Post on 31-Mar-2023
Citation (Accepted Article): Khalid, Md. Saifuddin, and Elsebeth Korsgaard Sorensen. “Cartography of Controversies about
MOOCs.” In Proceedings of Global Learn 2015, 2015:25–35. FernUniversität in Hagen, Regionalzentrum Berlin: April 16-
17, 2015: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2015. http://www.editlib.org/pv/150845/.
Cartography of Controversies about MOOCs
Md. Saifuddin Khalid, Department of Learning & Philosophy, khalid@learning.aau.dk
Elsebeth Korsgaard Sorensen, Department of Learning & Philosophy, elsebeth@learning.aau.dk
Aalborg University, Denmark
Abstract: Massively open online courses (MOOCs) are one of most recent educational
technology development that have become a highly debated issue, polarized among
proponents, boosters, skeptics, and resistants. To understand the nature of such evolving
technology concepts, the typical methods and techniques in current literature result in the
production of systematic literature reviews, case studies, and theoretical or conceptual
frameworks. This work-in-progress paper explores the controversies about MOOCs by
adopting the recently developed method “cartography of controversies” from the science and
technology studies (STS) discipline. The method guides the application of actor network
theory (ANT). Online digital media and tools (namely, Scopus, ScienceScape, Google trends,
OpenHeatMap, NodeXL, Gephi, Facebook, Twitter) are used for data collection and analysis.
The study uses both qualitative and quantitative tools and techniques to highlight the
statements, literatures, actors, cosmoses or general concepts involved in the controversy. The
paper propounds the adoption of the method in the field of education and educational
technology and proposes through demonstration in this article that such investigations can be
reported as a genre of the scholarly article.
Introduction
Massively open online courses (MOOCs) are one of most recent educational technology development.
MOOCs have become a highly debated issue, polarized among proponents, boosters, sceptics and resistants
(Lawton & Lunt, 2013; Nguyen, Davis, Sharrock, & Hempsall, 2014). The public debates about MOOCs have
become widespread, involving people from diverse disciplines and with diverse interests. To understand the
nature of such evolving technology concepts, the typical methods and techniques in current literature result in
the production of systematic literature reviews, case studies, and theoretical or conceptual frameworks.
Cartography of controversies, which comprises a collection of techniques to explore and visualize issues with
actor-network theory (ANT), has a high potential to explore the burning matters in the field of education, more
narrowly in the area of educational technology or e-learning. Bruno Latour, a French philosopher, sociologist
and anthropologist of science, has pioneered the methodical approach to exploring and communicating about
controversial issues (Latour, 2011; Latour, Mauguin, & Teil, 1992). As part of his work in the field of science
and technology studies (STS), Latour devised and taught a didactic version of ANT for mapping controversies
(Venturini, 2010). Through his EU project named mapping controversies of science for politics (MACOSPOL),
the idea gained further maturity. “Adopted and developed in several universities in Europe and the US, the
cartography of controversies is today a full research method, though, unfortunately, not a much documented
one” (Venturini, 2010, p. 258). With these scopes, we observe and explore the controversies about MOOCs by
using the method – cartography of controversies. We began with the goal to explore the nature of MOOC
controversy, by applying both qualitative and quantitative techniques. As we, the authors from the field of e-
learning or educational technology came to learn about this method of STS discipline, the following
contributions can be claimed based on the backdrop mentioned above.
The paper adopts the cartography of controversies method in the fields of education and educational
technology.
It documents and demonstrates how controversial issues can be documented by using the method
cartography of controversies and proposes that such investigations can be reported as a genre of the
scholarly article. Primarily, the method has been documented for website production as the medium of
communication but not as a research paper (see, for example, Venturini, 2010).
It includes observations and explorations of the contents in the online digital media and analyzes of the
nature of controversies about MOOCs.
It demonstrates the application of some of the digital tools for the data collection and analyzes.
The paper is organized as follows. We begin by defining the term controversy and then reasoning if and why
MOOC is a controversial issue. Then, based on Bruno Latour’s teaching explained by his student Venturini, we
present method for cartography of controversy that applies the actor-network theory. The section also includes a
Citation (Accepted Article): Khalid, Md. Saifuddin, and Elsebeth Korsgaard Sorensen. “Cartography of Controversies about
MOOCs.” In Proceedings of Global Learn 2015, 2015:25–35. FernUniversität in Hagen, Regionalzentrum Berlin: April 16-
17, 2015: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2015. http://www.editlib.org/pv/150845/.
proposal to adapt Venturini’s 10-layer framework to present the analysis of a controversy though a website, and
apply the adapted framework as a methodical structure for the research documents intended to disseminate
studies on mapping controversies. We covered some layers of the adapted framework to present part of the
work-in-progress exercise in the mapping of MOOC controversy.
