1

LearningDesignersinthe‘ThirdSpace’:TheSocio-TechnicalConstructionofMOOCsandTheirRelationshiptoEducatorandLearningDesignerRolesinHE

2

AbstractMassiveOpenOnlineCourses(MOOCs)arefrequentlyportrayedas“agentsofchange”inhighereducation(HE),impactingoninstitutionalpractices,processesandstructuresthroughoutHE.However,thesecoursesdonot“fit”neatlywiththeestablishedaimsandfunctionsofuniversities,andaccountsoftechnology-ledchangeinuniversitiespredominate,simplisticallyemphasisingtechnologicallydeterministnarrativeswithincidentalsocialeffects.ThisstudyaimstoexploretheconsequencesofintroducingthesecoursesintoHEintermsoftherolesofeducators,learningdesignersandthesocio-technicalconstructionofMOOCs.Theresearchtakesasocio-technicalperspective,combiningtheestablishedanalyticalstrategyofSocio-TechnicalInteractionNetworks(STIN)withthesocialtheoretical‘thirdspace’frameworkofHEactivity.Thepaperreportsonthefirstofthreeinstitutionalcasesstudies,findingthatlearningdesignersoccupyahub-likepositioninthenetworksofactorsinvolvedinMOOCdevelopmentwithinanemergent‘thirdspace’betweenacademicandmanagerialroles.Theanalysisalsorevealshowthemassiveandopenelementsofthesecourseselicitinvolvementofseeminglyperipheralactors,whoexertastronginfluenceoncourseproductionprocessesandcontent,witheducatorstakingalesscentralrole.Thisworkaddsasocio-technicalelementtounderstandingsofthirdspaceactivityinhighereducation,andcaninformtheplanninganddevelopmentofonlineeducationprojectsinaccountingforchangingrolesinHEwheremassivenessandopennessarecombinedinacourse.

1.IntroductionMassiveOpenOnlineCourses(MOOCs)havepromptedsubstantialdiscussionanddebateinbothpublicandacademicdiscourse.Someperceivethemasdisruptiveforces,whilstothersclaimtheyarecatalystsforopennessandaccesstoeducation(Boven2013).Ofcourseunderstandingsandrealisationsofeachtermwithintheacronym(theprecisenatureofopennessinacourse,forexample)arenotfixed(Anderson,2013).However,discourseisincreasinglyfocusingonmorepracticalissuesoftheplaceofMOOCswithinHE(Kovanovićetal.2015)andevencriticsacknowledgethatMOOCshaveforegroundedonlinelearningindiscussionsofHEstrategy,andhavecreatedrenewedinterestindigitaltechnologiesonthepartofacademics(Laurillard2016,p.6).ReviewsoftheliteraturesuggestthatMOOCsmayactaspotential“changeagents”insomeareasofHE,includingintheareaofteachingandlearning(Liyanagunawardena,Adams&Williams2013).However,MOOCsdon’talignfullywithtypicaluniversityfunctionsof“teaching,researchandservice”(Daniel2014),especiallyintermsoftheiropenandmassivenature.Further,investigatingtheimpactofMOOCs(orindeedothereducationaltechnologies)inHEcanbeproblematic.MOOCsareoftenpresentedasirresistibleforcesofnature(a“tsunami”,“avalanche”,“onlinewave”)orasindicatorsofinevitablescientificprogress(Bulfinetal.2014),but“thereisalackofevidenceforthecausaleffectsoftechnology”inthisrespect(Oliver2013,p.41).Suchreportsrepresentatechnologicallydeterministperspective,viewingtechnologyaspossessinginherentproperties,leadingtoinevitableimpactsonusers,thuschangingthesocialworld(Selwyn2010).Thisgivesanoversimplifiedviewof

3

thedynamicsandconsequencesofintroducingnewtechnologiesintoparticularsocialcontexts.Acknowledgingtheinteractionoftechnologiesandtheircontextofuse,SiemensarguesthatMOOCsrepresentonewayinwhichcontemporaryuniversitiesarestrugglingtoredefinetheirroleintheeraoftheInternet(2013).MOOCsare,heclaims,a“middleground”foreducation“betweenthehighlyorganisedandstructuredclassroomenvironmentandthechaoticopenweboffragmentedinformation”(Siemens,2013,p.6).Sucha“middleground”involvesarangeofstakeholdersinHE,andthispaperexplorestheinteractionsbetweenMOOCs,theeducatorswhocontributetothem,andthelearningdesigners(LDs)whocreatethem.ThisconnectionbetweenMOOCsandeducators/learningdesignersisrecognisedasimportant,yetunder-researched(Liyanagunawardena,Adams&Williams2013;Veletsianos&Shepherdson2016),whilsttheneedtobetterunderstandtheprocessesunderlyingthedevelopmentofonlinelearningiswell-established(Yuanetal.2014).DrawingonideasfromthefieldsofSocialInformaticsandEducation,thispaperexploresthe(sometimesunexpected)consequencesofintroducingnewtechnologiesintosocialsettings.Afterreviewingrelevantliterature,thetheoreticalframeworkandmethodsareoutlined.Thefindingsrevealhowopennessandmassiveness,realisedthroughacoursestructureinanHEsettingcanentailsocio-technicalinfluenceswhichshapetherolesofeducatorsandLDs,andthecoursesproduced.

2.BackgroundLiterature

ScholarshipandeducationaltechnologyThelinkbetweentechnologyandscholarshipisanareaofgrowinginterestforresearchers.Fryhighlightsthe“needtodevelopagroundedunderstandingofhowscholarsareactuallyusingICTsintheirwork”(Fry2004,p.304),whileWeller(2011)arguesthattheinfluenceoftechnologieswhichare“cheap,fastandout-of-control”havegreatpotentialtochangeacademicwork.However,thesequalitiesseemlessrelevant(asWelleracknowledges)totheformsofMOOCswhicharepartofthiscasestudy,astheyaretypicallytimeandresource-intensivetoproduce(Hollands&Thirthali2014).Intermsofcourseproduction,researchintothedevelopmentofonlinelearninginitiativesrevealstheneedforteamworkintheseprojects(Cowie&Nichols2010),ratherthanthemoreindividualistfocusonacademics’useofdigitaltechnologiestakeninWeller’sworkondigitalscholarship(2011).Thisfocusonteamworkinonlinelearninginitiativescanbelinkedtothe“unbundling”offacultyrolesinonlineeducation(Tucker&Neely2010)andincontemporaryHEmoregenerally(King&Bjarnason2003).Suchchangesmayreflectachallengetoperceptionsofacademiaas“thelastremainingcottageindustry”(Elton1996),inwhichthe“masterteacher”operatesas“jack-of-all-trades”(Moore,2007:113).Indeed,Trowleretal.(2012)identifyarangeofinstitutionalandexternalcontextualforces,whichchallengeestablishedconceptionsofdisciplinarynormsand

