Massive Open Online Course Instructor Motivations, Innovations, and Designs: Surveys, Interviews, and Course Reviews | Motivations, innovations et conceptions des instructeurs de cours en ligne ouverts à tous : sondages, entrevues et évaluations de cours


  • Meina Zhu Indiana University
  • Curtis J. Bonk Indiana University
  • Annisa R. Sari Yogyakarta State University



MOOCs, MOOC, MOOC instructor motivations, MOOC innovations, MOOC designs


This mixed methods study explores instructor motivations for offering massive open online courses (MOOCs) as well as the instructional innovations used to enhance the MOOC design. The researchers surveyed 143 MOOC instructors worldwide and then interviewed 12 of these instructors via Zoom. They also extensively reviewed the MOOCs of the interviewees. The primary motivations for offering MOOCs included “growth” needs such as curiosity about MOOCs and the exploration of new ways of teaching. In addition, “relatedness” needs of instructors included reaching more people, showcasing research and teaching, marketing their university, integrating interactive technology, and obtaining peer reviews. The perceived instructional innovations of these MOOC instructors included using problem-based learning, service learning in MOOCs, and shortening the length of videos. Overall, these MOOC instructors were satisfied with their MOOC designs.

Cette étude faisant appel à des méthodes mixtes explore les motivations des instructeurs de cours en ligne ouverts à tous ainsi que les innovations pédagogiques utilisées pour améliorer la conception de ces cours. Les chercheurs ont procédé au sondage de 143 instructeurs de cours en ligne ouverts à tous à travers le monde et ont ensuite interviewé 12 de ces instructeurs par l’entremise de Zoom. Ils ont également réalisé un examen approfondi des cours en ligne ouverts à tous des instructeurs interviewés. Les motivations principales pour l’offre de cours en ligne ouverts à tous comprenaient des besoins relatifs à la « croissance », comme la curiosité au sujet de ces cours et l’exploration de nouvelles façons d’enseigner. De plus, les désirs relationnels des instructeurs comprenaient joindre plus de gens, mettre en lumière la recherche et l’enseignement, publiciser leur université, intégrer la technologie interactive et obtenir des évaluations par les pairs. Les innovations pédagogiques perçues par ces instructeurs de cours en ligne ouverts à tous comprenaient l’utilisation de l’apprentissage par résolution de problèmes, de l’apprentissage par le service dans les cours en ligne ouverts à tous et la durée écourtée des vidéos. Dans l’ensemble, les instructeurs de cours en ligne ouverts à tous étaient satisfaits de leur conception de cours.


Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 142-175. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(69)90004-X

Anders, A. (2015). Theories and applications of massive online open courses (MOOCs): The case for hybrid design. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6). Retrieved from

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students' engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261-278. Retrieved from

Bandura, A. (2006). Going global with social cognitive theory: From prospect to paydirt. In S. I. Donaldson, D. E. Berger, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), The rise of applied psychology: New frontiers and rewarding careers (pp. 53-70). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Belanger, Y., & Thornton, J. (2013). Bioelectricity: A quantitative approach Duke University’s first MOOC. Retrieved from

Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.). (2015). MOOCs and open education around the world. NY: Routledge.

Brouns, F., Mota, J., Morgado, L., Jansen, D., Fano, S., Silva, A., & Teixeira, A. (2014, October 27-28). A networked learning framework for effective MOOC design: the ECO project approach. In A. M. Teixeira, & A. Szücs (Eds.), 8th EDEN Research Workshop. Challenges for research into open & distance learning: Doing things better: Doing better things (pp. 161-171). Budapest, Hungary: EDEN. Oxford, United Kingdom. Retrieved from

Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2008). The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based inquiry on student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(1), 21-56. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1052

Cho, H., & LaRose, R. (1999). Privacy issues and Internet surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 17(4), 421-434. doi:10.1177/089443939901700402

Conole, G. (2015). Designing effective MOOCs. Educational Media International, 52(4), 239-252. doi:10.1080/09523987.2015.1125989

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Czerniewicz, L., Deacon, A., Glover, M., & Walji, S. (2017). MOOC—making and open educational practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(1), 81-97. doi:10.1007/s12528-016-9128-7

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580-590. Retrieved from

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930-942. Retrieved from

Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction, 3rd Edition. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Evans, S., & Myrick, J. G. (2015). How MOOC instructors view the pedagogy and purposes of massive open online courses. Distance Education, 36(3), 295-311. doi:10.1080/01587919.2015.1081736

Guàrdia, L., Maina, M., & Sangrà, A. (2013). MOOC design principles: A pedagogical approach from the learner’s perspective. eLearning Papers, (33). Retrieved from

Haavind, S., & Sistek-Chandler, C. (2015). The emergent role of the MOOC instructor: A qualitative study of trends toward improving future practice. International Journal on E-Learning, 14(3), 331-350. Retrieved from

Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., & Land, S. M. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implication. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94-99.

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45-58. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368

Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014a). MOOCs: Expectations and reality. Full report. Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, NY. Retrieved from

Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014b). Why do institutions offer MOOCs? Online Learning, 18(3). Retrieved from

Honeychurch, S., & Draper, S. (2013). A first briefing on MOOCs. Retrieved from

Jacobs, A. J. (2013). Two cheers for Web U. The New York Times, 162(56113), 1-7. Retrieved from

Kim, P., & Chung, C. (2015). Creating a temporary spontaneous mini-ecosystem through a MOOC. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 157-168). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kolowich, S. (2013a). San Jose State U. puts MOOC project with Udacity on hold. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 19. Retrieved from

Kolowich, S. (2013b). The professors who make the MOOCs. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 18. Retrieved from

Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 19-38. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.882

Lăzăroiu, G. (2015). Employee motivation and job performance. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, (14), 97-102. Retrieved from

Lowenthal, P., & Hodges, C. (2015). In search of quality: Using quality matters to analyze the quality of massive, open, online courses (MOOCs). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(5). Retrieved from

Luo, H., Robinson, A., & Park, J. Y. (2014). Peer grading in a MOOC: Reliability, validity, and perceived effects. Online Learning Journal, 18(2). Retrieved from

Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg, Denmark. Retrieved from:

Maehr, M. L., & Braskamp, L. A. (1986). The motivation factor: A theory of personal investment. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we've been, where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9(4), 371-409. Retrieved from

Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77-83. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005

Mazoue, J. (2013). The MOOC model: Challenging traditional education. EDUCAUSE Review Online, 1–7. Retrieved from

Meek, S. E., Blakemore, L., & Marks, L. (2017). Is peer review an appropriate form of assessment in a MOOC? Student participation and performance in formative peer review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 1000-1013. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1221052

Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times, 2(12). Retrieved from

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pelletier, L. G., Séguin-Lévesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers' motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 186. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.1.186

Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 375. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.375

Robin, B., & McNeil, S. (2015). The collaborative design and development of MOOCs for teacher professional development. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee., T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 180-189). NY: Routledge.

Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.761

Roth, M. S. (2013). My modern experience teaching a MOOC. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(34), 18–21. Retrieved from

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. doi:10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68

Severance, C. (2015). Learning about MOOCs by talking to students. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 169-179). New York: Routledge.

Shah, D. (2015). By the numbers: MOOCs in 2015. Class Central. Retrieved from

Shah, D. (2016). By the numbers: MOOCs in 2016. Class Central. Retrieved from

Shah, D. (2018a, January 22). A product at every price: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2017. Class Central. Retrieved from

Shah, D. (2018b, October 25). 190 universities just launched 600 free online courses: Here’s the full list. Quartz. Retrieved from

Shah, D. (2019, January 6). Year of MOOC-based degrees: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2018. Class Central. Retrieved from

Stacey, P. (2014). Pedagogy of MOOCs. INNOQUAL: International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 111–115. Retrieved from

Stage, F. K., & Williams, O. D. (1990). Students’ motivation and changes in motivation during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 31(6), 516–522. Retrieved from

Veletsianos, G., Collier, A., & Schneider, E. (2015). Digging deeper into learners' experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of MOOCs, notetaking and contexts surrounding content consumption. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 570-587. doi:10.1111/bjet.12297

Watson, S. L., Loizzo, J., Watson, W. R., Mueller, C., Lim, J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Instructional design, facilitation, and perceived learning outcomes: An exploratory case study of a human trafficking MOOC for attitudinal change. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(6), 1273-1300. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9457-2

Wild, T., Enzle, M. E., Nix, G., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Perceiving others as intrinsically or extrinsically motivated: Effects on expectancy formation and task engagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 837–848. Retrieved from: doi:10.1177/0146167297238005

Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., & Wosnitza, M. (2015). A usability evaluation of a blended MOOC environment: An experimental case study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2), 69-93. Retrieved from

Zhu, M., Sari, A., & Lee, M. M. (2018). A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical MOOC literature (2014-2016). The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 31-39. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.002