What Comprises a Controversy and are MOOCs Controversial?
Certainly, a controversy is the most complex phenomena and the methods of observing and analyzing
must be adopted on the basis of sufficient understanding of what a controversy contains. The Mapping
Controversies on Science for Politics (MACOSPOL) initiative considers the term controversy as every aspect of
a science and technology concept or product that has not yet stabilized. Simply put, “controversies are
situations where actors disagree (or better, agree on their disagreement)” and “in the widest sense:
controversies begin when actors discover that they cannot ignore each other and controversies end when actors
manage to work out a solid compromise to live together.” (Venturini, 2010, p. 261). So, a controversial issue
can fall between these two extreme levels.
There are five features that are common to social controversies (Venturini, 2010): 1) “Controversies
involve all kind of actors, human groups/beings and non-human actors” (e.g. technical and scientific artefacts,
biological and natural elements and etc.), 2) “controversies display the social in its most dynamic form” (i.e. an
actor can break into a network and a heterogeneous network can coalesce to function as an actor), 3)
“controversies are reduction-resistant” (i.e. context dependent and non-generalizable) and “the difficulty of
controversy is not that actors disagree on answers, but that they cannot even agree on questions”, 4)
“controversies are debated” (i.e. taken-for-granted ideas are questioned and discussed), 5) “controversies are
conflicts”, not necessarily involving fights (i.e. actors with different levels of power struggle to reverse or
conserve social values and opinions.
Venurini (2010) uses the properties of magma as a metaphor to describe the complex – solid and liquid
mix – a nature of the cartographies of social controversies. A controversy is considered good if it is not (1) cold,
(2), past, (3) boundless, or (4) underground, that is, open to public debate. The concepts of MOOCs and its
various applications are evolving and being debated in public – by people from different disciples; the
controversy involves actors that are both human and non-human. Interestingly, without “just exploring”, as
Bruno Latours tells his students, it is not possible to sufficiently prove that this is a good controversy. For the
rational and optimists, it might be sufficient to refer to the works of Lawton and Lunt (2013) and Nguyen et al.
(2014), who drew attention to the hot and recent aspects of the controversies about MOOCs.
This paper explores the controversy on MOOCs through identification of different statements,
literatures, actors, networks, and cosmoses. These relevant terms are defined in the next section.
Actor-Network Theory and the Cartography of Controversies Method
Bruno Latour developed a didactic version of Actor-Network Theory (ANT) by combining a set of
techniques to explore a controversial issue and publish the acquired understanding through visual techniques.
The goals and objectives can be traced back from the paper titled “A Note on Socio-Technical Graphs” (Latour
et al., 1992), which is adapted as follows. [Under the theoretical concepts of ‘actor-network theory’, Latour and
his colleagues] attempts to create a new research tool, to follow the dynamics of science and technology.
‘Socio-Technical Analysis’ develops new quantitative indicators and graphic representations with which to map
the development of a scientific controversy or a technical innovation.”(1992, p. 33)
The outcome of such a socio-technical analysis is cartography of the controversies surrounding an
issue. In his two papers Tommaso Venturini (2010, 2012), one of students of Latour, has elaborated the
cartography of controversies method, underlying assumptions, principles, and the digital tools that can be
applied to observe the contents of the controversial issue. The two following subsections are based on the two
papers. First subsection summarizes Venturini’s (2010, p. 258) elaboration on “how to explore controversies
with actor-network theory”. The second subsection summarizes “how to represent controversies with digital
methods” (Venturini, 2012, p. 796). These include the definitions and concepts required to understand the
cartographies. For convenience, the specific applications of digital tools in this study are presented as part of
the analysis.
How to explore controversies with ANT
Latour’s instructions to his students — “just observe” controversies — includes three consequences or
commandments, which might also be called as underlying principles. These are:
Citation (Accepted Article): Khalid, Md. Saifuddin, and Elsebeth Korsgaard Sorensen. “Cartography of Controversies about
MOOCs.” In Proceedings of Global Learn 2015, 2015:25–35. FernUniversität in Hagen, Regionalzentrum Berlin: April 16-
17, 2015: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2015. http://www.editlib.org/pv/150845/.