4

routinescommonlyunderstoodas“tribesandterritories”inHE(Becher&Trowler2001)Onlinecoursedevelopment,LDsandeducatorsStudiesoflearningdesignerrolesinonlinelearninginitiativeshintatthecomplexityofsuchprojectsinHE.Researchininstructionaldesignshowstheneedforcollaborationbetweenarangeofstakeholders(Chaoetal.2010),butthatthe“roleofthelearningdesigneriscrucialinsupportingacademicstodevelopqualityproducts”(Seeto&Herrington2006).Inacasestudyofinstructionaldesignerrolesinblendedlearninginitiatives,Keppell(2007)seesinstructionaldesignersashavinga“brokering”roleacrossdifferentacademiccommunitiesanddepartments.ThisideaofLDsina“bordercrossingrole”hasinterestingparallelswithWhitchurch's(2013)researchonthirdspaceworkinHE,whichwillbediscussedinsection3.Inanothercasestudy,Cowie&Nichols(2010)seethepotentialforconflictandtensioninonlinelearningprojectimplementation.Onlinelearninginitiatives,theyclaim,requirethe“bridgingofdistinctivecultures”.ObservingarenegotiationofpowerrelationsbetweeneducatorsandLDsduringdevelopmentofonlineandhybridcourses,theyarguefortheprimacyofrelationships(ratherthantimelinesortargets)intheseprojects.Researchhasshownacleardifferencebetweenproductionprocessesunderpinningconventional(face-to-face)andonlinecourses(Gregory&Lodge2015).However,furtherinvestigationsarerequiredtounderstandhoworwhetherfindingsfromthesestudiesofblendedoronlinelearninginitiativesalignwiththerealitiesofMOOCdevelopment.

TherelationshipbetweenMOOCs,educatorsandLDsTheextentofresearchconcerningtherelationshipbetweeneducatorsand/orLDsandMOOCsislimited.Bayne&Ross2014explorefactorsinfluencingMOOCpedagogy,butdonotaimtoconsiderwiderinfluencesonLDandeducatorroles.Morepertinenttothisresearch,Najafietal.(2015)findthateducatorsvaluetheopportunitiesforcollaborationwithLDsduringMOOCinitiatives,thoughthestudyisrelativelysmallscale.Czerniewiczetal.(2016)explorehowengagementwithMOOCsencourageseducatorstoreflectonopennessintheiracademicpractice,andfindemergenttensionsaroundopennessofcontentinthefaceofcopyrightconstraints.Literat(2015)andCheverie(2013)havealsopredictedlegalandcopyrightchallengeslinkedtoMOOCs,althoughthestudiesconsistofreviewsandcommentaryratherthanempiricalresearch.

3.TheoreticalFrameworkThisstudyusestheSTINstrategyasawaytoavoidtechnologicalorsocialdeterminism,byexaminingMOOCdevelopmentasa“socio-technicalsysteminawaythatprivilegesneitherthetechnicalnorthesocial”(Meyer2006).Whitchurch's(2008)socialtheoryofthirdspaceactivityinhighereducationisthenusedtorelatethemetaphoricalSTINrepresentationsofMOOCproductiontotheactivitiesofeducatorsandLDsinvolvedwiththem.ThestudyaimstoexploretheconsequencesofintroducingMOOCsintoHEcontexts,particularlyforeducators,learningdesignersandthosewhoworkwith

5

themtoproducecourses.Thefollowingoverarchingresearchquestionguidestheresearch:TowhatextentareeducatorandlearningdesignerrolesinfluencedbyparticipationinMOOCdevelopmentinHEinstitutions?Twosub-questionsinformtheprimaryresearchquestion:1.Whatarethesocio-technicalsystemsrelatedtoMOOCproductionandimplementationinwhichlearningdesignersandeducatorsareinvolved?2.WhataretherolesofeducatorsandlearningdesignerswithinMOOCdevelopmentandimplementationprojects?

DefiningeducatorsandlearningdesignersThisstudyfocusesprimarilyontherolesandactivitiesofeducatorsandlearningdesigners,butseekstouncoverothersignificantactorsorfactorswhichemergefromtheanalysis.InthecontextofMOOCdevelopmentinthisstudy,educatorsaretypicallylecturersatthecasestudyinstitution(withteachingandresearchroles),butfunctionastheSubjectMatterExperts(SME)outlinedinCaplanandGraham'sdelineationofonlinecoursedevelopmentroles(2008,p.187).Thisroleisclearlydistinctfrompastconceptionsofthe“LoneRanger”academicswhoproducecoursesinrelativeisolation,relyingontheirowntechnicalandpedagogicalknowledgetodoso(Bates,2000;inChaoetal.2010).AccordingtoCaplan,SMEstypicallyprovidecontentforcoursematerials,checkalignmentoflearningobjectivesandcontent,andsuggestactivitiestobeincluded.Learningdesigners(alsoknownasinstructionaldesigners)ontheotherhand,areconventionallyunderstoodasthosewhoconduct“thesystematicandreflectiveprocessoftranslatingprinciplesoflearningandinstructionintoplansforinstructionmaterials,activities,informationresources,andevaluation”(Smith&Ragan1999,p.2).Theirroleincludesadapting,creatingandsequencingcontentandlearningoutcomes,followinganADDIEprocessesofanalysis,design,development,implementation,andevaluation.Itisarguedthattheirroleisbecomingmorecomplexandextensive,asstudiesofinstructionaldesignerpracticeshaveshownthatformalADDIEprocessesarerarelyfollowedpreciselyinpractice(Kennyetal.2005).Indeed,SeetoandHerrington(2006,p.741)linkthedevelopmentofconstructivistlearningtheoryandmoreopen,Web-basedlearningenvironmentstoadiminishedfocuson‘instruction’,andthenewtitleoflearningdesignerforthis“diversifyingandexpanding”role.Itisforthisreasonthatthetermlearningdesignerisusedinthispaper.Theneedforcollaborationbetweenarangeofteammembers(inadditiontolearningdesignersandSMEs)inonlinecoursedesignprojectsisrecognisedintheliteratureasawaytofosterqualityincoursedesign(Caplan&Graham,2008,p.186;Chaoetal.,2010).TheSTINapproachemployedinthisstudyaimstotakeintoaccountthisrangeofsocialactorsinordertounderstandthecoursedevelopmentprocess“notsimplyasatechnicalmethodologytobeappliedtodesignsituations,butalsoasasocially[andtechnically]constructedpractice”

6

(Campbelletal.2009,p.646).Theinitialdecisiontofocusonlearningdesignersandeducatorsinparticularwasmadeastheirinteractionsareseenasaparticularsiteof‘cultureclashes’(CowieandNichols,2010)wherelearningdesignersactas“brokers”betweenacademicdepartmentsandotherprofessionaldepartmentsintheuniversity(Keppell,2007).ThisappliesparticularlytoeducatorsasSMEswhoareactiveinthecoursedesignanddevelopmentprocessitself,ratherthanpostgraduatestudentswhodealmainlywitheducatorsinprovidingcontent,orthosewhofacilitateindiscussionforumsoncecoursesarealreadyunderway.Ofcourse,oneaimoftheSTINstrategy(andofSocialInformaticsmoregenerally)istouncoveractors,groupsortechnologieswhichmayhaveahithertounrecognisedimportanceintheuseoftechnologieswithinsocialsettings(Walker&Creanor2009).

