, and operation of these highly engaging environments. (Sloep, 2013, page 7)
3. Methodology
In order to investigate the awareness and expectations around the MOOCs, we used a mixed set of methods,
qualitative and quantitative (questionnaires, focus group interviews, observation, content analysis). The participants
were:
- 67 undergraduate students from the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, aged between 22 and
27 years old, 54 female and 7 male, from rural and urban areas
- 33 faculty members from the same institution, aged between 26 and 57 years old, 17 female and 16 male.
10 % of the faculty participating on the study are over 45 years old, the other 90% are younger than 45.
We carried out an online survey (March - May 2014), using Survey Monkey website
https://www.surveymonkey.com/summary/_2Bybv3KzPG24_2BRX_2Bcc2_2FqOIj8MgmReOc_2FNE2_2BTG_2
BpxpE_3D) . Beside the data collected through online questionnaires (67 student and 33 faculty members) we
organized two focus group interviews (2 focus groups with 15 participants in total) and used content analysis on
students email groups and comments posted online on the institution website (www.fpse.ro).
4. Results
Extreme answers cover an equal percentage of 16% of the students that either participate in a MOOCs or have no
idea about what does it means. Almost 3% declare that they documented on this topic and they know exactly what
this means, 28% have some information, while almost 37% have heard about MOOCs but do not know what really
means. 27% of the faculty members report that have experienced a direct participation in MOOCs, 12% have read
about it, 36% consider that possess clear information, while 15% have heard but do not know what MOOCs mean
and 9% have not the slightest idea about it. The chart below (fig. 1) shows how familiar are students and faculty
members with MOOCs

30
25
20
15

students N67

10

faculty N33

5
0
I participate in I know exactly
I have some
MOOC
what it means, I
clear
doccumented
information
myself
about MOOC

I have heard I know nothing

about it, but
about MOOC
dont know
exactly what it
means

Fig.1. Knowledge about MOOC

1544

Catalina Ulrich and Anca Nedelcu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015) 1541 1547

Regarding the question `What could be the sources of success for MOOCs delivered by prestigious universities?`
students and faculty answers reflect the following ranking: study program flexibility (58% students answers and
75% of faculty answers), free access (52%), richness of open resources (46%), followed by prestige of the university
(38%), study programs provided (28%), possibility to communicate with other students (22%), faculty members
prestige (16%). The lowest rank has the accuracy of assessment, with 7.46% of students` answers and 12.50%
within faculty academic community. Prestige and free access to courses are equally mentioned by faculty
respondents (with 62%). There is noticeable similarity between students and faculty responses.

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

students
faculty

Fig 2. Factors that generate the success of MOOCs

Another question reffers to availability of MOOCs provided by the University of Bucharest (UB). 2% of students
wrongly reported that our university provides three MOOC courses, 15% of students know that there is one MOOC
offered by UB, while professors are more informed (only 3.7% report one course). 70.37% of faculty members and
63% of students are positive about the UB intention to make MOOCs available. The optimist expectation is
supported by the low percentage of people not expecting UB to prepare for providing MOOCs: 25.93% of
professors and 19.23% of students.

has no perspective
is intending to provide MOOCs
faculty
offers one MOOC

students

UB offers MOOCs
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fig.3. UB perspective of providing MOOCs

Respondents expectations are supporting the idea that UB should provide MOOCs. 51.47% of faculty and 62.50%
students report that they certainly would like UB to offer MOOCs. None of the students and only one professor
reject the idea of UB providing MOOCs. 41.18% students and 28.13% professors would rather support above the
mentioned idea, while 5.88% students and 9.38% professors are not sure about the oportunity of such an idea within

1545

Catalina Ulrich and Anca Nedelcu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015) 1541 1547

the actual context of higher education in Romania.

The expressed support grounds on expected benefits. Students consider that accesibility and flexibility would be
main benefits (each has 67% of answers), second ranked is the accesibility for other groups of adult learners (ranked
on the same level as flexibility by faculty 81.82%). Students answers are mostly congruent to faculty ones, except
improving UB visibility which is highly valued in professors reactions (63.64%), while 40% of students answers
focus on the benefit of attracting a higher number of students for undergraduate and graduate programs .

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
students

10

faculty

total answers

Fig. 4. Expected benefits for UB

Focus group intrviews and responses provided online show an interesting picture of tematic and problematic areas
highlighted. One third of participants skipped the question or answered Don`t know. One quarter ot the faculty
member` answers express majority of courses already provided by the university of Bucharest. The table bellow
reflect the specific answers corresponding to two groups of respondents.
Table 1. Courses suggested for MOOCs by students and faculty

Number of
students
7
4
3
6
2
5

Topic

Number of faculty

Assesment and evaluation

Research methodology (qualitative and quantitative, statistics)
Neurosciences, neuro-psychology
Curriculum
Effective teaching (S)/ Instruction (F)
Personal development

4
6
6
3
3
0

1546

Catalina Ulrich and Anca Nedelcu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015) 1541 1547

4
2
1
2
4
3
2
2
2
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0

ICT, computer-based instruction

Classroom management. difficult classroom management
Serious gaming
Blended learning
Human Development
Conflict management
Academic skills
Training of trainers
Communication
Civic education (S) / Social justice (F)
Inclusive education, SEN children
Entrepreneurial education
Intercultural education
Psychology of couple and family
Longlife learning
Parenting
International data analysis
Ethics in education

