IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Democratization of Education through Massive Open Online Courses in Asia
Runchana Pam Barger
Chiang Mai University, Thailand
and Wheaton College, USA

29

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Abstract
Massive Open Online Courses have been a recent phenomenon in providing large-scaleinteractive participation and open access to courses online. Depending upon internet
availability and familiarity with digital learning practices, this alternative could provide
education for many people. This paper explores whether technology such as massive online
open courses can democratize education by providing opportunities and access for those who
desire formal learning. This paper reviews literature on massive online open courses as well as
the benefits and challenges of these courses in adult education. Using computer-based content
analysis, this paper also examines recent research (2010-2019) on massive online open courses
and the implications of using them to provide widespread access to higher education in Asia.
The findings show that offerings in many Asian countries help promote social and economic
mobility for their people by providing continuing educational, professional, and personal
development through courses online. Yet barriers involving digital literacy, technicalcapabilities, and language as well as culture, prevent the underserved from pursuing this digital
education. This paper provides future research suggestions for collaboration of educationalorganizations to use massive online open courses in engaging life-long skills for people in Asia.
Keywords: MOOC, democratization, education access, technology, Asia

30

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

The theme of the 2015 World Education Forum, sponsored by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Republic of Korea, was “equitable
and inclusive quality education and lifelong learning for all by 2030: transforming lives
through education” (UNESCO, 2015b, p. 11). The preamble of the Incheon Declaration definededucation as an essential and universal right for all humans to create and ensure peace,equipping people for employment with the hope that they have social and economic means for
self-sustainability (UNESCO, 2015a, Preamble 5). The report stressed the value of educationin promoting gender equality and equity by supporting gender-sensitive policies, improving
teacher training, and creating curriculum to decrease discrimination and violence against
females in schools (UNESCO, 2015a, Preamble 8). The preamble called for donors from
affluent nations to provide funding and resources, such as educational technology, to help
educators from all around the world provide quality of learning opportunities for women andthe underserved (UNESCO, 2015a, Preamble 9–16).
Based on the World Education Forum and the Incheon Declaration’s mandates, this paper
examines a web-based educational offering known as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)
to explore as a potential means to increase educational affordability. MOOCs have provided
large-scale interactive participation and open access to courses online. Depending on theinternet availability in some of these developing countries, this alternative may provide adultsa chance to a obtain higher education degree. This paper explores whether technology such as
MOOCs can democratize education by providing opportunities and access for those who desire
higher education and professional development. This paper also reviews literature on MOOCs
as well as the benefits and challenges of them in adult education. Specifically, the paper
examines recent research (2010-2019) related to the massive open online courses in Asia andapplies content analysis to explore themes and associations with technology and its
implications in providing education for people in Asia, including the underserved communities.
Literature Review
Since the 1990s, online learning has been on the rise (Alcorn et al., 2015). A recent report fromthe Babson Survey Research Group reports that distance education has grown dramaticallyover the past fourteen years (Seaman et al., 2018). In particular, public research universities
have increasingly offered MOOCs as a tool for students and senior academic leaders believethat MOOCs will attract potential students (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
Many claim to have coined the term MOOC. Some researchers have stated that it originatedduring the early 2000s with the emergence of technologies such as open source and open
courseware platforms (Bozkurt et al., 2016; Zawacki-Richter & Naidu, 2016). Some sources
attribute the term MOOC to Daniel Barwick, an associate professor of philosophy in New
York. In 2007, Barwick discussed the need for major universities to find methods to improvelearning for large numbers of students (Lederman, 2007; Seaman et al., 2018). Other sources
say that Dave Cormier, the Manager of Web Communication and Innovations at the Universityof Prince Edward Island, coined the term MOOC (Bozkurt et. al, 2016; Hollands & Tirthali,2014). Cormier pointed out that over 2,000 students from the general public took a 2008
University of Manitoba online course, titled “Connectivism and Connective Knowledge,” that
George Seimens and Stephen Downs created, at no cost (Adham & Lundquist, 2015; Alcorn
et al., 2015; Bozkurt et al., 2016; Hollands & Tirthali, 2014). The term MOOCs gained evengreater popularity after an artificial intelligence online class at Stanford University logged
enrollment of over 150,000 students (Alcorn et al., 2015; Waldrop, 2013).

31

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

MOOCs have three overall characteristics: they are courses that are massive, open, and online.
They are massive in that they are characterized by a very large number of enrolled students
from the range of hundreds to hundreds of thousands. They are also massive in that they provide
large-scale interactive participation for the public. MOOCs are open in that they often use
learning platforms that are open-source and they are free or low-cost to anyone who isinterested. They are online in that curriculum and assessment are also open so anyone who has
an internet connection can join the course. An important attribute of these digital classes is thatlearners are free to study anywhere without restrictions or limitations (Adham & Lundquist,2015).
MOOCs are categorized as either “cMOOCs” or “xMOOCs” based on their differing
philosophies and methodologies. Connectivist MOOCs, also known as cMOOCs, are courses
in which learners use learning platforms such as wikis, social media, blogs, or websites such
as Peer to Peer University (www.p2pu.org) to network and collaborate with one another (Bates,
2014; Smyrnova-Trybulska, et al., 2016). CMOOCs are heavily dependent upon learning
communities to create knowledge together (Adham & Lundquist, 2015; Lane, 2016). Important
tenets of cMOOCs include autonomy of the learner, diverse demographics of learners,
interaction and cooperative learning between participants, and openness in the courses (Bates,2014). XMOOCs depend upon traditional classroom structures containing specificallydesigned platform software, video lectures, and automated assessments (Adham & Lundquist,
2015; Bates, 2014; Smyrnova-Trybulksa et al., 2016). Coursera, Udacity, and edX courses areexamples of xMOOCs. XMOOCs provide alternatives to the traditional university residential
model, as students take courses online. XMOOCs focus on a teaching-centered model rather
than the learner-centered focus of cMOOCs. Because of the more formal nature of xMOOCs,
students who take xMOOCs can earn certificates and they are more popular than cMOOCs
because of their instructivist content. Recent online education research examines xMOOCs,
and therefore this particular paper focuses on the latter course offerings.
Democratization as Comparative Education Framework
Comparative education is the application of social scientific methods and theories tointernational issues of education (Epstein, 2002). One issue that comparativists have examinedis the role of democratization on education. An underlying notion of democracy is the humanright to vote in a political process, to have accessible distribution of financial resources, and tohave the essential right to be treated justly (Davis, 2008). Comparative education examines theimpact of democratization in local, national, and global communities (McGinn, 1996). In an
ideally democratized community, people would be able to freely make their own decisions thatwould benefit themselves locally and globally. This includes decisions involving education
access and opportunities for their citizens. This section examines the political, educational, andsocial impacts that democratization has on international education.
Comparative education research examines the role of democratization and politicalparticipation (Blankenship & Kubicek, 2018; McGinn, 1996; Murati, 2015; Zajda, 2008).
Research examines the correlation of active participation in politics when governments
promote education access and opportunities (McGinn, 1996; Murati, 2015). Democratization
through citizenship education promotes peace and freedom, and schools should be institutions
that allow them to work on democratic principles to influence society (Murati, 2015).
Comparative education research shows mixed results on the impact of democratization in
emerging countries. Countries that attempt to promote democratization have not implemented
it well typically have political corruption such as the lack of accountability of public officials

32

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

as well as mismanagement of governmental funding (Powell et al., 2016). In Pakistan, forexample, educational disparity is widened as the government has not provided adequate
funding for education in the countryside versus their urban counterparts (Powell et al., 2016).
However, other countries, such as Ukraine, attempt to democratize education throughimproving technology. One way in which Ukraine’s educational system has reduced academic
corruption is through data management software to protect privacy, systematize registration,and track grades for their students (Powell et al., 2016).
Comparativists have also researched democratization and its educational impacts in
implementing free markets and capitalist ethics (Davies, 2008). Economically, a democratized
government would distribute funding for education, incorporate civic education, anddecentralize power to local officials (Davies, 2008; McGinn, 1996; Murati, 2015).
Democratization in education should include decision-making from all aspects of an
educational institution from the faculty, staff, parents, and students (McGinn, 1996; Murati,2015). A democratic education curriculum incorporates teaching and learning of skills such as
direct communication, deliberative process, negotiation, collaborative sharing, critical thinking
and problem solving (McGinn, 1996).
Furthermore, democratization in education would also promote equitable education and accessto educational opportunities to benefit all social groups (OECD, 2006; Zajda, 2008).
Educational equity includes teaching and learning social justice issues, raising consciousnessof power relations and providing materials to share voices of all groups of people, especiallythe marginalized (Sefa Dei & Shahjahan, 2008). Sefa Dei and Shahjahan, research educatorsin the field of equity and diversity studies, stated that “equity affirms that physical, material,
emotional, social, and spiritual well-being of both self and collective… the affirmation arises
from the recognition of each other’s fundamental freedoms and rights to valued goods andservices of society, while at the same time fulfilling accompanying responsibilities” (2008, p.
49). Comparative education research also examines the relationship between democratization
and women’s rights. These include an increase in participation of women in politics, written
policies and laws advancing gender equality, a reduction in gender-based violence, funds for
women’s health, and alterations in family law to support women (Blankenship & Kubicek,2018).
Methodology
This paper examines the relationship between online education and democratization of
education. In particular, the main research question is as follows: Does online education,
specifically using MOOCs, provide for the democratization of education for people in Asia.
Democratization is examined in terms of allowing people to have the choice to not only learn,
but also to participate in their society, whether it is socially, politically, or economically. This
research explores whether people, especially the underserved, can access online education thatis effective for their professional and/or personal growth.
This study explores research on the efficacy of massive open online courses to democratization,
which was carried out from 2010 to 2019. The research method used is content analysis, which
examines the frequency of terms, such as words and phrases, in texts to make inferences about
the associations and possible connotations within the documents (Columbia University
Mailman School of Public Health, 2019). Content analysis can be both quantitative andqualitative (Seuring & Gold, 2011). However, this study uses qualitative methods as documents
and texts are examined. Types of content analysis include conceptual and relational analysis.

33

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Conceptual analysis examines patterns or themes in texts that occur often, whereas relational
analysis explores the relationship between concepts and its importance (Columbia University
Mailman School of Public Health, 2019). The study explored the conceptual and relational
links between massive open online courses, educational access, and opportunities for people.
Initially, the process began as a deductive approach examining whether MOOCs democratize
education for people in various countries in Asia. In particular, the initial research question
focused on whether some Asian educational ministries or institutions offer low-cost coursesthat would benefit academic as well as vocational skills to their people. Specific themes suchas the history, policies, benefits, challenges, and suggestions emerged in MOOC research on
education access and opportunities through manual document analysis. An inductive approach
was used to understand the more recent concepts or themes written in the literature from 2015
to the present.
The inductive approach used for this study employed a qualitative content analysis collectedfrom 48 academic books and journals on issues related to MOOCS in Asia. The author hoped
to identify MOOC trends relating to education access and opportunities. In particular, theresearch employed a similar type of methodology to Zawacki-Richter et al.’s (2018) automatedcontent analysis in identifying themes and concepts of MOOC research using the program
Leximancer. This text-mining statistical tool carefully extracts themes from documents tolocate patterns and trends. Leximancer compiles various texts and documents, codes common
themes, and creates a visual concept map creating categories that connect frequently-occurring
information from the documents (Leximancer, n.d.). Figure 1 shows the phases of the research
process that I conducted:

Figure 1: Phases of the Research Process
Forty-eight academic journals and book chapters were selected using the keywords MOOCs,
MOOC, and Asia. These were found in two research databases: Google Scholar and ERIC. Allof the 48 documents were selected using the following criteria: peer-reviewed journal or bookchapter specifically focusing on MOOCs in Asia from 2010-2019, written in English, andonline full-text accessibility. Limitations of the study include a smaller content analysis sample(48 documents) and the documents selected for analysis only being written in English, whichnarrowed the range of research able to be analyzed.
In addition to the manual coding of certain democratization themes such as access, opportunity,
provision, literacy, mobility, Leximancer breaks down the themes in the 48 documents tocategories and relationships between those categories to create a visual concept map.

34

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Results and Discussion
Figure 2 illustrates the concept map derived from Leximancer, the automated content analysis
software. The concept map contains concept circles of frequent words or phrases that areconnected to other concepts on the map (Leximancer Pty Ltd, 2018).

Figure 2: Concept Map of MOOCs in Asia
The concept map generates the highest-level occurring terms. Important terms are heat-colored;
for example, the “hottest” important concept appears in red, the next hottest is orange, andcontinues according to the color wheel (Leximancer Pty Ltd, 2018). In Figure 2, the hottest
concepts appear to be MOOCs and learning, while education and use are the next mostsignificant terms. Figure 3 below shows the interconnectivity of the concepts. Concepts thatappear together often are in the same pieces of documents (Leximancer Pty Ltd, 2018).

Figure 3: Relationships between Concepts

35

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

From Figure 3, the learning and MOOC red circles appear to be very connected with otherconcept circles as seen with the dark red lines. The learning and MOOC circles, which are thehottest or most-frequented concepts connect to other concept terms of development, provide,courses, education, universities and use. This concept summary indicates the relative
importance of education, learning, and MOOCs as compared to other terms. From this analysis,
three themes have emerged because of the text-mining analysis and the concept map that relates
to democratization of education: miscellany of MOOCs in Asia; provision and development of
MOOC education in Asia; and opportunities and barriers of Asian learners to access MOOCs.
Miscellany of MOOCs in Asia
From the content analysis, the MOOC concept circle is the central theme of the literature. The
sub-themes within this concept circle include terms such as online, courses, open, platform,
and massive. The text-mining analysis connected the importance of MOOCs in Asia and thevariety of MOOC offerings provided in countries such as Malaysia, India, Nepal, and China.
Some Asian universities have used MOOC platforms such as Coursera, edX, and Udacity,
created by the collaboration of U.S. top universities and companies (Liyanagunawardena et al.,2013; Chen, 2013; Beigi et al., 2015). Countries such as India and Brazil contribute 14 percent
of enrolled students in edX, Coursera, and Udacity (Kanwar, 2014). The National Universityof Singapore joined Coursera, while Nanyang Technology joined ITunes U (Chen, 2013). In
2012, edX announced its growing network to many international universities, including Asianuniversities, to meet global demand and increase access to quality education (edX, 2013). Asianuniversities include Tsinghua University and Peking University in China, the University ofHong Kong and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in Hong Kong, Kyoto
University in Japan, and Seoul National University in South Korea (edX, 2013).
As global edX, Coursera, and Udacity platforms have their online courses in English, many
countries in Asia have adapted to create MOOCs for their own cultural and linguistic context(Buhl & Andreason, 2018). Some nation-states have prioritized MOOCs as part of theirnational education plans (Buhl & Andreason, 2018). Countries that have created local MOOCs
as part of their educational strategies include Taiwan, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia,
Philippines, South Korea, Singapore and Thailand (Chen, 2013; Laurillard & Kennedy, 2017;
Sari et al., 2019). In 2013, Tsinghua University founded the XuetangX platform in China,
which also is part of the Chinese Association of Higher Education (Laurillard & Kennedy;
Xuetangx, 2019). In Indonesia and Malaysia, MOOCs have been derived from government
initiatives to create access to education for their people, especially when brick and mortar
institutions are limited (Norman et al., 2015; Sari et al, 2019). In 2015, the Malaysian Ministryof Education collaborated with four public universities, National University of Malaysia,
University Putra Malaysia, MARA University of Technology, and University of Malaysia
Sarawak, to launch Malaysia MOOCs (Nordin et al., 2016). The Ministry of Education andCulture, along with Ciputra University and Universita Terbuka, collaborated in creating
MOOCs in Indonesia (Sari et al., 2019). In Japan and Korea, JMOOCs and KMOOCs werecreated by an inter-organizational conglomerate of academic, business, and governmental
institutions (Shigeta et al., 2017; Upadhyay & Anandpara, 2020,). Similar to the East Asian
counterparts, ThaiMOOCs, launched by universities and governmental initiatives in Thailand,
had their aim to develop life-long opportunities, innovation, and quality education for diverse
groups of people (Chaimin, 2019). SWAYAM, otherwise known as Study Webs of ActiveLearning for Young Aspiring Minds, “is a progamme initiated by the Government of India anddesigned to achieve the three cardinal principles of education policy including access, equity
and quality…to take the best teaching learning resources to all, including the most36

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

disadvantaged” (SWAYAM, 2019, para. 1). Furthermore, Katmandu University in Nepal has
recently piloted a MOOC course on basic programming which is one of the first locallydeveloped MOOCs in the country (Ghimire, 2018; Singh, 2018).
Educational Development and Provision of MOOCs
In the concept map of MOOC academic literature from 2010-2019, the education term
emerged. The content analysis of the research literature describes the MOOC impact onproviding education opportunities and access to people. In implementing the analysis andinterpretation of each the 48 academic journals and book chapters in detail (see Figure 1: Step4), another theme that emerged is the educational development and provision of MOOCs.
Factors that can hinder democratization of education of MOOCs to those people are thephysical infrastructure of technical capabilities and digital literacies of people understanding
how to use MOOCs.
In India, where there could be possibly 40 million extra university student spots needed by thenext decade, MOOCs in SWAYAM can help learners to achieve as much as 20 percent of theireducational curriculum (Buhl & Andreasen, 2018; Chatterjee & Nath, 2014). MOOC advocatesin India hope that online learning can help increase the literacy rates and help learners with
employment training (Upadhyay & Anandpara, 2020). The rise of Indonesian MOOCs, offeredat higher education institutions such as Ciputra University and Universita Terbuka, aim to help
the underserved to find quality education at an affordable and accessible cost (Sari et al., 2019).
MOOCs can also offer benefits to Nepali society such as open and free learning opportunities,
affordable and inclusive education, and developing Nepalese teacher professional development(Ghimire, 2018; Singh, 2018).
Technical capabilities. According to Liyanagunawardena, Williams, and Adams (2013),
access to educational technology encompasses the physical, motivational, and intellectual
knowledge of understanding how to use digital devices. Some studies find a disparity for lessprivileged groups in obtaining internet access in various parts of the world. For some countries
in Asia, internet access can be a challenge because of poor national infrastructure. For example,
parts of Sri Lanka have limited electricity and their internet centers tend to be in more urban
areas (Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013). As recently as in 2017, internet usage in Nepal wasless than 50 percent (Ghimire, 2017). Furthermore, Southeast Asian learners cannot afford
electronic equipment to enroll in MOOCs (van de Oudeweetering & Agirdag, 2015).
Access for women is more restricted where the internet is sparse. Women in Asia often go to
public libraries rather than internet cafes because they perceive the former as safer (Laurillard& Kennedy, 2017). According to the World Bank, women also have less access to certain
technology devices, as over 1.7 billion women in low- and middle-income countries do not
own mobile phones (World Bank, 2016). Furthermore, women have less access due to cultural
norms and pressures from families and friends not to use the internet (Laurillard & Kennedy,2017).
Slow internet connection poses an obstacle for all learners accessing MOOCs that contain large
files or that stream videos (Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013). In a survey conducted with
Nepalese engineering students who took the MOOC course entitled “Fundamental Concepts of
C Programming”, the students stated that slow internet access was a main barrier to MOOC
participation and completion (Shakya & Shrestha, 2018). Poor internet connection, especiallyin small towns and rural regions, can disrupt learning in various parts of the world (Adham &Lundquist, 2015). However, some governments and other organizations have developed

37

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

MOOCs to support low-bandwidth connections. Murugesan, Nobes, and Wild (2017) observeda MOOC course for researchers from developing countries. This research and writing course
was delivered in a Moodle site of low-bandwidth methods including high-quality textual
content and videos or graphics that were low in size. Over 2,830 learners from over 90 countries
participated in the course. In this low-bandwidth methods course, they found that over half ofthe learners were from the Majority World including Asian countries such as Sri Lanka, India,
Nepal, and the Philippines (Murugesan et al., 2017). Over 45 percent of the participants in the
MOOC research course were women. Furthermore, contrary to the typical findings, the women
had a higher completion rate in relation to the men, engaging better in discussion forums andreflective dialogue, which is an indicator of digital literacy as well (Murugesan et al., 2017).
Digital literacy. Access to technology does not equate with proficiency of use. A young Sri
Lankan female teacher once responded in an interview about using MOOCs that although she
had good internet connectivity and technological resources, she did not know how to use them
(Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013). Her response underscores that for women and theunderserved in Asia, digital literacy is vital to the sustainability and completion of MOOCs.
Digital literacy includes information processing, competently navigating online tools, building
community through discussion forums, self-discipline in reading and completing assignments,
tasks, and quizzes, and having the ability to self-learn (Trehan et al., 2017). For many nationsin the world, computer literacy is still in the early stages. A little over 20 percent of Sri Lankan
adults are proficient at using digital technology (Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013). In Chineseand Indian universities, those with information literacy, that is, better internet skills and thedesire to learn through videos, have been more likely to succeed in MOOCs than those who
were not as technically able (Trehan et al., 2017). Even educators and students who have been
exposed to technology have a difficult time in understanding the process of implementing or
using MOOCs. In India, teaching assistants who helped the lead instructors for the SWAYAM
online courses have a challenging time with technical skills and handling of MOOCs (Buhl &Andreasen, 2018). For Nepalese students who took the pilot MOOC course in Kathmandu
University, they expressed confusion regarding the assignment expectations such as posting
discussions that they eventually dropped out of the course (Ghimire, 2018). To counteract theseissues with digital literacy, recommendations for improvement in MOOC retention include
clear instructions with modeling examples from the instructor and technology orientation(Ghimire, 2018). This is because prerequisite knowledge of using MOOCs, such as backgroundknowledge and programming skills, poses additional barriers for some women and theunderserved in Asia in taking MOOCs (van de Oudeweetering & Agirdag, 2015).
Lingual/Cultural/Social/Economical Factors for Asian Learners of MOOCs
Another category, which emerged in the concept map analyzing MOOCs in Asia documentsfrom 2010-2019, is learning. The learning concept examines the social, cultural, and physicalaspects of the learners and it appears that the design and pedagogy of MOOCs influences them.
Cultural differences of Asian online learners can be a factor in MOOC education, as well as
language, communication tool use, plagiarism, time zone differences, instructional styles,
language and other cultural factors (Chen, 2013).
Language and culture. Not only do women learners and the underserved in Asia need to havesufficient digital literacy, they need to understand English. Many MOOCs originated in
America and Europe where their universities and providers created the learning platforms(Laurillard & Kennedy, 2017). Only a small proportion of students in the Majority World are
multilingual (Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013). This creates obvious challenges, as seen in
MOOC creation in Nepal. This includes difficulty in the comprehension of the video lectures

38

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

and texts, the pace and tone of the lecturers, creating discussion posts, and understanding
assessment as English is not their first language (Ghimire, 2020).
Culture also plays a role in completing online courses. MOOCs have certain discourses suchas instructions, humor, or content in the discussion forums that other diverse learners may notunderstand (Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013). In some cultures, quality learner engagement
involves direct teacher to student interaction (Laurillard & Kennedy, 2017). Interculturalcommunication also is a factor as students from collective and high context cultures, like thosein Asia, stated problems in understanding their classmates’ viewpoints without visual signals(Bayeck et al., 2018). In a required Malaysian Ethnic Relations MOOC undergraduate course,
students expressed that having Malaysian instructors who speak the same language as them isa factor in helping them understand the video lectures better as the teachers can identify with
their local culture (Nordin et al., 2016). In many countries in Asia such as Nepal and India,
traditional face-to-face classroom, rote learning and plagiarism is engrained in the education
context; thus, instructors of MOOCs need to be aware of the challenges they faced whenassessing their students (Ghimire 2020; Mohapatra & Mohanty, 2017).
Suggestions to improve the quality of MOOCs to their diverse learners include providing
inclusive guidelines to respectively post on discussion forums, a variety of audio-visualmaterial, and flexibility on assessments to attract those with different learning styles(Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013; Laurillard & Kennedy, 2017). Furthermore, learning
engagement would increase if MOOCs enabled their diverse learners to share their personal
stories with one another, using local and global contexts to help them understand the course
content.
Regarding gender, MOOCs have the potential to offer and expand educational opportunities
for women in Asia and the Majority World (Alcorn et al., 2015; Liyanagunawardena et al.,2013). Liyanagunawardena et al., (2013) state that MOOCs can benefit females in nations
where access to education would be limited, such as in Afghanistan or in Nepal. Video
conferencing on the social value of MOOC based discussions can provide women access tomore senior global faculty than they would have in their local classroom (Laurillard &Kennedy, 2017).
MOOCs have the potential to democratize education for people with limited learning
opportunities, as universities, commercial, government, and non-profit providers realize thatthese open online courses cannot be a “one-size-fits-all” platform. Creators of MOOCs need totake into account the context of the learners, including the national infrastructure, schooling,technical educational background, language, and culture.
Economic and social mobility. As countries in Asia seek more labor, MOOCs can be a viableoption for women and those who cannot afford traditional higher education to improve jobrelated skills. A large number of Indian learners have signed up for edX MOOCs at Harvard,
MIT, and Penn (Alcorn et al., 2015). About 20 percent of the students in these MOOC courses
are women and those in rural residences of India (Alcorn et. al, 2015). Many Indian learners
have used MOOCs for professional development, to improve their current job skills, or totransition to new positions, primarily in STEM fields. In a 2014 survey of 780,000 learners
who completed a Coursera MOOC course from approximately 212 countries, 72 percent of thesurvey respondents chose career benefits and 61 percent reported educational benefits(Zhenghao et al., 2015). Interestingly, people from Asia, people with lower socioeconomic
status, and those with less education reported they benefited more from MOOCs than their elite

39

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

counterparts (van de Oudeweetering & Agirdag, 2015; Zhenghao et al., 2015). The former
respondents stated that completing a Coursera MOOC assisted them with tangible career
benefits such as getting a raise, finding a new job, or improving upon a skill for a job promotion(Zhenghao et al., 2015). Furthermore, the survey responders from the Majority World such as
those in Asia and people with lower socioeconomic status said they believed that the MOOCs
helped them improve their educational output, (i.e., transferring the MOOC to academic credit
or attaining knowledge). Other studies support the trends that when learning job-specific skills,
learners from the Majority World such as those in the Philippines were more likely to complete
MOOCs than those in the Western countries (Garrido et al., 2016; Murugesan et al., 2017).
MOOCs that cater towards women and the learners of the Majority World through their content
are likely to have their learners complete their courses. For example, in a MOOC entitled“Understanding Dementia”, learners can retake assessments as many times as necessary forthem to understand the content (van de Oudeweetering & Agirdag, 2015). Another MOOC
known as “Web Science” contains materials that non-native English learners can understand(van de Oudeweetering & Agirdag, 2015). In a MOOC on research writing for researchers indeveloping countries, the low-bandwidth materials in the course and the asynchronous
flexibility of the course allowed female learners to complete the course, especially as many ofthem have additional work and familial responsibilities (Murugesan et al., 2017).
Economic and social mobility are motivating factors for some women enrolling in MOOCs.
Other motivating factors include the participation of a friend or colleague in an online platform(Bayeck, 2016). A higher number of women took a Penn State Coursera MOOC course on“Creativity, Innovation, and Change”. The course attracted participants from over 82 different
nations, including China, the United States, India, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, Egypt,France, and Germany (Bayeck, 2016). Over 90 percent of the female respondents mentionedthat they took the course because of their friend. Eighty-one percent of respondents identified
job-related skills and connection with others as reasons that they took the course (Bayeck,2016). In terms of female participation, group work and collaboration were important factors
for women to complete the courses, especially as the topic of the course was engineering.
Conclusion and Future Research
MOOCs are open, low-cost, and unrestricted for any learner to enroll in them. Educators havepredicted that internet platforms would result in democratization of education by providing
educational access for all. They further have identified MOOCs as allowing those who havebeen excluded from residential higher education to participate in online courses (Adham andLundquist, 2015). In reviewing the literature and engaging in qualitative content analysis on
the impact of MOOCs on the democratization of education in Asia, researchers have examinedthe effects of technical capabilities, digital literacies, and language, as well as culture, on
women and the less privileged potentially using MOOCs for educational opportunities. Many
Asian universities have used a variety of MOOCs as part of their national plans to provide
opportunities for their people to receive higher education or continuing professional
development. Countries that have higher enrollments of people using MOOCs include thosethat have solid technical infrastructure and educational policies encouraging their people toenroll in MOOCs as part of their educational requirements. Recent research on MOOCs in Asia
still shows a disparity of enrollees who are either male, people in their 20s-30s, those who livein the urban areas, middle-to-upper social class, and learners who are competent in English.
Yet more countries in Asia, such as in Nepal, Indonesia, and Malaysia are providing more

40

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

internet availability and educational curriculum that provide digital literacy and MOOCs intheir local language to help the underserved with support to use MOOCs.
Multitudes of learners from around the world have enrolled in MOOCs. However, not alllearners have taken advantage of the online learning platforms. To make MOOCs even moreaccessible to females and the Majority World, MOOC providers in the United States andabroad should collaborate with various organizations such as governments, multinational
corporate sponsors, non-government organizations and community centers to work forunderserved groups to maximize the potential in providing education to these groups. The
democratization of education through MOOCs requires partnering organizations to improve
the MOOCs infrastructure, offer better broadband internet connectivity, and equip the lessprivileged groups with sufficient digital literacy to enable them to maximize the benefits
MOOCs have to offer. MOOC providers should also research and take the time to invest in
culturally and linguistically responsive content for their potential clients. As populations in the
Majority World increase, including those in Asia, the need to utilize technology will rise.
Traditional brick and mortar higher education institutions will not be able to accommodate
such multitudes of people. In order to meet the 2015 World Education Forum’s aim of equitable
and inclusive quality education and lifelong learning for all by 2030, local governments, grassroot organizations, and donors from affluent nations need to provide ample technological andeducational resources to create more MOOCs for women and those in the Majority World.
Further research will examine the extent to which global-based MOOCs such as Coursera or
edX, and local-based MOOCs in China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, Thailand,and other Asian nation-states have altruistic intentions of providing educational access, equity,and opportunity for women and the underserved in Asia.

41

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

References
Adham, R. S. & Lundquist, K. O. (2015). MOOCs as a method of distance education in the
Arab world: A review paper. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning,
18(1), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2015-0009
Alcorn, B., Christensen, G., & Kapur, D. (2015). Higher education and MOOCs in India andthe Global South. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47(3), 42–49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2015.1040710
Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in
the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog
Research Group. https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf
Bates, T. (2014, October 13). Comparing xMOOCs and cMOOCs: Philosophy and practice.
Online Learning and Distance Education Resources.
https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/13/comparing-xmoocs-and-cmoocs-philosophyand-practice/
Bayeck, R. Y. (2016). Exploratory study of MOOC learners’ demographics and motivation:
The case of students involved in groups. Open Praxis, 8(3), 223–333. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.8.3.282
Bayeck, R. Y., Hristova, A. Jablowkow, J. W., & Bonafini, F. (2018). Exploring therelevance of single-gender group formation: What we learn from a massive open
online course (MOOC). British Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(1), 88–100.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12528
Beigi, M., Wang, J. and Shirmohammadi, M. (2015). ARHD! Take the opportunity andpioneer vocational MOOCs. Human Resource Development International, 18(2),203–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2014.978663
Blankenship, J. & Kubicek, P. (2018). Democratization and gender equality in Sub-SaharanAfrica. The Journal of the Middle East and Africa, 9(1), 27–50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21520844.2018.1449458
Bozkurt, A., Keskin, N. O., & de Waard, I. (2016). Research trends in massive open online
course (MOOC) theses and dissertations: Surfing the tsunami wave. Open Praxis,
8(3), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.8.3.287
Buhl, M. & Andreasen, L. B. (2018). Learning potentials and educational challenges ofmassive open online courses (MOOCs) in lifelong learning. International Review of
Education, 64, 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-018-9716-z
Chaimin, C. (2019). MOOC: Lifelong learning in the 21st century. Journal of Humanities andSocial Sciences, Chiang Mai Rajabhat University, 46–70.
https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/husocjr/article/download/201022/142538/
Chatterjee, P. & Nath, A. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCs) in higher education- Unleashing the potential in India. Proceedings of 2014 IEEE international
conference on MOOC, innovation, and technology in education, (pp. 256–260). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MITE.2014.7020283
Chen, J. C. (2013). Opportunities and challenges of MOOCs: Perspectives in Asia.
IFLA WILIC 2013, Singapore. http://library.ifla.org/157/1/098-chen-en.pdf.

42

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. (2019). Content Analysis.
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/contentanalysis
Davies, L. (2008). Interruptive democracy in education. In J. Zajda, L. Davies & S.
Majhanovich (Eds.), Comparative and global pedagogies: Equity, access, anddemocracy in education (pp. 15–32). Springer.
EdX (2013, May 21). EdX continues to grow its network of the world’s leading institutions ofhigher education to meet global demand and increase access to quality education[Press release]. https://www.edx.org/press/edx-expands-xconsortium-asia-doubles
Epstein, E. H. (2002). Globalization of education. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofeducation (2nd ed., pp. 936–939). Macmillan.
Garrido, M., Koepke, L., Andersen, S., Mena, A. F., Macapagal, M., & Dalvit, L. (2016). An
examination of MOOC usage for professional workforce development outcomes inColombia, the Philippines, & South Africa. Seattle: Technology & Social ChangeGroup, University of Washington Information School.
https://tascha.uw.edu/publications/an-examination-of-mooc-usage-for-professionalworkforce-development-outcomes/
Ghimire, B. K. (2018). Maximizing continuous professional and academic development
through MOOC. In NELTA ELT Forum 2018 volume 4. Kathmandu: Nepal English
Language Teacher’s Association. (114–123).
Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and reality. Full report. Center
for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, NY.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED547237.pdf
Kanwar, A. (2014, March 28). Old wine in new bottles? Exploring MOOCs [White paper].
Commonwealth of Learning, 1–7.
http://dspace.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/1019/2014_Kanwar_Old_Wine_Transcr
ipt.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yLane, A. (2016). Emancipation through open education: Rhetoric or reality? In P. Blessinger
and T. J. Bliss (Eds.), Open Education: International Perspectives in Higher
Education (pp. 31–50). Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0103.02
Laurillard, D. and Kennedy, E. (2017). The potential of MOOCs for learning at scale in the
Global South. Centre for Global Higher Education.
http://www.researchcghe.org/perch/resources/publications/wp31.pdf
Lederman, D. (2007, December 6). Does class size matter: Daniel Barwick challenges theassumption that small is always best in the college classroom. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/12/06/does-class-size-matter
Leximancer. (n.d.). What is Leximancer: Automatic Content Analysis [PowerPoint slides].
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/539bebd7e4b045b6dc97e4f7/t/5b0f8eab70a6ad
58c23e862c/1527746234314/Leximancer+Introduction.pdf
Leximancer Pty Ltd. (2018, April 12). Leximancer User Guide, Release 4.5.
https://doc.leximancer.com/doc/LeximancerManual.pdf

43

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Williams, S., & Adams, A. A. (2013). The impact and reach of
MOOCs: A developing countries’ perspective. eLearning Papers, 38–46.
http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/32452/1/In-depth_33_1.pdf
McGinn, N. (1996). Education, democratization, and globalization: A challenge forcomparative education. Comparative Education Review, 40(4), 341–357.
https://doi.org/10.1086/447398
Mohapatra, S. & Mohanty, R. (2017). Adopting MOOCs for affordable quality education.
Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2027–2053.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9526-5
Murati, R. (2015). Conception and definition of the democratization of education. Journal of
Education and Practice, 6(30), 173–183.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1081375.pdf
Murugesan, R., Nobes, A., & Wild, J. (2017). A MOOC approach for training researchers indeveloping countries. Open Praxis, 9(1), 45–57.
https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.1.476
Nordin, N., Norman, H., Embi, M. A., Mansor, A. Z., Idris, F. (2016). Factors fordevelopment of learning content and task for MOOCs in an Asian Context.
International Education Studies, 9(5), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n5p48
Norman, H., Dogan, H., Nordin, N., Mahamod, Z., Halim, L. (2015). An Asia-Europe
massive open online course for lecturer training development of pedagogicalstrategies for MOOCs. Proceedings of Public University Dean’s Council 2015
Seminar, Malaysia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281782494_An_AsiaEurope_Massive_Open_Online_Course_for_Lecturer_Training_Development_of_Pe
dagogical_Strategies_for_MOOCs
OECD. (2006). Education Policy Analysis: Focus on Higher Education. Paris. OECD.
Powell, D.V., Kuzmina, S., Cwick, S., Khalid, T. & Sofo, S. (2016). Democratization of
education in emerging countries. Journal of Interdisciplinary Education, 15(1), 1–36.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304836394_Democratization_of_Education_in_Emerging_Countries
Sari, A. R., Bonk, C. J., Zhu, M. (2019). MOOC instructor designs and challenges: What canbe learned from existing MOOCs in Indonesia and Malaysia? Asia Pacific Education
Review. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09618-9
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance
Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf
Sefa Dei G. J. & Shahjahan, R. (2008). Equity and democratic education in Ghana: Towards
a pedagogy of difference. In J. Zajda, L. Davies & S. Majhanovich (Eds.),
Comparative and global pedagogies: Equity, access, and democracy in education,(pp. 49–70). Springer.
Singh, A. B. (2018). Accessing the role of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in higher
education: Opportunities and challenges for learning. In NELTA ELT Forum 2018
volume 4 (pp. 97–113). Kathmandu: Nepal English Language Teacher’s Association.
https://www.nelta.org.np/uploads/images/files/NELTA%20ELT%20Forum%20Vol%
204%202018.pdf

44

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Shakya, M. & Shrestha, S. (2018). MOOCs for higher education in Nepal. Quezon City:
Foundation for Information Technology Education and Development, Inc.
Shigeta, K., Koizumi, M., Sakai, H., Tsuji, Y., Inaba, R., & Hiraoka, N. (2017). A survey ofthe awareness, offering, and adoption of OERS and MOOCs in Japan. Open Praxis,(9), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.2.568
Smyrnova-Trybulska, E., Ogrodzka-Mazur, E., Szafrańska-Gajdzica, A., -Morze, N.,
Makhachashvili, R., Noskova, T., Pavlova, T., Yakovleva, O., Issa, T., & Issa, T.
(2016). MOOCs – Theoretical and practical aspects: Comparison of selected research
results: Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and Australia. Proceedings of the International
Conferences on Internet Technologies & Society (ITS), Education Technologies(ICEduTECH), and Sustainability, Technology and Education (ED571589). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571589.pdf
Seuring, S. & Gold, S. (2011). Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply
chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5),544–555. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211258609
SWAYAM. (2019). About SWAYAM. MRHD Government of India.
https://swayam.gov.in/about
Trehan, S., Sanzgiri, J., Li, C., Wang, R., Joshi, R. M., (2017). Critical discussions on themassive open online course (MOOC) in India and China. International Journal of
Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology,
13(2), 141–165. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1153318.pdf
UNESCO. (2015a). Incheon Declaration. Paris: UNESCO.
http://webarchive.unesco.org/20160930040522/https://en.unesco.org/worldeducation-forum-2015/incheon-declaration
UNESCO. (2015b). World Education Forum 2015 final report. Paris: UNESCO.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000243724
Upadhyay, S. & Anandpara, M. (2020). ICT best practice: MOOC courses in higher
education. 1st National conference on role of higher education in sustainable
development in India (RHESDI) 2020, 25–29.
https://wvvw.easychair.org/publications/preprint_download/Mc9X
van de Oudeweetering, K. & Agirdag, O. (2015). MOOCs as accelerators of social mobility?
A systematic review. Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 1–11. (EJ1165986).
ERIC. https://www.j-ets.net/ETS/journals/21_1/1.pdf
Waldrop, M. M. (2013). Online learning: Campus 2.0. Nature, 495, 160–163.
https://doi.org/10.1038/495160a
World Bank. (2016, May 17). World development report 2016: Digital dividends.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
Xuetangx (2019). About us. https://next.xuetangx.com/about
Zajda, J. (2008). Globalization, comparative education and policy research: Equity and accessissues. In J. Zajda, L. Davies & S. Majhanovich (Eds.), Comparative and global
pedagogies: Equity, access, and democracy in education, (pp. 3–14). Springer.

45

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Zawacki-Richter, O. & Naidu, S. (2016). Mapping research trends from 35 years of
publications in distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 37(6), 245–269.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1185079
Zawacki-Richter, O., Bozkurt, A., Alturki, U., & Aldraiweesh, A. (2018). What research says
about MOOCs – An explorative content analysis. International Review of Research inOpen and Distance Learning, 19(1), 242–259.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.3356
Zhenghao, C., Alcorn, C., Christensen, G., Eriksson, N., Koller, D., & Emanuel E. J. (2015).
Who’s benefiting from MOOCs and why. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2015/09/whos-benefiting-from-moocs-and-why
Corresponding author: R. Pam Barger
Contact email: pam.barger@wheaton.edu

46