Exploring the Factors Influencing Massive Open Online Courses Development: A Qualitative Study of E-Learning Experts’ Perspectives on Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of E-Learning in Medical Sciences, Virtual School and Center of Excellence in E-Learning, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

2 School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, WA, Southern Cross University, Faculty of Health, QLD, Australia

Abstract

Background: Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have transformed global higher education, yet their implementation faces challenges in resource allocation and faculty engagement, particularly in specialized fields like medical education. This study examines the multidimensional factors influencing MOOCs development through the perspectives of e-learning experts across 10 Iranian universities of medical sciences, addressing a critical gap in institutional readiness for digital education.
Methods: A qualitative content analysis was carried out in 2022 involving 15 e-learning experts with at least two years of experience selected via purposeful snowball sampling until data saturation. Semi-structured interviews were administered online via Adobe Connect, with two participants providing written responses. Data analysis followed Bolman and Deal’s organizational framework, employing open, axial, and selective coding in MAXQDA to identify codes, themes, and categories. Trustworthiness was ensured through peer debriefing (10 external experts), member checking (participant validation of codes), and adherence to COREQ guidelines for qualitative rigor.
Results: Thematic analysis resulted in 28 codes, 12 themes, and 4 categories. Influential factors on MOOCs development and engagement included: 1) structural factors (rules/regulations, clarity, structure); 2) human resources (empowerment, support, attitude, motivation); 3) cultural factors (symbols, unity); and 4) political factors (equity, participation, and negotiation, profit). Participants emphasized that only intrinsically motivated faculty currently engage in MOOCs development, as extrinsic rewards (e.g., promotion credit) remain insufficient.
Conclusion: Successful MOOC implementation requires systemic reforms, including streamlined governance, faculty workload adjustments, cultural shifts to value digital pedagogy, and equitable political frameworks. The study recommends targeted interventions such as centralized MOOC development guidelines, workload credits for faculty, and national recognition programs. These findings have implications for global medical institutions.

Highlights

Azita Barzekar (Google Scholar)

Zahra Karimian (Google Scholar)