“1) you shall not restrain your observation to any single theory or methodology; 2) you shall observe
from as many viewpoints as possible; 3) you shall listen to actors’ voices more than to your presumptions”
(Venturini, 2010, p. 260). Venturini (2012) appends four recommendations: ”4) you shall adjust your
descriptions and observations recursively; 5) you shall simplify complexity respectfully; 6) you shall attribute to
each actor a visibility proportional to its weight; 7) you shall provide descriptions that are adapted, redundant
and flexible.”(2012, p. 5)
The intention of observation in social cartography is not to present a holistic picture or to inform what
should be observed, but to draw attention to the different layers of the controversy. Venturini explains five
observation lenses, which are summarized as follows.
(1) From statements to literatures. The first objective is to identify competing statements from literatures,
which can be investigated by using bibliometric and scientific tools. In addition, a chaotic nebula of
competing statements is also discovered from news articles, blog posts, and other social media.
(2) From the literature to actors. Statements always belong to large networks, which are comprized of
human beings, technological objects, metaphysical entities and many others. According to actor-
network theory (ANT) and in the study of mapping controversies, these beings and entities are termed
as ”actors”. Practically, if the presence or absence of such entity or being has a role in the literature,
especially as part of the competing statements, then it is an actor.
(3) From actors to networks. Latour argued that connectivity, interconnectivity, and heterogeneity are
insufficient properties for the formation of a network; instead, network should be understood as
worknet, which involves work, movement, flow, and changes. This observation involves identification
of actions for tying or untying relationships among actors, where actors inter-act or shape relations get
shaped by relations. The goal is to represent such reltionships visually among actors by network
diagrams.
(4) From networks to cosmoses. The natural tendency each network, comprizing both human actors or
other, is to come to a state of stability. Even the network of actors that try to destabilize has such a
tendency. These tendencies are referred to as the underlying ideology, which form the cluster of
networks or cosmoses. These cosmoses are not necessarily mutually exclusive, i.e. may have
overlapping networks due to the similarities in the principles of their ideologies. The full extent of the
cartography can be perceived only by roaming across the cosmoses (for example, Venturini, 2012, p.
13).
(5) From cosmoses to cosmopolitics. This layer is the trickiest, least understood, and insufficiently
illustrated. The concept takes the point of departure from the imperfections of human intellect that
gives rise to ideological differences and leading to conversial positions. So, it is about mapping based
on the different aspects of human imperfections that clusters the various cosmoses under different
cosmopolitics. Due to insufficient illustration that could clarify the concept, this leyer is not applied in
this study.
How to Represent Controversies with Digital Methods
Social cartographies, whether with digital methods or not, should present a proportionaly according to
different viewpoints’ representativeness, influence, and interest (Venturini, 2012).
Representativeness: The visual representations of the controversies should depend on how many actors
ascribe to each of the viewpoints. More the actors, more visible the arguments become. However, the
cartographers have to be careful in ensuring minimum visibility of the relatively marginal.
Influence: ”Controversies have centers and peripheries, reliefs and valleys, frontiers and passes. In
such territories, not all positions are equal, and actors fight to build and occupy influential positions: positions
that give them the power to affect the actions of other actors. Actors occupying influential positions deserve
particular attention because, like it or not, they will have better chances to shape controversies.” (Venturini,
2012, p. 3) So, the influential actors carry higher weight, and one of the ways of developing measurement scale
is the number of supporters. For instance, if a person’s opinion tweet is re-twitted by 60 others then the
influence weight is 60.
Interest: “It is disagreeing minorities who bring controversies into existence by refusing to settle with
the mainstream and reopening the black boxes of science and technology. No matter how marginal, disagreeing
viewpoints can be interesting because they offer original perspectives and question what is taken for granted.
[…]Cartographers may legitimately choose to map the proportionality of interest instead of size.”
(Venturini, 2012, p. 3)
Cartographers are given a high degree of freedom to choose from the different rules of proportionality
within these three categories.
Citation (Accepted Article): Khalid, Md. Saifuddin, and Elsebeth Korsgaard Sorensen. “Cartography of Controversies about
MOOCs.” In Proceedings of Global Learn 2015, 2015:25–35. FernUniversität in Hagen, Regionalzentrum Berlin: April 16-
17, 2015: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2015. http://www.editlib.org/pv/150845/.
The application of digital techniques as part of the cartography of the controversy method involves the
following facts (adapted from Venturi, 2012, p. 8):
(1) A search engine does not search the whole web;
(2) the content on the web does not include all the content on the Internet;
(3) the content on the Internet only a subset of the content in the digital media;
(4) the digital content is a subset of the data in the World.
The digital tools offer conveniences in data collection from various Internet-based data repositories,
manipulate different types of data, and to create graphical representations as maps. The objective is not present a
holistic picture but to meaningfully collect from the big ocean of data, to apply ANT for the analysis, and to
disseminate the cartography of the controversial issue.
From a Framework of Controversy-website to Framework of Research Paper
Through MACOSPOL project and based on the teaching experiences at the Science Po university, a
framework for controversy website comprising 9+1 layers has been devised as a pedagogical tool to facilitate
university students as a deliverable alternative to project report (Venturini, 2012). We propose that this
framework should be adapted to disseminate the cartographies of a controversial issue, and a new genre of
research papers can be embraced. The increasing amount of structured content on the Internet and the potential
of digital tools to collect, organize and analyze are sufficient motivation for such an initiative. The proposition
rests on the desires of communities of scholars. For this paper, based on the 9+1 layers, we discuss a preliminary
framework for the analysis section of such papers and demonstrate the application of part of the framework in
the analysis section of this paper.
1. The glossary of terms and non-controversial elements. Amidst the differences in opinions, there are
some shared elements in the controversies that should be explained. Websites allow presenting
multimedia and simulations but for research papers brief text should be included, and the multimedia
and simulations should be used as references. Although this appears first in the order but this will be
difficult to present until the cartography exercise is not complete.
2. The document repository. All the data collected, reorganized, analyzed, and the outputs generated by
various digital tools should be available for reviewers, public examination, and future access. The large
pool of bibliographic data and hypertext environment should be provided with a direct link, and the
exported data should be accessible for possible future changes in the accessibility. Considering the
limitation of words and pages, all these documents can be provided through a single data repository
along with a document that introduces the different types contend available in the folder.
3. The analysis of scientific literature or Scientometrics. Currently many academic document
databases (e.g. Scopus and Web of knowledge) have built-in scientometrics tools that can show the co-
authorship, keywords used, affiliation institution and country, authors’ disciplines, the impact of
journals and conferences and many other features. The other method is to identify the qualitative
aspects comprised of competing statements, institutional clusters, etc.
4. The review of media and public opinion. Recently developed tools (e.g. Nettviz and NodeXL) allows
extracting data from facebook and twitter, which can be graphically illustrated by the same or different
tool (e.g. Gephi and NodeXL). Furthermore, online news, discussion forums, and trends of search
queries can be identified by using different tools (e.g. Google Trends). The outcomes can be the
identification of 1. actors and networks, and 2. contesting statements, cosmoses, and cosmopolitics; the
first outcome can be auto-generated by digital tools, but the latter requires qualitative human decisions
with semi-automated tools (e.g. URL Harvester, issue crawler, NaviCrawler, etc.) or manual
development of cartographies. Automating the qualitative dimension is a major challenge due to the
lack of artificial intelligent and machine learning capability build into computer systems. For inter-
connected forums and websites with discussion, options can be analyzed by using multiple tools (e.g.
data cleaning by URLHarverster and network creation by NodeXL).
5. The tree of disagreement. In the case of techno-scientific controversies, hierarchical trees (also
known as Porphyrian trees) are used to illustrate controversies with different questions and their yes
or no answers. For cartographers, this is a very difficult task to explore the various questions
qualitatively and find a simplified version of the tree where either yes or no has to be selected. In our
experience, we found it a near-impossible task with an additional set of rules, which govern the
decision system. Furthermore, making such a tree requires the cartographer to support an opinion of the
rules, and that will remove some of the actors from the map. So, we differ with Venturini and suggest
that the disagreement should be presented with both yes and no answers. In such case, we might have
nested questions like an if-then rule.
6. The scale of controversies. All controversies are a collection of sub-controversies. ”Cartographers are
free to choose the granularity of their investigation, but they must be able to situate their object of study
Citation (Accepted Article): Khalid, Md. Saifuddin, and Elsebeth Korsgaard Sorensen. “Cartography of Controversies about
MOOCs.” In Proceedings of Global Learn 2015, 2015:25–35. FernUniversität in Hagen, Regionalzentrum Berlin: April 16-
17, 2015: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2015. http://www.editlib.org/pv/150845/.
in the scale of disputes where it belongs.” (Venturini, 2012, p. 11) The granularity or scale aspect is not
sufficiently clear from Venturini’s explanation and how the concept of scale should be implemented.
So, for now, we leave this aspect undecided.
7. The diagram of actor-networks. The objective of this mapping is to show actor-actor and actor-issue
relationship, which are associated with the broad issue of controversy or a sub-issue. It our experience,
it is not possible to auto generate such actor-network by using a single application or two. Rather,
based on the nature of the network among issues and actors, the actor-networks has to be drawn.
Furthermore, while websites can contain animated illustrations of actor-networks, it might me
sufficient to present in research papers. Moreover, most of the existing controversy sites made as part
of the research project and academic courses are insufficiently detailed with both mapping and what the
map tells about. In the case of research articles, it is very important to make such meaning. So, it is a
matter of further exploration on existing practice of network diagrams in publications.
8. The chronology of the dispute. Controversies change over time. So, the roles of actors and the
changing nature of controversies should be reported on a time line. While websites can support viewing
such interactive maps, the possibility to present those finding is a research paper will be limited. So, we
suggest those chronologies to be presented with both illustration and reference to the online interactive
map.
9. The table of cosmoses. Cosmoses, as defined earlier in the paper, are ideologies in a controversy. ”The
table of cosmoses should represent all those involved in a controversy showing where cosmoses
diverge and where they may overlap.”(Venturini, 2012, p. 11) While Venturini gets away with just an
example of a table of cosmos in the article without reasoning the hierarchical structure in the table and
approach of interpretation, but in the case of scholarly article we need sufficient justification with rule-
base that will support such hierarchy. So, we assume that the table of cosmoses do not include a scale,
rather a hierarchy, and the objective is to represent the hierarchical structure of the ideologies.
10. Perform public debate. Venturini’s framework’s tenth layer is about performing a public debate as
part of the controversy website. In order to remain unbiased and to present the cartographies in scale,
we excluded this from our proposed framework.
Mapping controversies about MOOCs
In this analysis section of this work-in-progress paper, we present an analysis based on first few layers
of the nine layers of the framework proposed in the previous section.
Layer 1. The glossary of terms and non-controversial elements.
MOOC models are still evolving, but Siemens’ (2013) classifications (xMOOCs, cMOOCs, and quasi-MOOCs)
have received highest citation and the definitions are in agreement with former and recent documents and
articles.
cMOOCs are based on constructivist pedagogical model, ”are distributed, and they emphasize, the
importance of learner autonomy. As a consequence of increased learner control, numerous tools and
technologies are used during the delivery of an open course. Each learner selects the technologies that he or she
prefers to use. Course facilitators provide: an infrastructure for content and administrative details (in the form of
a wiki or a Web page); a schedule for synchronous sessions involving guest speakers or live discussions; a
means of communicating with participants and providing course updates (often handled through email and
blogs); and starting points for learners to form connections with each other (a learning management system such
as Moodle).” (2013, p. 8)
xMOOCs are offered in a traditional university model such as Stanford (Coursera), MIT
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology)/Harvard (edX), and Udacity (2013, p. 7). Udacity and Coursera and
for-profit and edX is non-profit initiative. The pedagogical model assumes “teacher as expert” and “learner as
knowledge consumer”.” In order to meet the challenges of large numbers of students, assignments are computer-
graded in xMOOCs. Direct instructor feedback is not common, except in discussion forums where teaching
assistants and the course instructor respond to student questions.” (2013, p. 7)
“quasi-MOOCs provide Web-based tutorials as OER, such as those of the Khan Academy
and MIT’s OpenCourseWare (OCW). These are technically not courses. They consist of OER intended to
support learning-specific tasks such as an operation in algebra, or they are treated as asynchronous learning
resources that do not offer the social interaction of cMOOCs or the automated grading and tutorial-driven
format of xMOOCs. These resources are loosely linked and are not packaged as a course.” (2013, p. 8)
Citation (Accepted Article): Khalid, Md. Saifuddin, and Elsebeth Korsgaard Sorensen. “Cartography of Controversies about
MOOCs.” In Proceedings of Global Learn 2015, 2015:25–35. FernUniversität in Hagen, Regionalzentrum Berlin: April 16-
17, 2015: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2015. http://www.editlib.org/pv/150845/.
Layer 2. The document repository.
All the data collected, reorganized, analyzed, and the outputs generated by various digital tools are
available (see here: http://tinyurl.com/nh6qy58) for reviewers, public examination, and future access.
Layer 3. Scientometrics
This scientometric analysis is based on a search for the titles, abstracts, and keywords by using
”MOOC AND massive open online course” as the search term in Scopus, which returned 340 documents.
Figure 1 shows that the issue is predominantly researched by scholars from the disciplines of computer science,
social sciences, and engineering; in addition, there are scholars (actors) from 17 other disciplines. Figure 2
shows conference papers, journal articles, and other types of documents (as actors) are associated with the issue
of MOOC.
