MOOC_DaSI contributes with new and original knowledge to the debate around MOOCs -and Open Education in general- along three main lines of argument:
1. MOOCs originally represented a threat to existing higher education institutions, potentially jeopardizing the autonomy and quality of faculty labor at both private and public institutions. This occurred in the USA and especially in the first years of the hype (2012-13). Consequently, MOOCs faced some forms of resistance across different higher education institutions, which ultimately may have contributed to the slowdown of the MOOCs phenomenon in subsequent periods. European HE institutions joined with a bit of delay the ‘MOOCs mania’ and at the very early stages stood as observers with a bit of apprehension, but now Europe has a substantial offer of MOOCs and remarkable numbers of learners.
2. The contribution of MOOCs in reducing social inequality of access to education appears ambiguous: on one side learners with high levels of education, individual cognitive and organizational resources, as well as motivation and proactive behavior tend to be advantaged. On the other side, when considering the individual situation on the labour market, unemployed learners in particular seem to benefit from MOOCs, as they tend to adopt a strategic approach in which MOOCs are used as a (positive) signaling factor about their ability and motivation to prospective employers. On a gender perspective, MOOCs emerge as an accessible and useful tool for women experiencing transition periods and problems of work-life balance (e.g. in between jobs, between countries, after family separation). On the negative side, MOOCs positive contribution is not at everyone’s reach: only individuals with high individual resources, able to identify their own needs and to organize themselves are those benefitting the most.
Finally, the project contributes to shed light on the phenomenon of drop outs in MOOCS by highlighting a more articulated and non-binary version of ‘failure’. Indeed, most of learners appear to be at the same time completers of some courses and non-completers of some other courses, in the context of an area of experimentation in a low risk environment with no monetary cost, no blame, freedom of choice, and even a form of escape from routine or social and spatial isolation.
Last but not least, the project identifies few areas of policy intervention, dealing with:
1. Openness: Findings stress the importance of preserving the original ‘openness’ and accessibility features inherited from the Open Education movement, in favor of the circulation of knowledge at macro and micro level.
2. Monitoring: The research community and citizens in general would benefit of an institutional, reliable and non-profit source of information which regularly releases updated and comprehensive data for research and for information purposes.
3. Focus: One of the strengths of the European context is represented by its cultural diversity. Policy intervention at European level could further support and value this aspect, ultimately contributing to revitalize the common European identity.
