Online Education and Digital Divide:Providing World-Class Education for a Select Few

Roksolana Mashkova

Introduction. The Rise of MOOCs

The phenomenon of massive online education, particularly of massive open

online courses (MOOCs) , has become the top discussion topic only about a year and 1

a half ago—yet it hit so hard that the year 2012 was called “the year of the MOOC” by

The New York Times author Laura Pappano (Pappano 2012). The earliest of the

massive online education websites, Khan Academy (khanacademy.org), was,

according to Wikipedia , launched in 2006—but, first, technically it is not a MOOC site 2

; second, it also hit the top news only in March 2011, when the founder of the site, 3

Salman Khan, made his famous TED talk (Khan 2011). The earliest of the major MOOC

sites, Udacity, was, again according to Wikipedia, founded in June 2011; the most

popular site, Coursera, was founded as late as April 2012, and it already had 5.2

million users in October 2012—exactly a year and a half after its founding.

Most of the discourse about online learning since spring 2012 has been

cheerful and optimistic, following the lines of the mission statements of the sites

mentioned above: envisioning “a future where everyone has access to a world-class

education that has so far been available to a select few” (Coursera 2013a; see also

Koller 2012 a, b); “changing education for the better by providing a free world-class

education for anyone anywhere” (Khan Academy 2013a); bringing “accessible,

1 My working definition of MOOCs is taken from Oxford Dictionary of British & World English: a MOOC is “a course of study made available over the Internet without charge to a very large number of people” (Oxford Dictionaries 2013). The source of the definition is chosen with a purpose to avoid contradictions of so-called “Wikiality” (Watters 2013) as the less consensual and more “expert” source.2 The MOOC sites “About” pages are for some reason reluctant to share the information about their history (see Coursera 2013a; EdX 2013; Khan Academy 2013a; Udacity 2013). This is the reason why I had to use Wikipedia or other secondary sources for the exact dates.3 Even though Khan Academy offers a wide range of classes, they are not structured into  timed and evaluated courses

1

affordable, engaging, and highly effective higher education to the world” (Udacity

2013). When one of the professors who taught a course on historical fiction at

Coursera, Bruce Holsinger, asked his students to share their opinion about MOOCs,

the answers were quite unanimous, all centered around the notion of accessibility

(Holsinger 2013). Googling the request “MOOC” will certainly provide numerous other

examples of the dominant optimistic attitude to this newborn phenomenon.

In fact, MOOCs are perceived as such an important innovation that even the 6th

philanthropic roundtable, a part of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos , 4

financed and led by a Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, was dedicated to this topic.

The opening speech of the roundtable provides a perfect opening into the critical

point I investigate in this paper. In his opening speech, Victor Pinchuk admits that the

only problem with the panel is that it is “too American” (see Pinchuk Foundation

2013)—that is, all of the participants but one were American. In my opinion, this

problem—even if it was the only problem with online education (which it is not)—is

such a serious one that it can not be easily discarded, because it compromises the

whole missionary discourse which was referred to in the previous paragraph. This

paper investigates the declared accessibility of MOOCs and their claim to be an

empowering opportunity, and compares the hegemonic discourse of online education

to the reality of the “digitally disadvantaged” (Holderness 2006: 251) of the world. In

the first subchapter, I will have a look at the demographic data about Internet usage

throughout the world, and delineate the limitations it poses to the access to online

education; I will also take into consideration the physical learning environment and

such factors as access to food, shelter and other basic needs. In the second

subchapter, I will consider the cultural limitations, such as the lack of learning skills,

language abilities, the inadequacy of MOOC content to the needs of potential

learners, and gender gap. In the conclusion, I will propose possible solutions for the

4 As you probably know, the World Economic Forum (WE forum) is the highest-level organization of the most influential people of the world, at which the decisions about the fates of the world are made. So appearance of the topic under our consideration at such an event really means a lot.

2

problems posed in this paper, and draw the prospect for further research on the topic.