Figure 1. MOOC documents in Scopus by subject area
Figure 3. MOOC papers by authors from developed
countries (affiliation institution)
Figure 2. MOOC documents in Scopus by type
Figure 4. MOOC papers by authors from developing
countries (affiliation institution)
Citation (Accepted Article): Khalid, Md. Saifuddin, and Elsebeth Korsgaard Sorensen. “Cartography of Controversies about
MOOCs.” In Proceedings of Global Learn 2015, 2015:25–35. FernUniversität in Hagen, Regionalzentrum Berlin: April 16-
17, 2015: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2015. http://www.editlib.org/pv/150845/.
Figure 3 and 4 show the documents (i.e. actors) contributed by authors (i.e. actors) from developing
countries and developed countries respectively. Taking the international statistical institute’s (ISI) list of
developing countries, to be considered for the year 20151, only about 16% (62 of 388) documents’ affiliation
records/authors are representing a developing country. So, 84% of the documents contributing to the issue are
from developed countries. The authors are from 14 developing and 31 developed countries.
There are 313 records with institution affiliation, which include 160 unique institutions; Except Google
Inc., Microsoft, and IEEE, rest of institutions universities and research organizations. If we look for the broadest
ideological commonality, then we see that all the educational institutions are associated with education and
development.
Scopus analyzer’s tabulation of documents by source includes 92 unique publications, among which
the top five and their respective document frequencies are as follows: International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning (23), Lecture Notes in Computer Science Including Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics (15), Rusc Universities and Knowledge Society Journal (10),
Distance Education (9), and Professorado (9). Each of these journals contain a sub-network that deal with the
topic.
Figure 5 shows the relationships among the main authors, keywords and sources of the 340 documents
identified from Scopus and analyzed by ScienceScape. The figures show an actor-network, which shows how
different source publications (as actors) are connected to keywords (as issues), which are then connected to
authors (as actors). Some of the keywords (as issues) differ in their connectivity due to minor difference in
spelling or for the use of acronyms, for example, massive open online courses (moocs), massive open online
course (mooc), massive open online course, massive open online courses, mooc, moocs. The figure also shows
that considering the education system levels, the keyword higher education, and lifelong learning shows
connectivity with authors publishing about MOOC.’Secondary education’ has not been an issue in
scientometics, but Google trends show news that deals with MOOCs for secondary education level.
Figure 5. Main authors, keywords and sources (actor-networks) in relation to MOOC documents in Scopus
Layer 4. The review of media and public opinion
In this case of MOOC controversy, Google trends, news, blogs and Twitter hashtag ”MOOC” are
analyzed.
For the application of this layer, we began by exploring search pattern of the keywords ”MOOC” and
”MOOCs”, and related online news by using Google trends as an analytical tool. ”Google Trends analyzes a
1 http://www.isi-web.org/component/content/article/5-root/root/81-developing
Citation (Accepted Article): Khalid, Md. Saifuddin, and Elsebeth Korsgaard Sorensen. “Cartography of Controversies about
MOOCs.” In Proceedings of Global Learn 2015, 2015:25–35. FernUniversität in Hagen, Regionalzentrum Berlin: April 16-
17, 2015: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2015. http://www.editlib.org/pv/150845/.
percentage of Google web searches to determine how many searches have been done for the terms you've
entered compared to the total number of Google searches done during that time.”2
Figure 6 Interest over time on “MOOC” and “MOOCs”, including news headlines linked to alphabets
Figure 7. Regional interest using the term ”MOOCs”
Figure 8. Regional interest using the term ”MOOC”
Figure 6 shows the trend of the occurrence of search terms ”MOOC” and MOOCs (selected based on
Scientometrics) during January 2011 to January 2015 and the alphabets links to news headlines. In the ”related
search” section of Google Trend analysis3, the terms ”coursera” and ”edx” are categorized as breakout, which
means that the two search terms experienced a growth greater than 5000% during January 2011 to January 2015.
Figure 7 and Figure 8 shows Global Heat Maps, based on the January 2015 on the search frequency from those
countries. These maps are generated by exporting Google Trends data, and importing and mapping the data
using OpenHeatMap4. While Google Trends provides a heatmap with less diversity in color but an option to
show interative map against timeline data. The same is possible using OpenHeatMap. These maps can be
embadded in websites by creating from both sources.
