MOOCs as a Research Agenda: Changes Over Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOOCs (massive open online courses) have attracted considerable attention from researchers. Fueled by constant change and developments in educational technology, the trends of MOOCs have varied greatly over the years. To detect and visualize the developments and changes in MOOC research, 4,652 articles published between 2009 and 2021 were retrieved from Web of Science and Scopus with the aid of CiteSpace. This study sought to explore the number of publications, co-citation network, cluster analysis, timeline analysis, burstness analysis, and dual-map overlays based on co-citation relationships. The first finding was that the number of publications on MOOCs had increased consistently, and grew especially quickly between 2013 and 2015. Second, the main topic of the top 10 co-cited studies revolved around the problem of learner continuance. Third, blended programs, task-technology fit, and comparative analysis have emerged as popular subjects. Fourth, the development of MOOC research has followed distinct phases, with 2009 to 2012 the starting phase, 2013 to 2015 the high growth phase, 2016 to 2018 the plateau phase, and 2019 to 2021 another peak phase. Lastly, both cluster analysis and dual-map overlays provided empirical evidence of cross-disciplinary research. Our findings provided an in-depth and dynamic understanding of the development and evolution of MOOC research and also proposed novel ideas for future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".