4
2
3
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
1
1

5. Discussions
Interpretation of data collected through questionnaires and focus group discussions reflect a moderate level of
knowledge about MOOCs and an explicit hope that own university will be able `to fit this trend`. Most reponses and
commented received show that many academics experience the FOMO syndrome: even if faculty staff is not fully
knowleadgeable about the concept, legal and logistical resources necesary to offer a MOOC, most of them support
the idea. Content analysis of the course examples bring the following remarks:
x Both students and faculty highlight topic of interest like Assesment and evaluation (11), Research
methodology (qualitative and quantitative, statistics) (10), Neurosciences, neuro-psychology (9) and
Curriculum (9). Their option reflect similar concerns (quality of evaluation, updated methodologies for
research or curriculum) and the tendency to follow international trends (neurosciences);
x Faculty focus more on the educational system needs (training and evaluation of human resources, teacher
training, mentoring), while students focus more on personal development needs (communication, debates,
conflict management);
x Faculty made distinction between regular levels of organizing courses provision: undergraduate and post
grduate or post university courses, while students are not interested on administrative labels to potential
course offer provided by UB;
x there are unclear opinions about MOOCs pedagogy in connection to different content areas, as reflected by
following conflicting opinions expressed: `I think that MOOC fits better with areas which not focus on
developing practical skills, but rather transmission of declarative knowledge (neuropsychology, statistics).
Other mentioned `Mentoring and coaching`, while other respondend said: `I think it works better for
natural sciences. I am personally very keen on interaction between professor and students and I think the
quality of this interaction is very important, especially in our educational sciences area.`
x Younger faculty members provide more focused suggestions (Develop a Lesson Plan Assess Student
Performance Skills, active learning methods, multiple intelligence-based teaching), while professors with
longer experience have more comprehensive recommendations (special educational needs, curriculum,
assessment, improving teacher-pupils interactions, teacher training);
x Students suggested Training of trainers: `There are many young people interested in having access to open
and good quality training resources`. Students focus more on content delivery than on the pedagogy
involved by internet-based courses. students suggest a course on psychology of couple and family, while
professors suggest parenting courses;

Catalina Ulrich and Anca Nedelcu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015) 1541 1547

1547

Faculty members` professional experience is obvious in their comments and explanations. They are very
preoccupied about the connection between teaching, learning, instructional design. They gave examples of
interactive and individualized teaching methods connected to neuroscience latest research evidence. Even
more, one professor`s comment raised the oportunity of carrying out a needs assessment for a MOOC: `I do
not think that the topic is the key issue, but rather the pedagogy involved, the learning online methodology.
I expect teachers to appreciate any online modular course offer which would bring innovation for the
teaching practices, with direct aplications and which involves sharing with other colleagues.`

6. Conclusion
Both students and faculty members are familiar with MOOCs and most of them are interested to experience it at the
personal level. Subjects welcome the idea of UB providing MOOCs, which could bring more visibility and prestige
to own university and several benefits for students and adult learners, in general. Students and faculty express
realistic expectations about own institution as MOOCs potential provider. Although such benefits are anticipated,
respondents think that UB is not yet prepared to provide such courses at a high quality level. There are clear shared
problematic areas (like assessment, research methodologies, neurosciences, curriculum) and also distinct areas of
interests for students and their instructors. Faculty members are more focused on the whole educational system
human resources development and evaluation, while young students are more focused on personal development,
interpersonal and social issues (personal development, coaching, conflict management, civic participation). Students
undeline the learning environments, while professors stress the teaching methodologies. Both categories of
respondents are focused on content or problematic areas and only a minority is reflecting on the way MOOCs could
be designed and delivered in order to provide quality learning experiences.
References
Boxall, M. (2012). MOOCs: a massive opportunity for higher education, or digital hype? In Guardian Professional, 8 August 2012, available at
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2012/aug/08/mooc-coursera-higher-education-investment
Do, C. B., Chen, Z., Brandman, R. & Koller, D. (2013). Self-Driven Mastery in Massive Open Online Courses available
athttp://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/mooc.2013.0003
Dennen, V. & Chauhan, A. (2013). Shall We MOOC? A SWOT Analysis at the Program Level, MOOCs FORUM. September 2013, 1(P): 17-21.

Massive
Open
Online
Courses
EAU
Occasional
Papers,
available
at
Gaebel,
M.
(2013).
MOOCs
http://www.eua.be//Libraries/Publication/EUA_Occasional_Papers_MOOCs.sflb.ashx
Popenici, S. (2012). Why MOOCs Will Not Save Universities? available at http://popenici.com/2012/10/15/silvermoocs.
Siemens, G. (2013). Massive open online courses: Innovation in education? In McGreal R, et al. (editors). Open Educational Resources:
Innovation, Research and Practice. Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University Press, 515.
Sonwalkar, N. (2013). Why the MOOCs Forum Now? MOOCs FORUM. September 2013, 1(P): 1-1. available at
http://www.liebertpub.com/overview/moocs-forum/619/.
Sonwalkar, N. (2013). State-of-the-Field Discussion Moderator: Nish Sonwalkar, Participants: Jack Wilson, Andrew Ng, Peter Sloep. In MOOCs
FORUM. September 2013, 1(P): 6-9. available http://online.liebertpub.com/toc/mooc/1/P
Turkle, S.(2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.