Examining Value Change in MOOCs in the Scope of Connectivism and Open Educational Resources Movement

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) came to prominence with Open Educational Resources Movement (OERM). It was based upon the idea of libre in removal of some permission barriers and gratis in removing the price barrier (Suber, 2008) in learning resources. In line with the theoretical underpinnings of OERM, MOOCs embody primary characteristics of connectivist pedagogy which are autonomy, diversity, openness, and community participation. However, in time, moving away from its original philosophical and pedagogical values, new variations of MOOCs have emerged and new MOOCs have become more market oriented and are aligned with instructivist, cognitive, and behaviourist pedagogy. In an attempt to empirically examine the change in underlying values of the MOOCs, a survey method was employed by using a Connectivist Learning Environment Assessment Tool which was developed in the scope of this research. The tool could be useful for formulating and justifying a conceptual framework that enables us to reify the connectivist pedagogy and assess connectivist underpinnings of a learning environment including MOOCs. This research aims to contribute to MOOC studies against the background of previous knowledge from the Open Education and Connectivist fields. Examining Value Change in MOOCs in the Scope of Connectivism and Open Educational Resources Movement Ozturk


Article abstract
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) came to prominence with Open Educational Resources Movement (OERM). It was based upon the idea of libre in removal of some permission barriers and gratis in removing the price barrier (Suber, 2008) in learning resources. In line with the theoretical underpinnings of OERM, MOOCs embody primary characteristics of connectivist pedagogy which are autonomy, diversity, openness, and community participation. However, in time, moving away from its original philosophical and pedagogical values, new variations of MOOCs have emerged and new MOOCs have become more market oriented and are aligned with instructivist, cognitive, and behaviourist pedagogy. In an attempt to empirically examine the change in underlying values of the MOOCs, a survey method was employed by using a Connectivist Learning Environment Assessment Tool which was developed in the scope of this research. The tool could be useful for formulating and justifying a conceptual framework that enables us to reify the connectivist pedagogy and assess connectivist underpinnings of a learning environment including MOOCs. This research aims to contribute to MOOC studies against the background of previous knowledge from the Open Education and Connectivist fields.

Introduction Philosophical and Pedagogical Background of MOOCs
Ideas of Open Educational Resources Movement (OERM) advocating for free access to resources for learning, teaching, and research (Knox, 2013) underpinned the pedagogical design of Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs). Andersen and Ponti (2014) define MOOCs as structured and organized OER in the form of a course with participation from educators or organizers. According to Siemens (2013), "openness" which is associated with (the first) connectivist MOOCs, is a cornerstone to innovation and creativity.
On taking a closer look at the OERM, underlying philosophy of this movement is inspired by the idea of the diminishing role of institutions which require enrolment to access education. In other words, "OER foregrounds and prioritizes 'learning' as the central concern of educational endeavors, considering its users to be 'participants' in rather than 'consumers' of education" (Wiley, 2006, cited from Knox, 2012. On this point, there are two key concepts in defining the OER which could be summarized as liberty and gratis (Shareski, Swanson, Roberts & Downes, 2013). OER discussions revolve around the idea of free education since learning resources could be accessed by the public including disadvantaged groups. In his Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto, Aaron Swartz 1 (2008) opposes to the privatization and commodification of knowledge by identifying information as a power which embodies the scientific and cultural heritage of humans; this knowledge should not be monopolized by a handful of private corporations. In line with this, Karl Marx argues that the people who produce the goods should benefit the most from their production (Anderson, 2013). These assertions imply that third parties, such as publishers, should not be permitted to interfere with the knowledge gaining process by the way of unlinking the producers (e.g. authors) with the users (e.g. readers, learners).
In fact, discussions about intellectual property date back to the Age of European Enlightenment.
As Hesse (2002) aptly notes "The concept of intellectual property-the idea that an idea can be owned-is a child of the European Enlightenment. It was only when people began to believe that knowledge came from the human mind working upon the senses-rather than through divine revelation, assisted by the study of ancient texts-that it became possible to imagine humans as creators, and hence owners, of new ideas rather than as mere transmitters of eternal verities" (p.26).
1 Aaron Swartz, who hanged himself on his 26 possibly due to $1 million fine and penalty of 35 years in prison as a result of downloading academic journal articles from JSTOR, is a leading open access advocate and has significant contributions to the advancement of open educational resources. Swartz was involved in the development of the web feed format RSS, the organization Creative Commons, and the social news site Reddit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz).

