Abstracts
Abstract
Educational research is one of the many fields of knowledge that frequently use case studies as a research method, particularly when applying an interpretive approach. Based on literature reviews and a systematic analysis of current scientific literature, this paper examines the prevalence and characteristics of the case study as a methodology for research on MOOCs. Ninety-two documents were selected from the search results returned by two of the most prestigious scientific databases: Web of Science (WOS) and SCOPUS. Findings showed that (a) even when searching solely for case studies, quantitative research paradigms were more prevalent than interpretive approaches; (b) geographical distribution of these studies was partially biased; (c) case studies were less prevalent in these databases than other empirical investigations on MOOCs; (d) the data collection and data analysis methods most frequently used in the case studies were more aligned with a quantitative approach; and (e) there is still very little instructor-focused research using this methodology. In the light of these findings and their discussion, future directions for research using case study methodology are proposed, given the potential of this method to illustrate certain issues for which other approaches have proved inadequate or insufficient.
Keywords:
- MOOC,
- case study,
- literature review,
- research methods,
- literature analysis
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Anders, A. (2015). Theories and applications of massive online open course [MOOCs]: The case for hybrid design. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6), 39-61. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2185
- Bates, T. (2014). MOOCs: Getting to know you better. Distance Education, 35(2), 145-148. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2014.926803
- Baxter, J. A., & Haycock, J. (2014). Roles and student identities in online large course forums: Implications for practice. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1), 20-40. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1593
- Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2008). Case study methods. In C. Reus-Smit, & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international relations (pp. 498-517). Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.003.0029
- Cross, S., & Whitelock, D. (2017). Similarity and difference in fee-paying and no-fee learner expectations, interaction and reaction to learning in a massive open online course. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(4), 439-451. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2016.1138312
- De Freitas, S. I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 455-471. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12268
- Deng, R., & Benckendorff, P. (2017). A contemporary review of research methods adopted to understand students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs). International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(8), 601-607. doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.8.939
- Drake, J. R., O’Hara, M., & Seeman, E. (2015). Five principles for MOOC design: With a case study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 14(1), 125-143. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol14/JITEv14IIPp125-143Drake0888.pdf
- Ebben, M., & Murphy, J. S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: A review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(3), 328-345. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2013.878352
- Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). From massive access to cooperation: Lessons learned and proven results of a hybrid xMOOC/cMOOC pedagogical approach to MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1). doi: 10.1186/s41239-016-0024-z
- Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363
- Fu, S., Zhao, J., Cui, W., & Qu, H. (2017). Visual analysis of MOOC forums with iForum. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 23(1), 201-210. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598444
- García-Peñalvo, F. J., Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., & Sein-Echaluce, M. L. (2018). An adaptive hybrid MOOC model: Disrupting the MOOC concept in higher education. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 1018-1030. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.012
- Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Joksimovic, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Where is research on massive open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC Research Initiative. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1954
- Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341-354. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4145316
- Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (2000). Case study method: Key issues, key texts. London: SAGE.