Who Is “Everyone” Whom MOOCs Claim to Reach?

As the topic of this paper has been around only for less than two years, the

literature on it is very scarce. The books on e-learning which I used are mostly from

the pre-MOOOc era (e.g. Bolt and Crawford 2000; Holderness 2006; Haythornthwaite

and Andrews 2011). Researchers on the topic complain that “the technologies

associated with open education appear to be rarely subjected to in-depth

consideration, beyond the analysis of user interpretations” (Knox 2013: 21). The

literature reviews reveal that even the kind of analysis Knox mentions is in fact scarce;

for example, the literature in the review called “The Maturing of the MOOC” is divided

into two categories: the scholarly research falls into the category “Formal analysis of

MOOCs commissioned by authorities”, and the rest goes under the heading

“Journalistic and press writings about MOOCs” (Department for Business Innovation

& Skills 2013). Moreover, the demographic statistics about MOOCs gathered by the

MOOC providers themselves is not openly available, so I had to use the more

particular demographics provided by the MOOC professors or by independent surveys

(e.g. Qualtrics 2013; Balch 2013; Kolowich 2012).

Recent research has dealt with some limitations of online education, which I

found crucial for the criticism of the claims of its providers. The most important

aspects of criticism, in my opinion, are: (1) limitations of physical access: geographic

and class disparities, and (2) limitations of cultural capital: language, learning skills,

adequacy of MOOC content, and gender divide. Let us consider each of these aspects

in detail.

1. Limitations of Physical Access: Location and Income

The most obvious and widely acknowledged limitation of access to online

education is the lack of access to the Internet itself. In the year 2012, only 34.3% of

the world population could use the Internet (Internet World Stats 2012). In Africa, the

3

Internet in 2012 was available only for 15.6% of the population, and in Asia only for

27.5% (most of whom were probably Chinese and Japanese). At the same time, the

Asian and the African “disadvantaged” population, particularly the people who lack

access to offline education, are supposedly the main target audience for MOOC

providers—judging from the success stories the providers share in the blog sections

of their websites.

As Alicia Mitchell (2013) rightly formulates, “it cannot just be assumed that

because something exists and because it is ‘free’, it is equally accessible to all people.”

She points out that many of the factors that limit the access to MOOCs are the same

as those that limit the access to traditional education. Indeed, if we look at the typical

African classrooms (Holderness 2006: 257-259), which are frequently represented by

corrupted metal constructions or mere tree shadow that hardly protects the students

from the sun, it is clear that talking about e-learning in such settings makes no sense.

These “schools” lack electricity, not to mention computers, and allow only for

“survival teaching,” where the teacher represents the repository of knowledge and

struggles to pour the knowledge into students’ heads by dictating. Of course, online

courses can compensate for the lack of skilled teachers, but the infrastructure they

require in order to be delivered is much less often available than the infrastructure for

good old school teaching.

Many attempts have been made to solve the problem of physical access. In

particular, this problem is among the few problems acknowledged by the providers of

online learning. The founder of Khan Academy, Salman Khan, addresses it in the only

chapter of his book that deals with the limitations of online learning. He admits the

totality of the problem:

In many rural areas, even the most basic prerequisites for education are often missing. Child malnutrition is a huge problem; it’s hard to learn on an empty stomach or with maladies that sap strength and concentration. School buildings are few and far between; money for traditional school supplies is hard to find. (Khan 2012: 223)

4

Yet he never mentions other problems than the access to computers and the

Internet again. Instead, he proposes a solution to the hardware access problem, which

is, in essence, to make an offline version of online education—that is, either play video

lessons on DVD players (which, Khan claims, are usually owned by at least one

household per Indian village) (Khan 2012: 224; see also Alexandre 2012); or provide

the children in India with the cheapest tablets with preloaded software, and transport

the data about student progress to servers by physical road transportation (Khan

2012: 225-226). The former solution does not allow for the “self-paced learning”

which Khan advocates; and the latter is in fact less affordable than Khan puts it: the

cost of the cheapest $100 tablet is the cost of living for about four months for the

22% of the Indian population who live below the poverty line (Dreze and Sen 2013: 6).