Ozturk
To sum up, open education is grounded in economic discourses (education as a commodity), moral (education as a common good), and social (education as a shared enterprise) (Deimann & Sloep, 2013, p.1). In this context, as Deimann and Sloep (2013) suggest, open education has heterogeneous philosophical roots but can be reconciled since they share common beliefs and ideas.
However, OERM draws criticism in the following points: 1) The concept of "openness" is under theorized in particular for the practices of self-directed learning, 2) Rejecting institutional authority is problematic in a sense that OER literature in fact affirms reputation of established institutions while asserting liberation from them, 3) "The diminishing of the role of pedagogy, in which OER will be aligned with an untheorized learner-centered model of education", 4) Deterministic assumptions about self-direction and autonomy, and 5) "(A)n alignment with the needs of capital" (Knox, 2012, n.p.).
In the scope of MOOCs which is the focus of this study, among these points which Knox draws attention, lack of pedagogical considerations in some respects raises the need for a pedagogical lens to examine MOOCs. As Knox (2012) explains, OER literature mainly concerns accessing resources and neglect the issues of "(h)ow teaching in higher education might translate into the model of independent, self-directed access to learning resources" (n.p.). In the same vein, Deimann and Farrow (2013) point out the need of a new pedagogical framework based on an open paradigm for more collaborative and participatory projects. In the light of these discussions, in this paper, connectivist theory will be utilized as a framework for approaching MOOCs. First MOOCs are associated with connectivist theory as an underlying pedagogical approach and thus titled as cMOOCs (Connectivist MOOCs). Furthermore, connectivism shares similar philosophical values with OERM. Finally, one of the first MOOCs is titled as Connectivism and Connective Knowledge offered by George Siemens and Stephen Downes who are pioneers of connectivist thought and applied this theory in their course. In the next section, connectivism will be explored so as to provide a pedagogical lens to the MOOCs. Anderson and Dron (2011) define three generations of distance education pedagogy as cognitivebehaviourist, social constructivist, and connectivist pedagogy. Among these pedagogies, connectivism is the most recent pedagogy and is helpful for understanding learning in networks and in Web 2.0 settings. Siemens (2004) and Downes (2012) describe a network structure in which there are nodes (e.g. ideas, communities) and ties among these nodes. Learning in this network structure is described as a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.

Ozturk
So, what makes a learning environment connectivist? In the literature, there are misconceptions about connectivist learning and there are considerable assumptions about connectivism which are at odds. Therefore, in this paper, based on the seminal works of Downes (2012) andSiemens (2004) who are the pioneers of connectivism, characteristics of a connectivist learning environment are framed and summarized under the titles of connective knowledge, learning, semantic condition (diversity, autonomy, openness, connectedness), community participation, and role of a teacher in networked learning are expanded upon in the following sections. Framing the discussions through these aspects would be helpful in examining whether a learning environment accommodates connectivist features.

Connective Knowledge
Connectivism is grounded in an ontological view which assumes that, in addition to qualitative and quantitative knowledge, there is also distributed knowledge which is spread across a network of connections (Downes, 2012) and that knowledge rests in that diversity of opinions (Siemens, 2004). However, it is important to note that any distributed knowledge does not necessarily signify connectivist knowledge unless it adds value to where it is connected (Downes, 2012).
In fact, connectivism provides us a lens through which to make observations about learning in a digital age which occurs from organic knowledge with a disseminating, growing, and social structure.

Learning
According to the connectivist principles developed by Siemens (2004, n.p.) • Learning and knowledge rest in diversity of opinions.
• Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
• Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
• Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.
• Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
• Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
• Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right

Examining Value Change in MOOCs in the Scope of Connectivism and Open Educational Resources Movement
Ozturk answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.
Learning is perceived beyond memorizing and knowledge transfer in connectivist view. Rather than learning the course content, networks, ties, and nodes take an important role in explaining learning. In line with this, "learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks" (Downes, 2012, p.9).

Semantic Condition
After describing what learning is in a connectivist framework, it is equally important to understand what influences that learning. According to Downes (2012), "learning process is influenced by the four elements of the semantic condition (diversity, autonomy, openness, connectedness), that while memory is adaptive, it is not (necessarily) representative, and that learning, on this theory, isn't 'transferred', but grown anew by each learner" (p. 93). In networked learning, these elements point out democratic values. It is important to have semantic condition in a network as these values suggest a network which is more reliable, more stable, and can be trusted (Downes, 2012).
On taking a closer look at the semantic condition, diversity refers to individual differences in a network, such as network members who have various cultural backgrounds, expectations, prior knowledge, and differing ideas. Autonomy refers to the degree of freedom to make decisions. Selfregulated learning could be an example of autonomous learning where the learners make their decisions about their learning preference, such as choosing what to learn, planning, and evaluating their own learning and so on. Open Education refers to open content, teaching, and assessment (Downes, 2013) as discussed earlier in the paper. Finally, connectedness concerns implications of people being connected in a certain way rather than frequency of contact (Siemens, 2009).

Community Participation
In explaining network theory that informs connectivism, Downes (2012) refers to three aspects as knowledge, learning and community. In the sections above, the first two dimensions were discussed. As for the place of community in connectivism, knowledge and learning per se are not sufficient to comprehend a network theory. Knowledge is the building block of learning; what members learn informs the community and the knowledge created in that community in turn informs its members. In the same vein, Siemens (2004) points out the same cycle of knowledge development by suggesting, "The starting point of connectivism is the individual. Personal knowledge is comprised of a network, which feeds into organizations and institutions, which in turn feed back into the network, and then continue to provide learning to [the] individual" (n.p.).
So, Siemens and Downes emphasize not only the basic elements of network theory but also the cyclical knowledge development and learning in connectivism.

Role of a Teacher in Networked Learning
Exploring role of a 'teacher' in connectivist learning is challenging. In many instances teachers are defined as a critical friend, co-traveler (Anderson & Dron, 2011), and facilitator (Downes, 2012).
Since the distributed and networked structure of knowledge in the digital age challenges the traditional view of education delivered within the borders of school, strict time periods, and content, the role of the teacher has been redefined in the context of the connectivist paradigm to include networked learning environments. According to Siemens (2010), the role of a teacher could be summarized as follows: 1. Amplifying. Teachers are considered as nodes to which learners would decide to listen and follow. Therefore, teachers draw attention to content elements, ideas, thoughts, messages, and so on.

Curating.
Instead of delivering specific content, the teachers highlight the issues with their comments, posts, and personal reflections. Teachers provide learners with a variety of information sources.
3. Wayfinding and socially-driven sense making. Teachers guide their students in the manner of helping them find their way in their self-directed learning journey; thus helping them to make sense of complex information.

Aggregating.
As knowledge is distributed across networks, it is important for teachers to utilize tools to aggregate that fragmented knowledge in order for a meaningful learning experience.

Filtering.
Filtering is regarded as one of the most important roles of a teacher. Teachers help the learners by highlighting essential knowledge among a massive scale of information resources.
6. Modelling. Inspired by the apprenticeship learning method, modelling is important especially when knowledge "cannot be communicated and understood by lecture and learning activities alone" (n.p.).
7. Persistent presence. Persistent presence refers to the teachers' existence online to perform the aforementioned roles.

Re-visiting Connectivist MOOCs
In the sections above, the underlying philosophical and pedagogical background of MOOCs was discussed in the scope of OERM and connectivism in order to frame the MOOCs in its original form with its essential values. In this section, how MOOCs embody these values will be discussed to see its practical implications. Then, in the next section, current MOOC implications will be examined to uncover whether it has deviated in time from its original form, and if so, how?
In line with open education discourses, the teachers' and institutions' roles are diminished in MOOCs. Instead, as Liyanagunawardena, Adams and Williams (2013) suggest connectivity between the participants is facilitated by means of social networking and freely accessible online In typical MOOCs, massive participation is supported, that is to say on average several hundred to several thousand participants self-organize their participation take part in the course (McAuley, Steward, Siemens & Cormier, 2010;Downes, 2012). In a cMOOC, there is no prerequisite to take a course; educational resources are open to access and there is no fee.
A cMOOC embodies the primary characteristics of connectivism which are autonomy, diversity, openness, and interactivity (Cabiria, 2012). Participants are free to take the course based on their availability, are not assessed (by their peers) unless they wish to be, and the courses are open to anyone regardless of age, background, pre-knowledge, and so on. A detailed review of the implications of OER and connectivism will be discussed in the Discussion section.