Socio-TechnicalInteractionNetworksRQ1.Whatarethesocio-technicalsystemsrelatedtoMOOCproductionandimplementationinwhichlearningdesignersandeducatorsareinvolved?TheSTINstrategyaimstoprovidedetailedandnuancedaccountsofthewaytechnicalandsocialfactorsinteracttoshapetechnologiesandtheircontextsofuse.STINoriginatesinthefieldofSocialInformatics,whichhasgeneratedasubstantialbodyofresearchtosupportthreekeyprinciplesofinformationtechnologyuseinsocialsettings.Theseprinciplesarethatinformationtechnologies(1)areembeddedintheircontextsofuse,(2)haveacharacteristic‘duality’ofenablingandconstrainingeffects,and(3)areconfigurableinthattheycanbeunderstooddifferentlyinparticularsettings(Klingetal.2005).TheideaofanetworkisusedasametaphorinwhichaSTINisdefinedas:“Anetworkthatincludespeople(includingorganisations),equipment,data,diverseresources(money,skill,status),documentsandmessages,legalarrangements,enforcementmechanisms,andresourceflows”(Klingetal.2003).Thesemetaphoricalnetworkshelpillustratethecomplexwaysinwhichtechnologiesareembedded,shapedandusedwithinorganisations.STINfocusesontheroutinesandconsequencesoftechnologyuse,ratherthanprocessesofadoptionorinnovationwhicharetheconcernsofSocialConstructionofTechnology(SCOT)andActorNetworkTheory(ANT).ThisstudyappliestheSTINstrategytoanalyseMOOCuseinuniversitiestoreveal“thecomplexityofintroducingnewartefactsintoexistingnetworks,whereoutcomesarefrequentlyunpredictableandmaypropagatethroughwidernetworkstohaveeffectsoftenfarremovedfromtheoriginalintentions”(Walker&Creanor2009).Asetof“heuristics”characterisestheSTINapproachandformsthebasisofthestudy.Theyareintendedtohighlightkeyelementsinasocio-technicalsystem(Klingetal,2003):•Identifyarelevantpopulationofsysteminteractions•Identifycoreinteractorgroups•Identifyincentivesandimpediments

7

•Identifyexcludedactorsandundesiredactions•Identifyexistingcommunicationforums•Identifysystemarchitecturalchoicepoints•Identifyresourceflows•Maparchitecturalchoicepointstosocio-technicalcharacteristicsTheseheuristicsareappliedintheanalysisofinterviewanddocumentarydata,andtoparticipantobservationaccountsmadeinthefieldbytheresearcher.HavingusedtheSTINstrategytoframeMOOCdevelopmentandimplementationasasocio-technicalnetwork,thestudyappliestherelevantsocialtheoryofthirdspaceactivityinHEtointerprettheSTINdatainrelationtoeducatorandlearningdesignerroles(RQ2).

MOOCsas‘ThirdSpace’initiativesRQ2.WhataretherolesofeducatorsandlearningdesignerswithinMOOCdevelopmentandimplementationprojects?Whitchurch’sconceptofthirdspaceactivityinHEisusedasawayofexploringtherolesofthoseinvolvedinMOOCdevelopment,answeringRQ2.

Defining‘roles’Castellsrelatesanddifferentiatesa‘role’from‘identity’,explainingthat“[i]nsimpleterms,identitiesorganizethemeaningwhilerolesorganizethefunctions”ofactivity(Castells1997,p.7).Thisinterpretationrecognizesthatanidentityorrolecanbeafluid,“cumulativeproject”(Whitchurch2008b)ratherthanoneofessentialist,fixedproperties.Thispositionsindividualroles(andagency)innegotiationwithsocialstructuresandtherolesofothers.Thecurrentstudyaimstoaddtounderstandingsofhowrolesmaychangeovertimeandacrossspacesinorganisationsasinteractionsareco-constructedbysocialandtechnicalfactors.

ThirdspaceenvironmentsandprocessesInherextensivestudiesofchangeinhighereducation,(Whitchurch2008a)hasidentifieda‘thirdspace’whichdefiesconventionalbinarydefinitionsofacademic(e.g.Lecturer)andprofessional(e.g.Marketing,Registry)rolesinHE.ShearguesthatindividualsoftencrossconventionalboundariesofdepartmentsorfunctionsinHE,respondingtothedemandforheterogeneousprojectteamsinuniversityprojectsandinitiatives(ofteninvolvingonlinelearningtechnologies).FiguretwoillustratesacademicandprofessionalrolesinHE,andhowa‘thirdspace’existsoutsideoftheirperceivedconventionalareasofoperation:

8

Figure1:RepresentationofWhitchurch'sconceptof'thirdspace'activityinHE(Whitchurch&Law,2010)

ThisstudyinvestigateswhetherMOOCprojectshavethesecharacteristics,asinstitutionscontinuetograpplewithquestionsofhowMOOCsfitwithinexistingstructuresandbusinessmodels(Daniel2014;Yuan&Powell2013).Whitchurch&Law's(2010)narrativesandprocessesofcontestation,reconciliationandreconstructionareusedasaconceptualframeworkthroughwhichtounderstandthe“dynamicsofthirdspaceenvironments”:

• Contestationprocess:tensionsandchallengesofworkingacrossprofessionalandacademicspheresbecomeapparent.Individualsdefinethemselvesinrelationto‘rulesandresources’ofaninstitutionforpragmaticreasons,butmaynotprivatelyidentifywiththem.

• Reconciliationprocess:negotiationofdifferenceasthepossibilityforfruitfulcollaborationemerges.Criticalexchangeandsharingofmultipleperspectivesoccursincontextcommitmenttooverallideologicalaimsofaproject.

• Reconstructionprocess:activeparticipationofindividualstowardthecreationofapluralisticenvironmentinwhichnewrulesandresourcesarecreatedinrelationtothenewspace.Newidentitiesandnetworksdevelop,perhapsalongsidenewlanguageorextendedunderstandingsofcertainterms.

TheideaofthirdspaceactivityandtheprocessesoperatingwithinthemwillserveasalensthroughwhichtounderstandMOOCdevelopmentandtherolesofthoseworkingonthem.

9

4.Method

CasestudyselectionThispaperreportsonthefirstofthreecasestudiesofUKuniversitieswhichproduceMOOCsonamajorcommercialplatform.AfterconductingaliteraturereviewandpreliminaryinterviewswithexpertsinthefieldofMOOCsandonlinelearning(n=6)thefirstofthreecaseswasselected(UniversityA).Thethreecaseswereselectedusingpurposivesamplinginordertocomparebetweenmeaningfulsituationsincontext(Bryman2015).UniversityAisamid-sizedUKuniversity,whichhasproducedmultipleMOOCsinpartnershipwithacommercialplatformprovider.

Participants14participantsinMOOCdevelopmentwereinterviewed,andobservationnotestakenduringsitevisits.Participantsincludededucators,LDsandprofessionalstaffinseniormanagement,marketingandlegalfunctions.Educatorsweredrawnfromthreedifferentdepartments,whilstlearningdesignershadexperienceofworkingonarangeofdifferentonlinecoursesandlearningtechnologies,includingfurtheriterationsofMOOCs.

ResearchinstrumentsSemi-structuredinterviews(n=14),participantobservationsanddocumentaryanalysis(25documents)wereusedtogeneratecredible,triangulateddatainthestudy(Bowen2009).InterviewsfollowedaflexibleguidederivedfromtheSTINheuristics.

DataanalysisThematicanalysiswasusedonalldatagenerated.CodeswerefirstderivedfromtheSTINheuristicsandresearchquestions.Subsequently,emergentthemeswereidentifiedfrominductiveanalysisofdata(Corbin&Strauss2008),followingSTINresearchbyMeyer(2007).Thematicanalysisfollowedaseven-stepprocessassetoutbyVaismoradietal.(2013):1.Familiarisewithdata2.Generateinitialcodes3.Searchforthemes4.Reviewthemes5.Define,nameandrefinethemes6.Report

5.ResultsInMOOCdevelopmentatUniversityA,LDsbecomeahubforMOOCdevelopmentactivity,filteringandmediatingthedemandsofexternalandinternaluniversitystakeholdersoftenembodiedthroughnon-humanactants,which“influencetherangeofactionsofotheractorsandactants”(Meyer,2007).ComplexpatternsofactivityatUniversityAareillustratedbytheideaofsocio-technicalinteractionnetworks,andthedynamicsatplaywithinthem,asshowninFigurethree:

10

Figure2:SimplifiedSTINdiagramofMOOCdevelopmentactivityatUniversityA

Figure2showsthishub-likepositionofLDs,throughwhichtheyfilterandinterpretthedemandsofothersocialactorsinMOOCdevelopment.Itis,however,difficulttorepresentthefullrangeofevolvingrelationships,incentivesandpressuresatplayinasingleSTINdiagram.Thesectionswhichfollowelaborateonthemainthemesidentifiedintheanalysis(withselectedexcerptsfromdocumentsandinterviews),centeringonsignificantactors,motivations,constraints,processes,andarchitecturalchoicepointsinMOOCdevelopmentandimplementation.

Significantactors-hubsandperipheralrolesAlthoughtherewas(especiallyinitially)somediversityofapproachesacrossteamsproducingdifferentMOOCs,investigationoftheactors,actantsandgroupsinvolvedinMOOCdevelopmentrevealedthesignificanceofLDsandsomeseemingly‘peripheral’actorsintheprocess.Althougheducatorswereofcourseinvolvedinstructuringandselectingcoursecontentin“co-creation”withLDs,mostactorsrecognisedthatLDstookahub-likeroleinMOOCprojects,actingasthe“linchpin”foractivitiesinwhichtheyoften“hadaveryfreehand”indecision-makinganddefiningtherolesofothers.OneeducatordescribedtheLDasthe“produceranddirectoroftheMOOC”whoalsoactedasa“gateway”fortheplatformprovider,interpretingguidelinesorrequirementsoftheplatform.Incontrast,theeducatordescribedtheirownroleas“scriptwriterorresearcher”(albeitonewithfinalsayovermattersofacademiccontent/accuracy).Representativesoflegal,marketingandmediaproductiondepartmentsalsotookinfluentialrolesintheproductionprocess,perhapsleadingeducatorstoperceive

11

theirroleassomewhatdilutedascomparedtotheirresponsibilitiesandcontroloverothertypesofcourses.Educatorstookanactivepartinsomeaspectsofthedevelopmentprocess,buthadalessconsistentpresenceindecision-makingprocessesregardinglegal,qualityassuranceandmarketingissuesthatseemedtoinfluencewidercoursedesignanddevelopmentprocesses.

ReputationalenhancementasmotivationandriskMOOCdevelopmentandimplementationatUniversityAcanbelinkedincomplexwayswiththethemesofreputationalenhancementandreputationalrisk.ReputationalenhancementoftheinstitutionwasidentifiedbyallstudyparticipantsasakeyinstitutionalincentivebehindMOOCproduction,andconstitutesasignificantchoicepointintermsoftheselectionofplatformproviderandofindividualcoursesselectedfordevelopment(thosesubjectslinkedtoresearchstrengthsoftheuniversity).Themassivescale,reach,andvisibilityofMOOCcourseofferingswereintendedtoprovidetheuniversitywithawaytoestablishitself“atthevanguardofaneweraofdeliveryofeducation”.Itshouldbenotedthatthe‘reach’ofMOOCswasalsoanincentiveformanyeducatorstoparticipateintermsoflettingthem“spreadtheword”aboutresearchintheirareasorwideningaccesstoeducationas“whatweshouldbedoing”.MOOCsoncommercialplatformshaveextensivereachtothepublicviatheWeb,makingtheplatformandtheWebitselfanimportantactantinthissystem.However,thehighprofilenatureoftheactivityandcommercialaspectoftheventurealsoentailedlegalandreputationalriskstotheinstitutionwhichseemedtoinfluencecourseproductionandactorrolesinvariousandsignificantways.LDsfeltlimitations(bothexternallyandself-imposed)oncreativityandambitionpartlybecause“itwasaveryshorttimescaleandaverycomplicatedproject”.The“tremendous”legalissuesofrightsclearancesforcoursematerialsexperiencedbyeducatorsandLDswere,forexample,significantcomplicationswhichoccupiedmuchcoursedevelopmenttimeforeducatorsandLDs.

AconservativeapproachtocoursedesignThissenseofpressuresontimeandresources,andperceivedreputationalriskseemed,overtime,toengenderasomewhatconservativeapproachtocoursedesignanddevelopment,limitinginnovationandcreativity.Mostactorsrecognisethatalthoughsomecentralfundingwasmadeavailable(especiallyintheearlystagesofMOOCdevelopment),muchtimecontributedwas“gifted”as“goodwill”totheseprojects.LDsinitiallyattemptedtoworkcreativelyaroundlimitationsinfundingandplatformaffordancesinorderto“getawayfromthenotion…thatitwasacontentpush”.LDsalsoclaimedtohaveinfluencedtheon-goingdevelopmentoftheplatformindiscussionsandfeedbacksessionswithplatformrepresentatives.SomeLDsintroducedonlinetoolswhichwereexternaltotheplatform,butfoundthatuseofexternaltechnologiesputpressureonotheractorsacrossthenetwork(suchasICTsupportorthelegaldepartment).ThiscombinationofsocialandtechnicalfactorsinfluencedLDapproacheswhereforoneLD“adesigndecisionisplacingaconstraintonmyself”.ThesubstantiallegalrestrictionsoncontentpermissionsalsoleadLDstolimiteducatoraccesstotheplatform.

12

Mediaproductionvaluesalsoinfluencededucatorcontributionstocoursevideocontentincaseswhere,duringfilmingofeducatorcontributions,“they[mediaproducersandLD]veryquicklysaid‘thisisn’tgoingtowork,thisistooacademic,thisistootextheavy’”.Theseexamplesillustratearenegotiationofcontrolandresponsibilityrelatingtoactorrolesincoursedesignandcontentselection,aswellashighlightingthetechnicalrequirementsofMOOCproduction,andthevariousconstraintsassociatedwithworkingthroughacommercialplatformprovider.Thisalsotosomeextentdiscouragedrevisionofcoursesbeforeforfuturereuse,thoughadaptionstosomecourseswereundertaken.Inthiscontext,representativesoflegal,mediaproduction,ormarketingfunctionswereabletoinfluencebothcoursedevelopmentprocedures,coursedesigndecisions,and(asthenextsectionwillshow)theconfigurationandselectionofcertaintechnologies.

ArchitecturalchoicepointsAsMOOCprojectsevolvedwithintheinstitution,varioussocialandtechnicalforceswerereifiedas‘non-humanactants’intheformofformalgovernancestructuresandtechnicalchoices.Proceduresforcoursedevelopmentwereadaptedandformalisedovertimetoensureallrelevantactorshadsomeopportunitiesforinputandreview(withthelegaldepartmentplayingasignificantandconsistentpartintheprocess).Inaddition,significanttechnicalchoicesweremadewhichmediatedtheprocessofcontentcreationanddesign.OnesuchchoicewastheadoptionofaproxysitewhichallowedLDstomaintainfullcontrolofcontentontheplatform,respondingprimarilytolegalconcernsandrestrictionsregardingcontent.Afurtherchoicewastheuniversity’ssubscriptiontoacommercialproviderofstockimagesforuseincourses.Thisresourcewasintroducedtoresolvetensionsbetweeneducatordemandsforaccurateimageryoncoursesontheonehand,andlegalorbrandingconsiderationsinvolvingtheinstitutionand/ortheplatformproviderontheother.Suchimagesneededto“beacceptablefromascientificstandpoint,butalsomeettheglossyslickstandardsforputting[images]outonaverypublicplatform”.Afinalexamplerelatedtodecidingwhetherindividualactivities(learningobjects)shouldbedesignatedasopenaccess(publiclysearchable,ratherthanopenonlytoregisteredcourseparticipants).Mostweremadeopen,butsomeweredeemedunsuitableforthis,forexamplebecausetheydealtwithsensitivetopicswhichneededtobecontextualisedwithinthewidercoursematerial.

6.DiscussionUsingfindingsfromtheSTINanalysis,thissectionexaminestheapplicabilityoftheconceptofthirdspaceactivitytoMOOCproductionatUniversityA.ThiswillhelpcriticallyexamineunderstandingsoftherolesofeducatorsandlearningdesignersinMOOCsandhowthismightrelatetosuchrolesinotheronlinelearninginitiatives.

13

MOOCdevelopmentasthirdspaceactivityMOOCprojectsatUniversityAarecomplexandrequirenewrolesandformsofcollaboration.TheanalysissupportsTrowleretal.'s(2012)claimthatavarietyof(institutionalandexternalcontextual)forcesinfluencethepracticesofeducatorsandLDsinadditiontodisciplinarynormsandroutinesinHE.TheMOOCinitiativeischaracterizedby“theemergenceofbroadly-based,extendedprojectsacrosstheuniversity,whicharenolongercontainablewithinfirmboundaries,[which]havecreatednewportfoliosofactivity”(Whitchurch,2013:25).Asdiscussedinsectionthree,Whitchurch&Law(2010)illustrateactivitiesoccurringinaThirdSpacewhicharedistinctfromsolelyacademicorprofessionalfunctionsinHE.FigurefourrepresentsthissituationintermsofthirdspaceactivityandMOOCsatUniversityA:

Figure3:MOOCsdevelopmentasthirdspaceactivityatUniversityA

InFigure3,generalistandspecialistfunctions(management,marketingetc)andmainstreamacademicsarepositionedoutsideofthethirdspaceaseitherprofessionaloracademicroles.Suchroleshaveclearerstructuralboundariesanddefinedpositionswithintheinstitution.Thoseinperimeterrolesmayactivelycrossboundariestoachieveparticularaims.However,thosepositionedwithinthethirdspace(MOOClearningdesigners,MOOCprojectmanager,forexample)arelikelytobeinvolvedinparticularprojectswhichdemandworkacrossprofessionalboundaries,likelyfocusingonoverallinstitutionalorprojectgoals,ratherthanthoseofaspecificdepartment.

Dynamicsofthirdspaceactivity:contestation,reconciliationandreconstructionTohelpillustratethedynamicsofMOOCprojectsthroughthelensofthirdspaceactivity,Table1categorisesandinterpretsfindingsfromtheSTINstrategyasprocessesofcontestation,reconciliationandreconstruction(seesection3).Particularareasoftensionandchangewhichembodytheseprocessesare

14

identifiedintheSTINanalysisinareasofMOOCdesign,MOOCdevelopmentprocessesandfundingandresources.

ContestationRegardingprocessesofcontestation,thetableshowshowasenseofuncertaintyandambiguityinitiallyexistedaroundMOOCprojectroles,aspartofa“mysteriousprocess”,accordingtooneLD.AcasestudyoflearningsupportfunctionsbyWhitchurchandLaw(2010)findssimilarlythatparticipants“hadtocreate[their]ownrole”and“find[their]ownwayintosystems”inthefaceofthechallengesanduncertaintyofthirdspaceactivity.Indeed,Whitchurch(2013)citesadiscussionfromane-learningconferenceinwhichparticipantsinthirdspaceprojectsaredescribedas“auniquegroupwhohadalmostcometogetherbecausetherewasajobtobedonebutitcouldn’tquitebearticulated”.TheSTIN

Contestation Reconcil iat ion Reconstruction MOOC design Reactions against

‘content’ push approach Reactions against limitations of platform Limitations / absence of institutional procedures Emerging complexity of learning designer role Conflict over content, approach, control

Need for cooperation across departments emerges

Negotiation of activities, resources, procedures within the institution and with FL Reflection on / response to MOOC participant behaviour and feedback

LDs redefine own roles and those of others LDs constrain creativity, content and activity types in relation to pressures on resources, time and reputational risk

MOOC development

Uncertainty and tension regarding development roles, processes and allocation of resources Diverse approaches to MOOC projects (among different MOOC teams) Conflict over power relations between Educators, LDs, legal and marketing teams