It does not matter if it is used by four kids for five years—many Indians just can not

afford a one-time $100 purchase. The provision of these devices can, of course, be

supported by philanthropic acts, but as such it is doomed to be episodic and

non-systematic.

Another solution Salman Khan proposes in his book is to create communal

computer and internet access centers, funded by fees from middle class users. This

solution is as often proposed as criticized in the literature on the subject. The

criticism of this solution is based on the observation that, in fact, not all of the 34.3%

of the people who can obtain the access to the Internet at least from time to time can

actually fully use it for educational purposes. To be able to engage in online learning,

Alicia Mitchell emphasizes, not only the access to computers and the Internet, but

also “a safe and comfortable space in which to learn” (Mitchell 2013) is necessary.

This is also the main concern of an article about community computer centers

(telecenters) in Sri Lanka, the users of which faced a wide range of problems that

prevented them from using the centers: costly and time-consuming transportation;

the incompetence of the IT staff of the centers; the ban of some useful websites

(Facebook, YouTube), software (e.g., team management applications) and hardware

(USB drives); the overcrowdedness that caused time limitations; excessive

5

procedures, such as obtaining permissions from university chancellors to use

headphones; and the slow speed of the connection (more than 10 seconds to load a

page) (Liyanagunawardena et al. 2013). Moreover, the access to the telecenters had to

be obtained by applying to online learning programs at local universities, and

enrollment in these programmes required a payment of a tuition fee—which, of

course, further limited the access.

It is rarely explicitly mentioned in the literature that location can explain the

limits of access to hardware only if the factor of income is also taken into

consideration. That is to say, not all the people in India or Africa are poor—some can

afford to have computers and Internet connection at home, good nutrition, and safe

and calm environment. Those people are represented by the success stories of which

the MOOC providers boast. It is necessary to mention how the aspect of income

causes the demographic statistics of online courses to be deceptive. The majority

(44.8%) of Internet users in 2012 lived in Asia; but in fact, only 27.5% of Asians use the

Internet—compared to 78.6% of North Americans (Internet World Stats 2012). The

reason for the absolute percentage of Asian users is that the population of Asia is

almost ten times larger than the population of North America, while the number of

Internet users in these countries is approximately the same. This is caused by the fact

that the larger part of Asian population live on a lower income and experience other

limitations of their access to hardware, even though in absolute numbers there are as

many people who can afford the Internet in Asia as in North America. This

mathematical deception is important for the demographics of online courses; as the

authors of “E-learning Theory and Practice” put it, “statistics on percentage of use

may give a false idea of the quantity of learners engaged or potentially engaged

online" (Haythornthwaite and Andrews 2011: 183). That is, even though a large part of

the participants of an online course might be, for example, Chinese or Indian, they still

represent a much smaller fraction of the population of those countries than the US

users, which means that access to MOOCs and e-learning for people located in Asia is

6

much more limited than in the US or Europe.

The lack of access to hardware, the lack of the safe and comfortable study

environment, and the lack of satisfaction of basic needs (such as food, shelter and

clothing) are indeed the biggest obstacles on the way to the goals declared by the

MOOC providers. However, the way the problem is treated—by providing local and

sporadic solutions, by success stories that mention location isolated from class

position of the successful student, etc.—gives little hope that it will be solved soon.

Moreover, there are other limitations, less acknowledged or largely ignored by the

managers of online education. Let us have a look at these in the following chapters.

