Improving Massive Open Online Courses to Reduce the Inequalities Created by Colonialism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper has the aim of “exploring whether MOOCs create inequalities toward people living in the Global South”.  I would have thought this was already quite well established in terms of language, access to technology, economic inequality, etc. So I think some of this could be a bit more precise.  I feel similarly about the overview of colonialism in the introduction which is rather general. The introduction to MOOCs is also quite rudimentary and reduced the types of MOOC possibilities to just cMOOC and xMOOC when many other variants exist (see https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/pedagogy-massive-open-online-course-mooc-uk-view).

The treatment of the theoretical framework is sound but gives little impression as to why this particular approach was taken when others are possible. It seems to me like the authors have an interest in institutional influence and critical pedagogy. But MOOCs often operate outside of educational institutions and are often unmoderated which seems to limit possibilities for critical thinking.

The method is sound but I feel more detail is needed on the selection of resources. How many of each type were in the initial harvesting? How many of each type were discarded at each stage of review? The PRISMA framework (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) might provide helpful protocols for this.  More detail is needed on the coding process, including measures taken to ameliorate any personal bias on the part of the authors.

Some comments on the findings:

·      The authors criticise MOOCs for offering less comprehensive education to socio-economically disadvantaged peoples. This may be so, but is it better than offering nothing? The argument here does not seem strictly rooted in colonialism as it also applies to class difference in Western countries. Obviously there is quite a lot of research which shows that most MOOCs are taken by wealthier graduates seeking cost effective professional development. I suppose I wasn’t sure how this section was distinguishing effects particular to colonised countries.

·      I thought Theme 2 was interesting and I agree that languages are important. But the selection of literature here really quite brief and not much of it was about MOOCs. I thought there was a tendency to criticise Eurocentrism when most of the MOOCs originate in the USA.

·      Linguistic support is picked up again in Theme 3. I agree that offering MOOCs in native languages would improve parity of participation and was intrigued by the suggestion of motivating local translations through partnership.  What would this look like in practice? The other main point here is about internet access and I believe this has been made many times before.

·      Theme 4 suggests that simply providing local translations is insufficient since MOOC content itself can be Eurocentric or colonial. This is not an original point and I feel that the authors possibly overlook some nuance. Some providers have more open-infused attitudes towards MOOC production and knowledge sharing more generally.  I think the idea of a Freirean learning design for MOOCs is interesting and I would appreciate more detail on this. Either way, some concrete and specific examples of how MOOCs perpetuate colonial effects would be helpful.

The conclusion reiterates two points: that, despite their rhetoric, MOOCs can exacerbate inequality; and that this can be ameliorated by offering MOOCs in native languages and having a more participatory approach to MOOC production. I think the latter points are more original and interesting and I would focus on these more in developing this paper.  Ideally, some really specific recommendations could be offered.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper has the aim of “exploring whether MOOCs create inequalities toward people living in the Global South”.  I would have thought this was already quite well established in terms of language, access to technology, economic inequality, etc. So I think some of this could be a bit more precise. 

Thank you for offering comments on how this paper can be improved. I revised the abstract so that more precise language is used. (All of the revisions I made are in red font)

I feel similarly about the overview of colonialism in the introduction which is rather general. The introduction to MOOCs is also quite rudimentary and reduced the types of MOOC possibilities to just cMOOC and xMOOC when many other variants exist (see https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/pedagogy-massive-open-online-course-mooc-uk-view).

More content has been added to the section on colonialism. Specific examples have been added about the reactions to colonialism in South America. The introduction to MOOCs has also been revised.

The treatment of the theoretical framework is sound but gives little impression as to why this particular approach was taken when others are possible. It seems to me like the authors have an interest in institutional influence and critical pedagogy. But MOOCs often operate outside of educational institutions and are often unmoderated which seems to limit possibilities for critical thinking. 

A few sentences were added explaining why the approach taken was chosen when others are possible.

The method is sound but I feel more detail is needed on the selection of resources. How many of each type were in the initial harvesting? How many of each type were discarded at each stage of review? The PRISMA framework (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) might provide helpful protocols for this.  More detail is needed on the coding process, including measures taken to ameliorate any personal bias on the part of the authors.

Information about the initial set of sources that were selected has been added. As mentioned on page 4, the initial set of documents consisted of three sources. Some of the components of the PRISMA framework were not relevant for this study because this framework is for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This paper does not consist of a systematic review or a meta-analysis. It consists of a qualitative document analysis that did not include an analysis of all the literature published on the topic. Content that was repetitive and not useful for developing new themes was excluded. The method of research for this paper is consistent with how exploratory qualitative studies are often conducted. More details about the coding process have also been added. The paper now explains that in reflexive thematic analysis, coding is an interpretive process that depends on how the researcher makes meaning from the data.

Some comments on the findings:

• The authors criticise MOOCs for offering less comprehensive education to socio-economically disadvantaged peoples. This may be so, but is it better than offering nothing? The argument here does not seem strictly rooted in colonialism as it also applies to class difference in Western countries. Obviously there is quite a lot of research which shows that most MOOCs are taken by wealthier graduates seeking cost effective professional development. I suppose I wasn’t sure how this section was distinguishing effects particular to colonised countries.

A section has been added on page 2 explaining that in certain cases offering MOOCs can be better than nothing at all for people living in the Global South. The new and the previous content on colonialism shows that colonialism contributed strongly to the class differences that exist today. The paper should now make it more clear that the arguments that are discussed are strongly rooted in colonialism.               

• I thought Theme 2 was interesting and I agree that languages are important. But the selection of literature here really quite brief and not much of it was about MOOCs. I thought there was a tendency to criticise Eurocentrism when most of the MOOCs originate in the USA.