Research Problem
In  (Clarà & Barberà, 2013;Wegerif, 2013), which have also served to strongly differentiate dialogical, connectivist cMOOCs from more monological, instructivist xMOOCs" (p.203). In cMOOCs, the participants take part in creating the content whereas in xMOOCs curricula is structured and defined by the course designer. Generally, while in cMOOCs, the participants use, reuse, and redistribute the resources; in some xMOOCs, the participants are not allowed to do so.
In fact, Bates (2014) refers to the literature in which MOOCs are dealt with in a variety of forms.
Bates summarizes these forms as "video-recorded lectures watched in isolation by learners" or "watched in co-located groups in a flipped classroom mode without instructor or tutorial support"; "MOOCs integrated into regular campus-based programs with some learner support" and finally cMOOCs, "using participatory and/or connectivist pedagogy" (p. 145). So, as it can be seen from the literature, there are now new forms of MOOCs which are more instructive and restrictive; participants are isolated and in some cases they need to pay a fee to get a certificate or fully access to the course. Since OERM inspired the emergence of the first MOOCs, as Peter and Deimann (2013) remark, there have been shifts from "pure openness" towards "pretended openness". MOOCs are now more massive but less open and more didactic (Siemens in an interview, Parr, 2013) and "free to (make) profit" (Rivard, 2013). In the light of the discussions above, in this study, the following two interrelated research questions will be addressed: 1. What makes a learning environment connectivist?

Method
The method of this research consists of two stages; first a Connectivist Learning Environment Assessment Tool (CLEAT) was developed for the purpose of framing the connectivist pedagogy as well as assessing a learning environment to see whether it has connectivist implications. Second, in order to examine the extent of current MOOCs' fidelity to connectivist pedagogy, a survey method was used by employing the assessment tool. Forty nine MOOCs were examined through the assessment tool.

Developing a Connectivist Learning Environment Assessment Tool (CLEAT)
As Anderson and Dron (2011) imply, "(c)onnectivist models are more distinctly theories of knowledge, which makes them hard to translate into ways to learn and harder still to translate into ways to teach" (p. 90). In many cases, connectivist theory remains abstract and it is difficult to make sense of its practical meanings in educational implications. The main purpose of this research is to examine whether current MOOCs still have connectivist implications as it was in its point of departure as suggested by the Open Educational Resources Movement. To this end, it is important to reify what connectivist theory means for practitioners, learners, and designers. Therefore, in order to investigate the first research question, that is "what makes a learning environment connectivist?", a connectivist learning environment assessment tool was developed.
Thirteen subject matter experts (seven Ph.D. holders and six Ph.D. students), who are knowledgeable about connectivist theory, commented on and rated the items in the tool through three, Likert point as (item is) "essential", "not essential", and "useful but not essential". The tool took the final form after some items were removed drawing on the content validity analysis result.

Developing a Connectivist Learning Environment Assessment Tool (CLEAT)
The main problem with connectivist theory is that, to some extent, it is difficult for practitioners to fully comprehend its implications in educational settings. Therefore, while developing a connectivist assessment tool to see whether a learning environment is inspired by a connectivist theory or not, it is important to discuss the tool's contents with the subject matter experts (SME).
In this context, rather than validating the tool with hundreds of student raters, opinions of experts on the scale items were asked to ensure its content validity as experts are able to guide with their knowledge on connectivism.
When analyzing the items on the tool, Lawshe's (1975) formula, which is suitable for analyzing expert responses (rates), was used. The formula is:

Examining Value Change in MOOCs in the Scope of Connectivism and Open Educational Resources Movement
Ozturk CVR = content validity ratio, ne = number of SME panelists indicating "essential", N = total number of SME panelists. Veneziano and Hooper (1997) indicate that minimum value of the content validity ratio for significance at p<0.5 is 0.54 for 13 panelists (See Table 1).

Table 1
Minimum values of the content validity ratio for significance at p<0.5 After applying Lawshe's formula on the data, results of the analysis show that 28 items in the draft tool (Appendix 1) meet the requirement of content validity ratio as can be seen in Table 2. Knowledge dimension). Therefore, in the final form, 29 items remained. As could be seen in Appendix 2, there are nine items in the "Semantic condition" dimension, six items in the "Role of a teacher/facilitator" dimension, 2 items in the "Connective knowledge" dimension, seven items in the "Learning" dimension and five items in the "Community participation" dimension. Items in the final form are measured by 5 point Likert as (Never=0, Rarely=1, Sometimes =2, Most of the Time=3, and Always =4). The minimum score on the tool consisting of 29 items is 0 while the maximum score is 116.