Keywords

References

  1. Moeinikia M, Aryani E, Zahed Bablan A, Mousavi T, Kazemi SJESiMS. Perusal the factors affecting on the implementation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in higher education (Mixed Method). ESMS. 2017;9(6):458-70.
  2. Kaplan AM, Haenlein M. Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Bus Horiz. 2016;59(4):441-50. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.008.
  3. McAuley A, Stewart B, Siemens G, Cormier D. The MOOC model for digital practice. Canada: University of Prince Edward Island;
  4. McAuley A, Stewart B, Siemens G, Cormier D. Massive Open Online Courses. Digital ways of knowing and learning. The MOOC model for digital practice. Created through funding received by the University of Prince Edward Island through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council's "Knowledge Synthesis Grants on the Digital Economy". 2010 CC Attribution.
  5. Mahajan R, Gupta P, Singh TJIp. Massive open online courses: concept and implications. Indian Pediatr. 2019;56(6):489-95. PubMed PMID: 31278230.
  6. Lowenthal P, Snelson C, Perkins RJTIRoRiO, Learning D. Teaching massive, open, online, courses (MOOCs): Tales from the front line. IRRODL. 2018;19(3). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3505.
  7. Daniel J. Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. JIME. 2012(3).
  8. Jordan K. Massive open online course completion rates revisited: Assessment, length and attrition. IRRODL. 2015;16(3):341-58. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2112.
  9. Setia S, Tay JC, Chia YC, Subramaniam K. Massive open online courses (MOOCs) for continuing medical education–why and how? Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;10:805. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S219104. PubMed PMID: 31572042; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6749982.
  10. Ossiannilsson E, Altinay F, Altinay ZJES. MOOCs as change agents to boost innovation in higher education learning arenas. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2016;6(3):25. doi: 10.3390/educsci6030025.
  11. Haggard S, Brown S, Mills R, Tait A, Warburton S, Lawton W, et al. The maturing of the MOOC: A literature review of massive open online courses and other forms of online distance learning. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; 2013. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12799/3146.
  12. Razai MS, Kankam HK, Hourston GJ, Hoppe S, Oakeshott P. Lessons learned from producing guidance articles and rapid massive open online courses during the covid-19 pandemic in primary care. J Prim Care Community Health. 2020;11:2150132720963624. doi: 10.1177/2150132720963624. PubMed PMID: 33000669; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7533919.
  13. Zhao F, Fu Y, Zhang Q-J, Zhou Y, Ge P-F, Huang H-X, Yuan He. The comparison of teaching efficiency between massive open online courses and traditional courses in medicine education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ATM. 2018;6(23). doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.11.32.
  14. Cusumano MA. MOOCs revisited, with some policy suggestions. Communications of the ACM. 2014;57(4):24-6. doi:10.1145/2580941.
  15. Cirulli F, Elia G, Lorenzo G, Margherita A, Solazzo G. The use of MOOCs to support personalized learning: An application in the technology entrepreneurship field. Knowledge Management & E-Learning. 2016;8(1):109. doi: 10.34105/j.kmel.2016.08.008.
  16. Hew KF, Cheung WS. Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review. 2014;12:45-58. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001.
  17. Sarrafzadeh M. Libraries and Librarians in the MOOC age. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management. 2016;2(1):11-32. doi: 10.22091/STIM.2016.655.
  18. Matoor M, Aliabadi, K., Mozayani, N., Delavar, A., Nili Ahmadabadi, M. A Critical Introduction to” Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)”. Critical Studies in Texts & Programs of Human Sciences. 2017;17(6):280-57. Available from: criticalstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_2782.html?lang=en. [in Persian]
  19. Gholampour M, Rostami NMA, Pourshafei H. Identifying the Key Factors of the Success of MOOC Courses: Synthesis Research Based on the Roberts Model. Journal of Curriculum Research. 2020;9(2):139-62. doi: 10.22099/jcr.2019.5234.
  20. Lucio-Ramirez CA, Nigenda JP, Garcia-Garcia M, Olivares Clinical competence assessment: development of a mobile app to enhance patient centerderness. Journal of Development and Learning in Organization. 2020;34(2):17-20. doi:10.1108/DLO-08-2019-0186.
  21. Jafari E, Fathi Vajargah K, Arefi M, RezaeiZadeh MJRiCP. Qualitative meta-analysis on the conducted research in the field of MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses). Research in Curriculum Plannin 2017;14(53):27-41. [in Persian].
  22. Innovations in Medical Education Packages Based on the Health system Higher Education Program. Ministry of Health and Medical Education; 2015 [Document].
  23. Ghazi Mirsaeed SJ, Ommati E. Comparative survey of MOOC presented on Maktab khaneh website based on quadruple indexes focusing on the field of medicine. Payavard Salamat. 2017;10(5):393-401. [in Persian].
  24. Higher Council of Virtual Education. Monitoring report on virtual education activities of Iranian schools and universities of medical sciences in the second half of 2020-2021 [Document].
  25. Ministry of Science RaT. Higher Education Research and Planning Institute. Ministry of Science, Research and Technology; 2020 [Document].
  26. Bolman LG, Deal TE. How great leaders think: The art of reframin USA: Wiley; 2014.
  27. Bolman LG, Deal TEJC, and. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. 5th ed. USA: Jossey-Bass Inc Pub;
  28. Bush T. Theories of Educational Leadership and Management. 5th ed. University of Nottingham: SAGE; Available from: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/theories-of-educational-leadership-and-management/book258644.
  29. Margaryan A, Bianco M, Littlejohn AJC. Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Comput Educ. 2015;80:77-83. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005.
  30. Hollands FM, Tirthali Resource requirements and costs of developing and delivering MOOCs. IRRODL. 2014;15(5):113-33. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1901.
  31. Hatami J, Ali Abadi K, Delavar AJTJoME. Development of MOOCs instructional design model based on Connectivism learning theory. Journal of Medical Education and Development. 2017;12(1):65-86 [in Persian].
  32. Zheng S, Wisniewski P, Rosson MB, Carroll JM, editors. Ask the instructors: Motivations and challenges of teaching massive open online courses. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing; 2016. doi: 10.1145/2818048.2820082.
  33. Najafi H, Rolheiser C, Harrison L, Håklev SJIRoRiO, Learning D. University of Toronto instructors’ experiences with developing MOOCs. IRRODL. 2015;16(3):233-55.
  34. Malik RF, Buljac-Samardžić M, Akdemir N, Hilders C, Scheele FJBoq. What do we really assess with organizational culture tools in healthcare? An interpretive systematic umbrella review of tools in healthcare. BMJ Open Quality. 2020;9(1):e000826. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000826. PubMed PMID: 32075804; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7047493.
  35. Lieff SJ, Albert MJAM. The mindsets of medical education leaders: how do they conceive of their work? Acad Med. 2010;85(1):57-62. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181c46e47. PubMed PMID: 20042823.
  36. Bajis D, Chaar B, Basheti IA, Moles RJRis. Identifying perceptions of academic reform in pharmacy using a four-frame organizational change model. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2018;14(10):921-30. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2017.11.006. PubMed PMID: 29162326.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 24 December 2023
  • Revise Date: 26 February 2024
  • Accept Date: 28 February 2024
  • Publish Date: 01 March 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics