A comparative cross-platform study of global and local MOOC providers on educational access and equality

Abstract

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have become increasingly popular as a means of delivering education on a global scale. However, comparative analyses across different contexts remain limited. To enhance the effectiveness and inclusivity of MOOCs, it is essential to gain a deeper understanding of course characteristics and learner behaviors in varied educational and cultural settings. This descriptive study compares two distinct MOOC platforms: MITx, a large academic initiative from the United States, and Bilgeİş, a smaller professional development platform from Turkey. The aim is to explore how MOOCs contribute to educational equity, access, and opportunity. The analysis draws on descriptive statistics from 122 MITx courses (with 2.8 million learners) and 100 Bilgeİş courses (with 100,000 learners), focusing on course topics, difficulty levels, and learner demographics such as age, gender, and education level. Findings reveal persistent inequalities in learner participation, particularly by gender and educational background. As MOOCs mature, they appear to attract a broader range of learners, including individuals with lower levels of formal education and older age groups. This trend highlights the potential of MOOCs to serve as inclusive learning environments that support lifelong learning and workforce development. The study underscores the need for standardized metadata frameworks to enable more consistent cross-platform comparisons and recommends regular evaluations to help providers tailor course design and content distribution in ways that promote equitable educational access.

Keywords

• Massive open online courses
• MOOCs
• online learning
• lifelong learning
• cross platform studies
• comparative studies

References

1. Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.). (2015). MOOCs and open education around the world. Routledge.
2. Bonk, C. J., Lee. M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (2017). The emergence and design of massive open online courses (MOOCs). In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Demsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed.). Pearson.
3. Cagiltay, N. E., Cagiltay, K., & Celik, B. (2020). An analysis of course characteristics, learner characteristics, and certification rates in MITx MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(3), 121-139. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4698
4. Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B., Bennett, A., Woods, D., & Emanuel, E. (2013). The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why? SSRN Electronic Journal. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2350964
5. Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2019). Progress and new directions for teaching and learning in MOOCs. Computers & Education, 129, 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.019
6. Drachsler, H., & Kalz, M. (2016). The MOOC and learning analytics innovation cycle (MOLAC): A reflective summary of ongoing research and its challenges. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 281-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12135
7. Emmons, S. R., Light, R. P., & Börner, K. (2017). MOOC visual analytics: Empowering students, teachers, researchers, and platform developers of massively open online courses. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(10), 2350-2363. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23852
8. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behaviour: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.

9. Jansen, D., Schuwer, R., Teixeira, A., & Aydin, C. H. (2015). Comparing MOOC Adoption Strategies in Europe: Results from the HOME Project Survey. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2154
10. Jansen, R. S., van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., & Kester, L. (2022). Exploring the link between self‐regulated learning and learner behaviour in a massive open online course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12675
11. Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Kovanović, V., Dowell, N., Mills, C., Gašević, D., ... & Brooks, C. (2018). How do we model learning at scale? A systematic review of research on MOOCs. Review of Educational Research, 88(1), 43-86. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654317740335
12. Kahan, T., Soffer, T., & Nachmias, R. (2017). Types of participant behavior in a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.3087
13. Kalz, M., Kreijns, K., Walhout, J., Castaño-Munoz, J., Espasa, A., & Tovar, E. (2015). Setting-up a European cross-provider data collection on open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2150
14. Kaplan, A. (2016). Lifelong learning: conclusions from a literature review. International Online Journal of Primary Education, 5(2), 43-50. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2416086
15. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K. Ø., & Williams, S. A. (2015). Who are with us: MOOC learners on a Future Learn course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 557-569. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12261
16. McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Pearson.
17. Ortega-Arranz, A., Er, E., Martínez-Monés, A., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., & Muñoz-Cristóbal, J. A. (2019). Understanding student behavior and perceptions toward earning badges in a gamified MOOC. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(3), 533-549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-019-00677-8
18. Porter, D., & Beale, R. (2015). A policy brief on MOOCs. The Commonwealth of Learning. http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/825
19. Rayyan, S., Seaton, D. T., Belcher, J., Pritchard, D. E., & Chuang, I. (2013). Participation and performance in 8.02x electricity and magnetism: The first physics MOOC from MITx. In P. V. Engelhardt, A. D. Churukian, & D. L. Jones (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2013 Physics Education Research Conference (pp. 289– 292). American Association of Physics Teachers.
20. Reich, J. (2015). Rebooting MOOC research. Science, 347(6217), 34-35. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261627
21. Robinson, A. C., Kerski, J., Long, E. C., Luo, H., DiBiase, D., & Lee, A. (2015). Maps and the geospatial revolution: Teaching a massive open online course (MOOC) in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 39(1), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2014.996850
22. Rohs, M., & Ganz, M. (2015). MOOCs and the claim of education for all: A disillusion by empirical data. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2033
23. Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A., Halawa, S., & Reich, J. (2019). Multiplatform MOOC Analytics: Comparing Global and Regional Patterns in edX and Edraak. In Proceedings of the Sixth (2019) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 1-9).
24. Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A., Halawa, S., Slama, R., & Reich, J. (2020). Using multi-platform learning analytics to compare regional and global MOOC learning in the Arab world. Computers & Education, 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103776
25. Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A., Staubitz, T., Jenner, M., Halawa, S., Zhang, J., Despujol, I., ... & Reich, J. (2022). Large scale analytics of global and regional MOOC providers: Differences in learners’ demographics, preferences, and perceptions. Computers & Education, 180, 104426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104426
26. Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A. (2022). A macro-scale MOOC analysis of the socioeconomic status of learners and their learning outcomes. In Socioeconomic Inclusion During an Era of Online Education (pp. 1-22). IGI Global.
27. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
28. Schulze, A. S. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCs) and completion rates: Are self-directed adult learners the most successful at MOOCs? (Doctoral dissertation). Pepperdine University. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd/442
29. Selwyn, N., Bulfin, S., & Pangrazio, L. (2015). Massive open online change? Exploring the discursive construction of the ‘MOOC’ in newspapers. Higher Education Quarterly, 69(2), 175-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12061
30. Shah, D. (2019). By the numbers: MOOCs in 2019. https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-stats-2019
31. Shah, D. (2020). By the numbers: MOOCs during the pandemic. https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-stats-pandemic
32. Shah, D., & Pickard, L. (2019). Massive list of MOOC providers around the world. https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-providers-list
33. Shi, Y., Haller, A., Reeson, A., & Li, X. (2024). Decoding the dynamics of knowledge pricing: An empirical investigation of MOOC platform edX's pricing structure and signaling effects. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 4(1), 100220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2024.100220
34. van de Oudeweetering, K., & Agirdag, O. (2018). MOOCS as accelerators of social mobility? A systematic review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 1-11. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1165986
35. Zhang, K., Bonk, C. J., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.). (2019). MOOCs and open education in the Global South: Challenges, successes, and opportunities. Routledge.
36. Zhang, M., Yin, S., Luo, M., & Yan, W. (2017). Learner control, user characteristics, platform difference, and their role in adoption intention for MOOC learning in China. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2722