Negotiation of roles and decision-making in development processes Need for a problem solving approach is realized Recognition/understanding of perceptions of reputational and legal risks

LDs and management establish new organizational and decision making processes for MOOCs (limited educator input) Consolidation of a problem solving approach – LDs as relationship builders and brokers Limitations on educator access to content and resources

Quality assurance procedures reformulated and standardized

Funding/ resources

Top down funding announced Need for substantial ‘goodwill’ of contributors emerges Ambiguity, tensions and conflict over funding allocation (for mentoring, support, media production)

Less funding available for course re-runs / course development Negotiation of cost burden between Learning Support Unit and departments Exploration of different business models (recruitment, partnerships, third party funding)

Table1:Thirdspaceprocessesofcontestation,reconciliationandreconstructioninMOOCdevelopment

15

analysisaddsaconcernwithtechnicalelementswithinthirdspaceenvironments,forexamplewhereperceivedlimitationsoftheplatformorunderstandingsofopennessarecontested.Attemptstoimplementtechnologicalsolutions(usingexternalapplicationstoinnovatenewlearningactivities,orapplyingCreativeCommonslicencestocontent)meetorganisational,financialorlegalbarriersforthirdspaceactors.ThisdemonstratestheSocialInformaticsprincipleofthedualityoftechnology-thatithasbothenablingandconstrainingeffectsinorganisations(Klingetal.,2003).ThesechallengesparallelexamplesusedbyWhitchurch(2013)toillustratetheincreasingcomplexityoflearningtechnologist[sic]rolesinHE,whichfarexceedmereprovisionoftechnicalsupportforeducators.

ReconciliationAsLDscometoappreciatethepossibilitiesandconstraintsoperatinginthesocio-technicalarrangementsofwhichtheyareapart,processesofreconstructionareenacted.Designdecisionsrequirecooperationfromothersectionsoftheuniversity(ICTsupport,mediaproduction)ortheplatformprovider,entailingthenegotiation,criticalexchangeandinventioncharacteristicofWhitchurchandLaw’sreconciliationphase.Indevelopmentprocesses,LDsstarttoexploreandadapttheirownrolesandthoseofothersinrecognitionofthepluralisticenvironmentofMOOCs,anddevelopaproblem-solvingapproachtowardtheentireprocess,ratherthan‘firefighting’individualproblems(WhitchurchandLaw,2010).Thisallowsthemtofindnewwaysofinterpretingandarticulatingproblems(Whitchurch,2013),manageconflictoverfunding,andrespondtotheunderlyingsenseofreputationalriskwhichinfluencestheactivityofactors.

ReconstructionResearchonthirdspaceactivityandstudiesofonlinelearningprojects(Cowie&Nichols,2010)haveemphasisedtheneedforafocusonrelationships(ratherthantimelinesordisciplinaryboundaries)incertainHEinitiatives.WhitchurchandLaw(2010)claimthatfosteringrelationshipsallowsthe“formationofanew,pluralspace”inwhichreconstructionprocessescanberooted.TheSTINanalysisrevealedhowLDscametodefinetheirownrolesandthoseofothersasexperienceofMOOCprojectsdeveloped.Managementfacilitatedthecreationofnewstructuresanddecision-makingproceduresonmattersofresourcingandtechnicalpractices.LDsultimatelyplacelimitsonactivitytypes,andcontrolsoncontentselectionproceduresinrecognitionofthecomplexityandreputationalrisksassociatedwiththeproject,andtheresourceandtimeconstraintsunderwhichitoperates.However,negotiationoverbudgetallocationforMOOCdevelopmentcontinues,asdoesexplorationofdifferentbusinessmodelsandstrategiesforMOOCdevelopment.ThisdemonstratesthatthereconstructionphasehasperhapsyettobereachedintermsofMOOCfunding,asreflectedinTable1.

16

MOOCactorrolesinthethirdspace

LearningDesignersashubsTheSTINanalysisdemonstratedthatLDstakeahub-likeroleinMOOCdevelopment(seefigure3),andthistosomeextentextendsfindingsofpreviousresearchintoonlinelearningmoregenerally.Researchhashighlightedthe“brokering”(Keppell,2007)or“bridging”(Cowie&Nichols,2010)roletakenbyLDsinHEprojects,spanningdifferentdisciplinarycommunitiesofacademics.Ashubsinathirdspaceenvironment,LDsatUniversityAareabletointerpretproceduresandconfiguretechnicalresourcesprovidedbytheuniversityandtheplatform,thusinfluencingtherolesofothers.LDsdescribeMOOCprojectsas“amassiveteameffort”,involvingequalrelationsand“co-creation”.However,analysisofinterviewanddocumentarydatasuggestsLDscaninfactcommandthe“finalsay”inorderto“getthingsdone”fromtheirpositioninthenetwork,reflectingKehm’s(2006)ideaof“secretmanagers”.Inawidersense,itcouldbearguedthatLDsaretakingtheresponsibilityofaligningpedagogy,technologyandorganisation-crucialconsiderationsinteachingandlearning(Dron&Anderson2014)andthesuccessfuldiffusionofonlinelearningininstitutions(Jochemsetal.2004).

PerceptionsofreducededucatorinfluenceincoursedesignEducatorsperceiveareductionoftheirinfluenceinMOOCcoursedevelopmentcomparedtotheiractivitiesonother(mainlyface-to-face)courses.Thismaybeattributableinparttoan“unbundlingoffacultyroles”inonlineeducation(Neely&Tucker,2010)andanincreasinglyglobalisedhighereducationsectormorewidely(King&Bjarnason2003).CowieandNichols(2010)emphasisetheneedforteamworkinonlineeducationdevelopmentprojects,notingresistancetothisfromfaculty“weddedastheyaretothejack-of-all-tradesideaofthemasterteacher”(Moore2007,p.113).TheSTINanalysishasenabledtheidentificationofawidernetworkofseeminglyperipheralactorstowhichsomeconventionaleducatorrolesare‘unbundled’.Thisseemstobearesponsetointernalandexternalcontextualpressuresandincentives,whicharelinkedtotheopenandmassivecharacterofMOOCs.However,thesepressuresandincentivesshapingMOOCdevelopmentalsonecessitatetheinvolvementofarangeofsocialactorsoutsideoftheacademicdepartmentsconcernedwithparticularcontentareas,asoutlinedbelow.

InfluenceofperipheralactorsSeemingly‘peripheral’actorsinfacttakeonsignificantrolesintheMOOCdevelopmentprocess,influencingtheselection,presentationandprotocolsforsharingofcontent,andtheconfigurationofthetechnicaltoolsusedintheseactivities.TheideaofsignificantperipheralactorsinimplementationofICTsystemshasbeenidentifiedinSocialInformaticsresearch(Eschenfelder&Chase2002),andatUniversityAnewroles(MOOCprojectmanager,facilitationcoordinator,assetspecialist)werecreatedtofacilitatethecreationofMOOCs.