Examining MOOCs with the CLEAT
The CLEAT was administered to 49 ongoing and available MOOCs. The analysis was run by calculating the score of individual MOOCs based on the dimensions of the tool and each MOOCs' overall score as could be seen in Table 3.

Semantic Condition
In almost all of the MOOCs, massive participation was supported as expected and interactions among members were promoted. This leveraged the scores of the MOOCs. However, there was a significant tendency to marketise the MOOCs and this lowered the scores on semantic conditions. It was observed that while original MOOCs were completely free, now it is optional to "audit" a course and there is a charge to get a certificate. There are now campaigns echoed literary as "Pay as you go" selling courses to the students one-by-one. This proves that learning praxis on MOOCs has been commodified. It is noteworthy to rethink this deviation of the current MOOCs beyond their scores. The classification of the participants (the ones who pay for the course and take the course for free) takes us back to the neoliberal discourses of which OERM stands against. In the context of the job market, research shows that employers perceive taking MOOCs as an indication of employees' personal attributes such as motivation and a desire to learn in hiring decision (Radford, 2014). This points out the importance of MOOCs for the students who can afford, especially certificated courses, and who cannot, raising the question of equality in terms of gratis and where MOOCs are headed to.
One might think that MOOC projects need funding and therefore they must charge a fee; however, Wiley andGurrell (2009, citing from Downes (2006)) provide ten models to support open education projects. For instance, a membership model for organizations to join a consortium; a governmental model which proposes government agencies fund OER projects; a donations model which requests donations from its community members, as well as, other seven sustainability models could enhance economic sustainability of the cMOOCs.
A further point about certification is that, by looking at the scores from each dimension stated in Table 3, it could be seen that the MOOCs have now begun serving the needs of financial sources of the Universities by awarding participants with certificates which in turns helps the "elite" universities compete in the market by maintaining their reputation and making profit by selling the certificates. This result contradicts to the OERM's claims to independence from the institutions.

Role of a Teacher (Facilitator)
It is noteworthy that in all of the MOOCs providers, it was common that the facilitators draw attention of the participants to the important concepts and ideas, clarify discussions and content via extracting patterns, exclude non-useful information in the networks, and provide the participants with learning resources. These aspects meet the basic assumption of the connectivist MOOCs.
However, in the MOOCs where the role of a teacher was diminished, the learning environment became like an archived MOOC, as the differentiation between archived and live MOOCs was made by Campbell, Gibbs, Najafi and Severinski (2014), the courses lacked of cohort presence, instructional support, and collaborative learning; The teachers were enlivening the learning atmosphere and pointing out the fundamental contents although the learners heavily relied on their own engagement and collaboration with other learners throughout the course.

Connective Knowledge
Among the dimensions on CLEAT, MOOCs received the lowest scores from the Connective Knowledge dimension. Knowledge was examined by investigating its structure as chaotic, fragmented, non-sequential, and contextualized. Also, whether knowledge rested in diversity of opinions was researched.
As expected, there were many knowledge sources on MOOCs; however, it is noteworthy that knowledge presented by the facilitator in videos as a main source was highly structured like in a face-to-face settings. In a similar fashion, sources on collaborative learning tools such as wikis were also structured and mostly sequential.
As for the alternative knowledge sources to those facilitators', in particular in discussion forums and in outcomes of most of the educational activities which required learner collaborative engagement, it was seen that knowledge rested in diversity of opinions.

Learning
Learning trajectories of the students enrolled in three MOOC providers were mainly determined by objectives of the course. The findings showed that in terms of learning, in line with the objectives of the course, MOOCs had the potential to help students develop their capacities about the subject matter, to nurture meaning making and connections, and to learn from each other.
However, on CLEAT, the MOOCs scored low concerning the students' participation in a variety of networks. Essentially, the students were members of the forums or wikis embedded in the MOOCs whereas their participation in external networks was not supported in most of the courses.
Also, in 44 MOOCs, it was not possible for the learners to be part of creating content and structure. As mentioned before, the courses were highly structured. In five of the MOOCs, students were not allowed to administer to the course content and structure but partially, their opinions in the discussion forum or in equivalent tools were taken into account as feedback by the facilitators.