The Eurocentric worldview involves a lack of respect for non-Western cultures and economies. MOOCs that originate in the USA can be Eurocentric because the USA is a Western nation where the dominant language originates from Europe.

• Linguistic support is picked up again in Theme 3. I agree that offering MOOCs in native languages would improve parity of participation and was intrigued by the suggestion of motivating local translations through partnership.  What would this look like in practice? The other main point here is about internet access and I believe this has been made many times before.

Content has been added about how different types of partnerships can be created to help students not proficient in English have better chances of completing MOOC courses.

• Theme 4 suggests that simply providing local translations is insufficient since MOOC content itself can be Eurocentric or colonial. This is not an original point and I feel that the authors possibly overlook some nuance. Some providers have more open-infused attitudes towards MOOC production and knowledge sharing more generally. 

Content has been added on how different types of partnerships can be created to help students in many different ways (not just with language translation) have better chances of completing MOOC courses.

I think the idea of a Freirean learning design for MOOCs is interesting and I would appreciate more detail on this. Either way, some concrete and specific examples of how MOOCs perpetuate colonial effects would be helpful.

I provided details about how a MOOC designed according to the Freirean approach would need to include.

The conclusion reiterates two points: that, despite their rhetoric, MOOCs can exacerbate inequality; and that this can be ameliorated by offering MOOCs in native languages and having a more participatory approach to MOOC production. I think the latter points are more original and interesting and I would focus on these more in developing this paper.  Ideally, some really specific recommendations could be offered.

The details that were added should make this paper more clear regarding how MOOCs can exacerbate inequalities and what can be done to offer more opportunities for people in the Global South to benefit from these courses.

Reviewer 2 Report

The problem raised by the authors is currently one of the most urgent. It is important both from the standpoint of continuing inequality in society, and from the standpoint of society's transition to a digital formation, and from the standpoint of new forms of colonialization using soft technologies. The work is clearly structured, a reasoned analysis is presented. It would seem that the connection between education and national culture has long been proven, and yet the promotion of global education continues to ignore precisely the socio-cultural characteristics of individual states and peoples. This becomes especially clear when it comes to countries with underdeveloped economies. The subject of MOOC research can be attributed to soft technologies. The authors reveal the negative aspects of the influence and use of MOOCs in countries with poor populations. The authors are not limited to criticism, and offer ways to solve the problem. The use of Freyer's ideas is quite justified.

Thus, this article undoubtedly makes a certain contribution to scientific knowledge and practice.

Author Response

Thank you for these comments. Reviewer 1 offered guidelines for improving this paper. These guidelines were followed. The revised draft includes new content in red font.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I still think that more detail is needed on the process of purposive sampling.  The present draft states that from three initially selected documents a range of themes was identified and then used to identify "[d]ifferent types of data were collected from magazines, academic journals, books, newspapers, and websites". There is no detail provided on what was considered/rejected meaning that would be impossible to reconstruct this study.  We don't get information about the coding process or how the 4 final themes were arrived at.  I feel that this needs more attention to reach the required level of scholarship. I again suggest the PRISMA method for reporting this.

In this draft the author(s) describe their method as reflexive thematic analysis. This is presented as something that embraces the subjectivity and positionality of the individual researcher.  That's fine, but I think we need to see a.) how the themes were built from the coding process; and b.) some acknowledgement that this brings a limitation to the study.

The outcomes of the study are reported according the 4 themes. I think the three research questions posed in the study should be answered explicitly in the conclusion with clear evidence presented as to why these are reasonable answers.  This need not be long but I think there should at least be a summary in the conclusion.  I think this would also help clarify the arguments being made. 

Clearly stating these outcomes in the conclusion and abstract would be ideal, and I think it's also worth briefly describing the authors "ideas on how MOOCs can be improved to better serve people in the Global South" in the abstract as well. 

Author Response

Below are the reviewer comments from the revised paper and my responses to each comment:

I still think that more detail is needed on the process of purposive sampling.  The present draft states that from three initially selected documents a range of themes was identified and then used to identify "[d]ifferent types of data were collected from magazines, academic journals, books, newspapers, and websites". There is no detail provided on what was considered/rejected meaning that would be impossible to reconstruct this study. 

More details have been added on the process of purposive sampling. The paper now explains that there are many different types of purposive sampling strategies and the one that best describes the strategy used for this study is redundancy sampling. (All the new content has been added in blue font)

We don't get information about the coding process or how the 4 final themes were arrived at. I feel that this needs more attention to reach the required level of scholarship. I again suggest the PRISMA method for reporting this.

More information on the coding process and on how the 4 themes were developed have been included. The PRISMA checklist has also been used to ensure that there is sufficient information on the components this checklist recommends researchers to include.

In this draft the author(s) describe their method as reflexive thematic analysis. This is presented as something that embraces the subjectivity and positionality of the individual researcher. That's fine, but I think we need to see a.) how the themes were built from the coding process; and b.) some acknowledgement that this brings a limitation to the study.

As previously stated, more information on the coding process and on how the 4 themes were developed have been included. The paper now also includes a statement about the limitations of this study.

The outcomes of the study are reported according the 4 themes. I think the three research questions posed in the study should be answered explicitly in the conclusion with clear evidence presented as to why these are reasonable answers.  This need not be long but I think there should at least be a summary in the conclusion.  I think this would also help clarify the arguments being made. 

The three research questions posed in the study have now been mentioned and answered explicitly in the conclusion.

Clearly stating these outcomes in the conclusion and abstract would be ideal, and I think it's also worth briefly describing the authors "ideas on how MOOCs can be improved to better serve people in the Global South" in the abstract as well. 

The abstract now includes more information including how MOOCs can be improved to better serve people in the Global South.