Twitter hashtage search ”MOOC” was conducted using NodeXL (a template program extension to
Microsoft Office Excel) on 27. February 2015, collected 4394 unique users and 7423 connections. Twitter will
not feed NodeXL with tweets older than a week, and the tweets retrieved isn’t always the newest ones, yet they
are never older than a week. NodeXL data are visualized using Gephi (see Figure 9), where unique users are the
nodes, and Mentions, replied-to and Tweet are the edges. The #MOOC-followers are divided into six intervals
(0-1000: Red, 1001-10000: Purple, 10001-50000: Light Blue, 50001-100000: Blue, 100001 -1000000: Green,
1000001 -10000000: Yellow). As the edges are also divided into mentions, replied-to and tweets, so to
differentiate between them, they’ve been colored as well (Mentions as green, replied-to as red, and tweet as
blue). Figure 9 shows a partial overview of the major actors in twitter network, contributing to the controversy
via #MOOC. It is easy to observe that hecparis is the biggest actor in the network being the one with most edges
or connections, involved with the mentions, replied-to, and tweets. Hecparis is not one of the actors with most
followers, only having 27500 followers (https://twitter.com/hecparis); This is significantly low compared to
Google, YouTube, Instagram, and Bill Gates, who have more than 10000000 followers. Interestingly,
ticketforchange, polytechnique, and moocf have less than 10000 followers and universite_num have less than
50.000 followers; yet they are the prominent actors. In addition, edxonline (128000 followers), el_bid (220000
followers) are also prominent actors. However, coursera (239000 followers) is a less prominent, yet still
important actor. Parlonsmooc is probably the only actor with fewer than a thousand followers, who’s prominent.
2 https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4355213?hl=en
3 Google trend data source: http://tinyurl.com/prpudwu
4 http://www.openheatmap.com/view.html?map=BathymetersAlacriousLampyrine
Citation (Accepted Article): Khalid, Md. Saifuddin, and Elsebeth Korsgaard Sorensen. “Cartography of Controversies about
MOOCs.” In Proceedings of Global Learn 2015, 2015:25–35. FernUniversität in Hagen, Regionalzentrum Berlin: April 16-
17, 2015: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2015. http://www.editlib.org/pv/150845/.
The YouTube twitter account with 49.3 million followers is not a prominent actor at all, in the case of MOOC
controversy. The MOOC controversy in twitter includes 88.29% mentions, 9.65% tweets and 2.07% replies-to.
Figure 9. Partial view of the actor-network mapping of Twitter hashtag #MOOC
Navicrawler, URL harvester, and Gephi are used to collect data and to visualize the network of
websites (as actors) involved in the controversy of MOOCs. The illustrations are not included in the paper but
made available in the document repository (see Layer 2).
Layers 5-9:
A qualitative review of papers is in progress as part of the layers 5, 6, 8 and 9; Analysis and outcome of
these layers build on all the other layers, are work-in-progress, and not included in this analysis.
We now present excerpts from one of the news articles from Google trends graph as part of the
qualitative analysis, to demonstrate how to identify statements, actors, networks and cosmoses. Such qualitative
analyses on academic, public media, and social media content result in the cartographies presented in layers 5 to
9.
B: Melsted’s article on Forbes (2014) states “MOOCs [specifically, EdX and Coursera] are now
reaching beyond higher education to include courses geared toward secondary education students.” EdX
identified that ”more than 150,000 of EdX’s estimated 3 million registered users have been high school
students”, who left mark of their need and thereby an enormous demand exists. MOOCs are claimed to fill gaps
for high school students in relation to the following: preparing for college admission (”60 percent of first-year
college students are not ready for postsecondary studies”), access to locally unavailable courses, lack of AP
(advanced placement) curriculum/coursework, and to develop the curriculum of high school by working with
higher education and MOOC-provider-company partners. Californian St. Margaret’s Episcopal School offer
three EdX courses in psychology, Spanish language and culture. The 2000 enrolled students from 45 different
countries are expected to learn from the cultural differences. These students and teachers get global that was
otherwise not possible. Students of St. Margaret’s are encouraged to sign-up but has not decided about offering
credits for participation.
There are two opinion statements, and associated questions will be included as part of the tree of
disagreement (layer 5): 1. Can MOOCs fill gaps for high schools students in relation to their needs? 2. Should
high schools students gain credits for participation in MOOCs? There are many actors: EdX, Coursera,
secondary education students, and St. Margaret’s Episcopal School. From the analysis of the article, the actor-
argument or appropriately the actor-ideology representation by the table of cosmoses will include: Education
sectors, under which there can be higher education and Secondary education.