17

EvaluationApplicationoftheSTINanalyticstrategyhasgeneratedausefulsystemsviewofMOOCproduction,embeddedinthesocialandorganisationalcontextofUniversityA.TheSTINfindingsregardingactorrolesandinteractionsalsofitwellwiththeconceptof‘bordercrossing’activityinthethirdspace.However,thecombinationofSTINandthirdspaceconceptspresentschallengesinitsapplication.AfundamentalprincipleofSocialInformaticsisthattechnologiesareembeddedintheirsocialcontextsofuse,butWhitchurcharguesthatindividualsinthethirdspaceresistconstraintsandboundariesinsuchsocialcontexts,redefiningthemdynamically.Thispresentssomethingofa‘movingtarget’forSTINstudies-intowhatcontextexactlyareMOOCtechnologiesembedded?Further,theintroductionofnewtechnologyitselfbothchangesandischangedbythecontextandtheactorswhichshapeit.Thedegreeofcontingencyinthesecircumstancesseemshighandassuchmodellingthedynamicsofthesituationisverychallenging.

ConclusionTheUniversitiesUKMOOCreport(2013)calledforgreaterunderstandingof“howthedevelopmentandapplicationofonlineapproachesrequirechangesintheprocessesandproceduresthatunderpinthatmission”.Thisstudydemonstrateshowtherolesofeducatorsandlearningdesignersarestronglyshapedbyinvolvementinthecomplexsocio-technicalnetworkofMOOCproduction,whichisinturnembeddedintheparticularsocialandorganisationalcontextofUniversityA.TheSTINfindingsandthirdspacelensaddtocurrentunderstandingsoftheserolesinhighlightinghowissuessuchaslegalconstraints(orconcernswithmarketing,mediaproductionetc)canshapeorganisationalstructuresaroundMOOCsandthetechnicalconfigurationsofthetoolsthatcontributetocoursedevelopmentanddelivery.AtUniversityA,learningdesignersoccupyanddefineahub-like,‘thirdspace’rolewhichstraddlesacademicandprofessionalfunctions.Complexinteractionswithseeminglyperipheralactors(legal,marketing,mediaproduction)shapethecoursedesignanddevelopmentprocess,tosomeextentdilutingor‘unbundling’theconventional‘jack-of-alltrades’roleofeducators,orcreatingnewrolesrequiredtosatisfyorganisationalneedsandpriorities,ortechnicalplatformrequirements.ThesefindingsraisequestionsabouttheimplicationsofintroducingcourseswiththeseelementsofmassivenessandopennessintoHEcontexts.Universitiesmustgrapplewithcompetinginternalandexternalpressuresandmotivations(especiallythoserelatedtoreputationalenhancementorrisk)indevelopinganddeliveringsuchcourses,andthisinturnshapesthecoursesproducedandtherolesofthosewhoproducethem.Thesefindingscaninformdecision-makingonthestrategicplanningofcourses,andcoursedesignanddevelopmentprocesses.Itisnotpossibletogeneralisethesefindingsfromonecase,sofutureresearchwillcompareandtriangulatethesefindingswiththoseoftwofurthercasestudylocations.

18

ReferencesBayne,S.&Ross,J.,2014.ThepedagogyoftheMassiveOpenOnlineCourse

(MOOC):theUKview,Edinburgh:TheHigherEducationAcademy.Becher,T.&Trowler,P.,2001.Academictribesandterritories:Intellectual

enquiryandthecultureofdisciplines,OpenUniversityPress.Boven,D.,2013.TheNextGameChanger:TheHistoricalAntecedentsofthe

MOOCMovementinEducaion.eLearningPapers,33.Bowen,G.,2009.Documentanalysisasaqualitativeresearchmethod.Qualitative

ResearchJournal,9(2),pp.27–40.Bryman,A.,2015.Socialresearchmethods,OxfordUniversityPress.Bulfin,S.,Pangrazio,L.&Selwyn,N.,2014.Making“MOOCs”:Theconstructionof

anewdigitalhighereducationwithinnewsmediadiscourse.TheInternationalReviewofResearchinOpenandDistanceLearning,15(5).

Campbell,K.,Schwier,R.&Kenny,R.,2009.Thecritical,relationalpracticeofinstructionaldesigninhighereducation:anemergingmodelofchangeagency.EducationalTechnologyResearch,57,pp.645–663.

Caplan,D.&Graham,R.,2008.Thedevelopmentofonlinecourses.InT.Anderson&F.Elloumi,eds.Theoryandpracticeofonlinelearning.AthabascaUniversity,pp.175–194.

Castells,M.,1997.ThePowerofIdentity,Oxford:Blackwell.Chao,I.T.,Saj,T.&Hamilton,D.,2010.Usingcollaborativecoursedevelopmentto

achieveonlinecoursequalitystandards.TheInternationalReviewofResearchinOpenandDistributedLearning,11(3),pp.106–126.

Cheverie,J.,2013.CopyrightchallengesinaMOOCenvironment.Educause.Corbin,J.&Strauss,A.,2008.BasicsofQualitativeResearch:Techniquesand

ProceduresforDevelopingGroundedTheory,SAGEPublications.Cowie,P.&Nichols,M.,2010.Theclashofcultures:Hybridlearningcourse

developmentasmanagementoftension.JournalofDistanceEducation(Online),24(1),pp.77–90.

Czerniewicz,L.Glover,M.,Deacon,A.,&Waliji,S.,2016.MOOCs,opennessandchangingeducatorpractices:anActivityTheorycasestudy.Proceedingsofthe10thInternationalConferenceonNetworkedLearning,2016

Daniel,J.,2014.ForewordtotheSpecialSectiononMassiveOpenOnlineCourses.MERLOTJournalofOnlineLearningandTeaching,10(1),pp.i–iv.

Dron,J.&Anderson,T.,2014.TeachingCrowds,Edmonton:AUPress.Elton,L.,1996.Taskdifferentiationinuniversities:Towardsanewcollegiality.

TertiaryEducationandManagement,2(2),pp.138–145.Eschenfelder,K.R.&Chase,L.C.,2002.Socio-TechnicalNetworksofLarge,Post-

ImplementationWebInformationSystems:TracingEffectsandInfluences.In35thHawaiiInternationalConferenceonSystemSciences.

Fry,J.,2004.TheculturalshapingofICTswithinacademicfields:Corpus-basedlinguisticsasacasestudy.LiteraryandLinguisticComputing,19(3),pp.303–319.

Gregory,M.&Lodge,J.,2015.Academicworkload:thesilentbarriertotheimplementationoftechnology-enhancedlearningstrategiesinhighereducation.DistanceEducation,36(2),pp.210–230.

Hollands,F.M.&Thirthali,D.,2014.MOOCs:ExpectationsandReality.FullReport.May2014,NewYork,NewYork,USA.