Community Participation
As discussed earlier, the students' participation in external networks was not significantly supported by MOOCs nor was their community participation within the MOOCs. Consistent with the dynamics of MOOCs, the students were able to join and leave a learning network whenever they wished and, most of the time, they were sharing common learning interest; however, they were occasionally given the responsibility of promoting each other's participation, happening mainly through peer-assessments and forum discussions. Furthermore, it was difficult to claim in most of the MOOCs that what students learn informs the community in which they are a part of and the community's collective knowledge, skill and perspective inform its member. It could be because MOOCs are usually run over a short period of time; within that limited time, it is not easy to foster spirit of community.
However, if participants in MOOCs are not a part of a community but merely a constituent of massiveness, then a relationship between the digital economy and the 'number' of the students becomes evident. Massiveness means profit given that each student needs to pay a fee to fully utilize the course and gain a certificate. As McAuley, Steward, Siemens and Cormier (2010) remark, "(t)he digital economy relies not just upon the formal infrastructure and services identified in the government's Consultation Paper, but on open, global networks of people whose connections carry capital exchange potential, whether of direct goods and services, information, simple friendship, or knowledge-building opportunities" (p.34).
Also, given that designing MOOCs as a pre-course process requires a great amount of time, during the course facilitators could be daunted with the workload while delivering the content which may cause them to pay less attention to the community aspect of learning. In this regard, Hollands and Tirthali (2014)  Drawing on the data, some highlighted points and suggestions for future studies are as follows: • As a fundamental discourse of Open Educational Resources Movement, "libre and gratis" were not significantly ensured in current MOOC implications. It is difficult to claim that current MOOCs are underlined with democratic values such as "libre". For instance, course design is inspired by didactic teaching (e.g. students are not allowed to decide course content) and certification system has rapidly been taking place which requires students to pay fee. Siemens (2013) suggests that current popular MOOCs are destroying open education. In that sense, future studies should focus on how to maintain free MOOCs based on financial models and pedagogies pertains to MOOCs settings in order to foster libre.
• It was dramatically observed that the knowledge structure on MOOCs was not chaotic, fragmented, and non-sequential as suggested in connectivism. In particular, videos as main sources of MOOCs modelled face-to-face courses. Future studies could specifically deal with how to reflect connectivist knowledge in design of the MOOCs.
• In considerable number of the MOOCs, community participation was ignored. Whereas in terms of community, in MOOCs it is aimed to "exploit the 'network effect', which means the value of a networked experience increases as more people make use of it. The aim is to engage thousands of people in productive discussions and the creation of shared projects, so together they share experience and build on their previous knowledge" (Sharples et al., 2014, p.3). However, given the number of the students, workload and time constraints of the facilitators, research papers are needed to develop MOOCs which mediate the students' community participation, as well as, challenge the realities of the facilitators.
• MOOCs which were reviewed in this research could be expanded and compared based on different variables such as connectivism and country of origin for individual MOOCs. As Bulfin, Pangrazio and Selwyn (2014) remark, "there is clearly room for additional comparative work that maps the discursive constriction of MOOCs in other national contexts -such as the largely publically-funded Scandinavian and central European education systems, as well as emerging higher education systems in regions such as Africa and the Middle East" (p. 301).
• Implications for future research are around whether xMOOCs will become more like cMOOCs over time in order to improve their completion rates and learning outcomes.
• Another area of future research is around whether existing MOOCs will become OER rather than fully copyrighted as most are now.
• Finally, the tool could be further developed in different learning settings and be adopted specifically for the MOOCs. Also, the tool could be improved through the discussions on connectivism.  Kop (2011) Participants are aware of the presence of others in the learning environment The facilitator draws attention to important concepts and ideas Siemens (2004) The facilitator provides the participants with learning resources The facilitator assists participants to use social networking for their doubts Cormier & Siemens (2010); Rodriguez (2012); Siemens (2004) The facilitator clarifies discussions and content via extracting patterns The facilitator helps participants to be able to exclude non useful information in the networks The facilitator modeling shows successful information and interaction patterns The participants sense the presence of the facilitator Learning and knowledge rest in diversity of opinions Siemens (2004) Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources Learning may reside in non-human appliances Learning process contains learning in networks consist of nodes (e.g. organization, information, people) and ties among these nodes Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known Meaning making and connections are nurtured and maintained in order to facilitate continual learning This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2
Connections between fields, ideas, and concepts are clear Knowledge is emerging and accurate Knowledge is distributed across a network of connections Downes (2012) Knowledge is chaotic, fragmented, non sequential and contextualized Anderson (2010) Participants are able to learn through their ability to construct and traverse among networks Downes (2012) Participants are given a learning task Participants are able to take an active role in learning activities