- Gorard, S., & Cook, T. (2007). Where does good evidence come from? International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(3), 307-323. doi: 10.1080/17437270701614790
- Grünewald, F., Mazandarani, E., Meinel, C., Teusner, R., Totschnig, M., & Willems, C. (2013, March). openHPI: A case-study on the emergence of two learning communities. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (pp. 1323-1331). doi: 10.1109/EduCon.2013.6530277
- Haavind, S., & Sistek-Chandler, C. (2015). The emergent role of the MOOC instructor: A qualitative study of trends toward improving future practice. International Journal on E-Learning: Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, 14(3), 331-350. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/150663/
- Harp Ziegenfuss, D., & Furse, C. (2016). Opening up collaboration and partnership possibilities: Re-valuing library resources, skill sets, and expertise. Digital Library Perspectives, 32(2), 103-116. doi: 10.1108/DLP-09-2015-0014
- Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45-58. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001
- Hills, L., & Hughes, J. (2016). Assessment worlds colliding? Negotiating between discourses of assessment on an online open course. Open Learning, 31(2), 108-115. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2016.1194747
- 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. Retrieved from http://www.jofdl.nz/index.php/JOFDL/article/view/214
- Jones, K. M. L., Stephens, M., Branch-Mueller, J., & De Groot, J. (2016). Community of practice or affinity space: A case study of a professional development MOOC. Education for Information, 32(1), 101-119. doi: 10.3233/EFI-150965
- Jones, M. L., & Regner, L. (2016). Users or students? Privacy in university MOOCS. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(5), 1473-1496. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9692-7
- Kennedy, J. (2014). Characteristics of massive open online courses (MOOCs): A research review, 2009-2012 - Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(1). Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v13/n1/1
- Kuhn, T. S. (1987). What are scientific revolutions? In L. Kruger, L. J. Daston, & M. Heidelberger (Eds.), The probabilistic revolution (Vol. 1): Ideas in history (pp. 6-27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202-227. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455
- Mackness, J., Waite, M., Roberts, G., & Lovegrove, E. (2013). Learning in a small, task-oriented, connectivist MOOC: Pedagogical issues and implications for higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4), 140-159. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1548
- Maté, A., De Gregorio, E., Cámara, J., Trujillo, J., & Luján-Mora, S. (2016). The improvement of analytics in massive open online courses by applying data mining techniques. Expert Systems, 33(4), 374-382. doi: 10.1111/exsy.12119
- Merriam, S. B. (2007). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Mitchell, J. C. (1983). Case and situation analysis. The Sociological Review, 31(2), 187-211. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1983.tb00387.x
- Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
- Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A., Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2015). Precise effectiveness strategy for analyzing the effectiveness of students with educational resources and activities in MOOCs. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 108-118. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.003
- Nyoni, J. (2013). The viral nature of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in open and distance learning: Discourses of quality, mediation and control. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 665-672. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n3p665
- Pardos, Z. A., Whyte, A., & Kao, K. (2016). moocRP: Enabling open learning analytics with an open source platform for data distribution, analysis, and visualization. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(1), 75-98. doi: 10.1007/s10758-015-9268-2
- Raffaghelli, J. E., Cucchiara, S., & Persico, D. (2015). Methodological approaches in MOOC research: Retracing the myth of Proteus. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 488-509. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12279
- Ramírez, M. S., Rivera, N., & García, A. (2015, November). MOOC learning: Challenges and opportunities of using team teaching. Proceedings of ICERI2014 7th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (pp. 5751-5756). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e87d/750a4b95189ca49d006abdf471bc3eb8b6ed.pdf
- Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
- Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
- Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 511-521. doi: 10.1177/1077800411409884
- Tsoni, R., & Lionarakis, A. (2014, November). Plagiarism in higher education: The academics’ perceptions. In IMCL2014 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (pp. 296-300). doi: 10.1109/IMCTL.2014.7011151
- Veletsianos, G. (2017). Toward a generalizable understanding of Twitter and social media use across MOOCs: Who participates on MOOC hashtags and in what ways? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(1), 65-80. doi: 10.1007/s12528-017-9131-7
- Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2015). Who studies MOOCs? Interdisciplinarity in MOOC research and its changes over time. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2202
- Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2016). A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013-2015. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448
- Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
- Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., & Wosnitza, M. (2015). A usability evaluation of a blended MOOC environment: An experimental case study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2), 69-93. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2032
- Zhang, T., & Yuan, B. (2016). Visualizing MOOC user behaviors: A case study on XuetangX. In H. Yin, Y. Gao, B. Li, D. Zhang, M. Yang, Y. Li, ... A. J. Tallón-Ballesteros (Eds.), Intelligent data engineering and automated learning - IDEAL 2016 (pp. 89-98). Cham (Switzerland): Springer International Publishing.
- Zhu, M., Sari, A., & Lee, M. M. (2018). A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical MOOC literature (2014-2016). The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 31-39. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.002