19

Jochems,W.,VanMerrienboer,J.&Koper,R.,2004.Anintroductiontointegratede-learning.InW.Jochems,J.VanMerrienboer,&R.Koper,eds.Integratede-Learning.London:London:RouteledgeFarmer,pp.1–12.

Kehm,B.,2006.StrengtheningQualitythroughQualifyingMid-LevelManagement.InM.Fremerey&M.Pletsch-Betancourt,eds.ProspectsofChangeinHigherEducation.TowardsNewQualitiesandRelevance:FestschriftforMatthiasWesseler.Frankfurt:IKO,pp.161–171.

Kenny,R.,Zhang,Z.&Schwier,R.,2005.Areviewofwhatinstructionaldesignersdo:Questionsansweredandquestionsnotasked.CanadianJournalofLearningandTechnology,31(1).

Keppell,M.J.,2007.Instructionaldesignersontheborderline:Brokeringacrosscommunitiesofpractice.Instructionaldesign:Casestudiesincommunitiesofpractice,pp.68–90.

King,R.&Bjarnason,S.,2003.Theuniversityintheglobalage,PalgraveMacmillan.

Kling,R.,McKim,G.&King,A.,2003.Abitmoretoit:scholarlycommunicationforumsassocio-technicalinteractionnetworks.JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforInformationScienceandTechnology.,54(1),pp.47–67.

Kling,R.,Rosenbaum,H.&Sawyer,S.,2005.Understandingandcommunicatingsocialinformatics:Aframeworkforstudyingandteachingthehumancontextsofinformationandcommunication,InformationToday,Inc.

Kovanović,V.,Joksimović,S.,Gašević,D.,Siemens,G.,Hatala,M.2015.WhatpublicmediarevealsaboutMOOCs:Asystematicanalysisofnewsreports.BritishJournalofEducationalTechnology,46(3),pp.510–527.

Laurillard,D.,2016.Howshouldprofessorsadapttothechangingdigitaleducationenvironment?InL.Engwall,U.Teichler,&E.DeCorte,eds.FromBookstoMOOCs?EmergingModelsofLearningandTeachinginHigherEducation.PortlandPress,pp.3–14.

Literat,I.,2015.Implicationsofmassiveopenonlinecoursesforhighereducation:mitigatingorreifyingeducationalinequities?HigherEducationResearch&Development,34(6),pp.1164–1177.

Liyanagunawardena,T.R.,Adams,A.A.&AnnWilliams,S.,2013.MOOCs:Asystematicstudyofthepublishedliterature2008-2012.TheInternationalReviewofResearchinOpenandDistanceLearning,14(3),pp.202–227.

Liyanagunawardena,T.R.,Adams,A.A.&Williams,S.A.,2013.MOOCs:Asystematicstudyofthepublishedliterature2008-2012.TheInternationalReviewofResearchinOpenandDistanceLearning,14,pp.202–227.

Meyer,E.,2006.Socio-technicalinteractionnetworks:Adiscussionofthestrengths,weaknessesandfutureofKling’sSTINmodel.InSocialinformatics:aninformationsocietyforall?InremebranceofRobKling.pp.37–48.

Meyer,E.,2007.Socio-technicalperspectivesondigitalphotography:Scientificdigitalphotographyusebymarinemammalresearchers.IndianaUniversity.

Moore,M.G.,2007.Teamwork.AmericanJournalofDistanceEducation,21(3),pp.113–116.

Najafi,H.Rolheiser,C.,Harrison,L,Håklov,S.,2015.UniversityofTorontoinstructors’experienceswithdevelopingMOOCs.TheInternationalReviewofResearchinOpenandDistributedLearning,16(3).

Oliver,M.,2013.Learningtechnology:Theorisingthetoolswestudy.British

20

JournalofEducationalTechnology,44(1),pp.31–43.Seeto,D.&Herrington,J.A.,2006.Design-basedresearchandthelearning

designer.InL.Markauskaite,P.Goodyear,&P.Reimann,eds.AnnualConferenceoftheAustralasianSocietyforComputersinLearninginTertiaryEducation.SydneyUniversityPress,pp.741–745.

Selwyn,N.,2010.Lookingbeyondlearning:Notestowardsthecriticalstudyofeducationaltechnology.JournalofComputerAssistedLearning,26(1),pp.65–73.

Siemens,G.,2013.MassiveOpenOnlineCourses:InnovationinEducation?OpenEducationalResources:InnovationinEducation,pp.5–16.

Smith,P.&Ragan,T.,1999.Instructionaldesign,Wiley.Trowler,P.,Saunders,M.&Bamber,V.,2012.Tribesandterritoriesinthe21st

century:Rethinkingthesignificanceofdisciplinesinhighereducation,Routledge.

Tucker,J.&Neely,P.,2010.Unbundlingfacultyrolesinonlinedistanceeducationprograms.TheInternationalReviewofResearchinOpenand,11(2).

UK,U.,2013.Massiveopenonlinecourses:Highereducation’sdigitalmoment?,Vaismoradi,M.,Turunen,H.&Bondas,T.,2013.Contentanalysisandthematic

analysis:Implicationsforconductingaqualitativedescriptivestudy.Nursing&HealthSciences,15,pp.398–405.

Veletsianos,G.&Shepherdson,P.,2016.ASystematicAnalysisandSynthesisoftheEmpiricalMOOCLiteraturePublishedin2013–2015.TheInternationalReviewofResearchinOpenandDistributedLearning,17(2).

Walker,S.&Creanor,L.,2009.TheSTINinthetale:asocio-technicalinteractionperspectiveonnetworkedlearning.JournalofEducationalTechnology&Society,12(4),pp.305–316.

Weller,M.,2011.Thedigitalscholar:Howtechnologyistransformingscholarlypractice,Bloomsbury.

Whitchurch,C.,2008.Beyond“Administration”and“Management”:ReconstructingProfessionalIdentitiesinUKHigherEducation.UniversityofLondon.

Whitchurch,C.,2013.ReconstructingIdentitiesinHigherEducation:TheRiseof’thirdSpace’Professionals,Routledge.

Whitchurch,C.,2008.Shiftingidentitiesandblurringboundaries:TheemergenceofthirdspaceprofessionalsinUKhighereducation.HigherEducationQuarterly,62(4),pp.377–396.

Whitchurch,C.&Law,P.,2010.OptimisingthePotentialofThirdSpaceProfessionalsinUKHigherEducation.Availableat:http://oro.open.ac.uk/35785/[AccessedJanuary26,2016].

Yuan,L.&Powell,S.,2013.MOOCsandopeneducation:Implicationsforhighereducation,Availableat:http://pdf.thepdfportal.com/PDFFiles/101588.pdf.

Yuan,L.,Powell,S.&Olivier,B.,2014.Beyond-MOOCs-Sustainable-Online-Learning-in-Institutions.pdf.whitepaperCETIS.Availableat:http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Beyond-MOOCs-Sustainable-Online-Learning-in-Institutions.pdf.