Citation (Accepted Article): Khalid, Md. Saifuddin, and Elsebeth Korsgaard Sorensen. “Cartography of Controversies about
MOOCs.” In Proceedings of Global Learn 2015, 2015:25–35. FernUniversität in Hagen, Regionalzentrum Berlin: April 16-
17, 2015: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2015. http://www.editlib.org/pv/150845/.
Conclusion and Future Work
The paper takes the point of departure from the STS discipline applying the theory of ANT by recently
devised cartography of controversies method to explore the Internet-accessible media. We discuss a 10-layer
framework published by Venturini, one of the students of Latour, as a way to adapt the framework suitable for
academic publication genre, instead of a making a website. Taking the controversy of MOOC as a case, we
collected data from Scopus, Google Trends, Twitter and the Internet of website (using URL Harvester and
Crawler Tools), and presented the cartographies by using Scientometric analysis tools (i.e. Scopus,
ScienceScape and Excel) and network data collection and various visualization tools (NodeXL, Google Trends,
Navicrawler, Gephi, OpenHeatMap). We covered the first four layers of the mapping in sufficient details but
could not include some of the network analysis, and summarized the approach being applied to the rest of the
work-in-progress layers (i.e. layer 5-9).
The Scientometric analysis shows that the majority of the scholars working on MOOCs come from the
fields of social science, computer science, and engineering. Only 16% of the authors working on MOOCs are
from developing countries; among the authors from the developed countries US (35%) and Spain (16%)
contribute the major share. There are 183 conference papers, 130 journal articles, and 11 review papers on the
issue. Some of the keywords that should be taken into consideration by educational researchers are motivation,
peer assessment, assessment and quality. Google Trend shows a 5000% grown of the terms edX and coursera
during the last few years. Although there are other MOOCs but those have not yet received such attention. The
Twitter #MOOC analysis includes 88.29% mentions, 9.65% tweets, and 2.07% replies-to. The most active
MOOC-controversy-contributing actors on Twitter are hecparis, polytehnique, universite_num, ticketforchange,
el_bid, parlonsmooc, lecese, and coursera. Secondary schools have become part of the MOOC life-cycle, and
the related actors can be found only in online news and discussions; however, Scopus data does not include that
as a keyword. These findings and the outcome of our further study on this controversy is expected to facilitate
all interested and the stakeholder to come to understand the MOOC-controversy landscape and make better
decisions.
The authors, as educational technologies, would like to invite the researchers, practitioners, policy
makers and other stakeholders involved in the discipline for considering the cartography of controversies as a
method to conduct a study. Furthermore, while we work on the proposed framework for applying the method in
our field, we invite all interested to provide constructive criticism and further development of the framework.
We believe that ”cartography of controversy” has a possibility to become a new genre of research papers and be
categorized beside ”review” papers.
Acknolwdgement: The authors would like to thank Rune Rasmus Gede Thomasen, Mertz Laurent, Andrei
Mihai Furnica for their kind support with the mapping tools.
References Latour, B. (2011). Network Theory| Networks, Societies, Spheres: Reflections of an Actor-network Theorist.
International Journal of Communication, 5, 15.
Latour, B., Mauguin, P., & Teil, G. (1992). A note on socio-technical graphs. Social Studies of Science, 22, 33–
57.
Lawton, W., & Lunt, K. (2013). Would you credit that?: the trajectory of the MOOCs juggernaut. Observatory
on Borderless Higher Education. Retrieved from http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/249972
Melsted, L. R. (2014). MOOCs Aim To Fill Knowledge Gaps In Secondary Education. Forbes.
Nguyen, C., Davis, H., Sharrock, G., & Hempsall, K. (2014). Realising the Potential of MOOCs in Developing
Capacity for Tertiary Education Managers. Information Resources Management Journal, 27(2).
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.zorac.aub.aau.dk/docview/1544863637/3ED6FFE8BC8465FPQ/2?accounti
d=8144
Siemens, G. (2013). Massive Open Online Courses: Innovation in Education? In R. McGreal, W. Kinuthia, & S.
Marshall (Eds.), Open educational resources: innovation, research and practice (2013th ed., pp. 5–16).
Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University. Retrieved from
http://dspace.col.org/bitstream/123456789/503/1/pub_PS_OER-IRP_web.pdf
Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public
Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258–273. doi:10.1177/0963662509102694
Venturini, T. (2012). Building on faults: How to represent controversies with digital methods. Public
Understanding of Science, 21(7), 796–812. doi:10.1177/0963662510387558