2. Limitations of Cultural Capital: Language, Learning Skills, Content Adequacy,

Gender

Access to hardware and other physical conditions are by no means the only

limitations that prevent people from engaging in online learning. Most authors insist

also on cultural limitations that prevent the privileged 34.3% of the population from

using the internet which they have access to for studying online. Some critics

emphasize the need for preliminary training (Holderness 2006: 255) and learning skills,

ranging from elementary literacy and numeracy to independent research skills

(Mitchell 2013) . Haythornthwaite and Andrews (2011: 180) also mention factors such 5

as simple awareness of the existence of such a thing as online courses and adequacy

of the content of the courses to the demands of local communities. There are also

some local specificities, such as the authority of a clan chief, who has the power to

make decisions whether this or that program will be implemented in his community

(Holderness 2006: 260). Habitual family arrangements are also important, as the

availability of learnig time and facilities depends on the position of a particular

person in the household.

One major factor that prevents people from taking the opportunity to study

5 The lack of learning skills can also be considered as a factor that contributes to 90% dropout rate in MOOCs (for the dropout rates analysis see Marcus 2013).

7

online is the simple fact that only 26.8% of Internet users speak English (Internet

World Stats 2010), but the vast majority of MOOC content is in that language; for

example, as much as 476 out of 539 courses that are available at Coursera at the

moment I am writing this are in English (Coursera 2013b)—88.3%!

The problem of language is in fact among the problems widely acknowledged

by online learning providers—unlike the cultural limitations mentioned above. There

was a wave of attempts to reach the non-English speaking audience this autumn. The

whole Khan Academy site has been translated into Spanish (Khan Academy 2013b).

EdX made an agreement with 10 Chinese universities to allow them to use (from now

on open sourced) EdX platform to create their own courses, and an agreement with

the French Ministry of Education to create courses in French (Lapowsky 2013). The

same week, Coursera launched Coursera Zone on a popular Chinese platform

NetEase—even though they did not provide the opportunity to create new courses,

just translated the old ones that come from American and European universities

(Lapowsky 2013). Even earlier, in May 2013, Coursera partnered with 8 countries to

make translations of their courses into Russian, Portuguese, Turkish, Japanese,

Ukrainian, Kazakh, and Arabic (Soldak 2013). However, the problem remains: the

majority of MOOC content is in English, and therefore not available for the 73% of

non-English speakers out of the 34% of the population who have access to the

Internet; so probably the wide range of opportunities the MOOC providers boast to

give out are hardly available for as much as 91% of the people of the world.

The way Coursera approaches the adaptation of their courses for foreign

audiences—that is, nothing but the language is changed—also reveals one of the

cultural access problems that are rarely discussed: namely, the problem of the

unilateral imposition of the content of online courses. As Jeremy Knox puts it, it is

important “who is ‘giving’ such knowledge to the world” (Knox 2013: 25). For him, the

problem with MOOCs is not only that they are Western-centric and subliminally

broadcast the Western (more particularly, Anglo-Saxon) worldview, but also that the

8

decision about what to include and, more importantly, what to conceal, is made

unilaterally. Haythornthwaite and Andrews also emphasize that it is crucial “whose

knowledge and identity are represented online” (2011: 181). Moreover, the very

technology of online learning prevents the interaction between the teacher and the

student, or, more precisely, creates an illusion of interactivity and personal approach,

while in fact it is mechanical and unified.

The proponents of MOOCs can argue that most of the MOOC content is in the

fields where no “identity”, but pure knowledge is represented—that is, it is in maths

and science. 320 out of 539 courses at Coursera are in those fields (Coursera

2013b)—”only” 59.3%. Yet looks like Coursera is the one most into social sciences

and arts among all the MOOC providers—for example, Udacity offers only one course

in business and one in design, and the rest are in computer science (23 courses),

maths (5 courses) and science (3 courses) (Udacity 2013b). It is true that little of the

knowledge about such uncertain and ideologically distorted objects as society and

humanity is transmitted through MOOCs. Still, first, no field of knowledge is devoid of

ideology. Second, the very fact of the overwhelming domination of maths and science

is a message about the technocratic Western attitude that claims to encourage

people to think, but, in fact, teaches them to think in

technical/mathematical/experimental terms of clearly defined immediate problems,

while discouraging the learners to look at the bigger picture.

I have just noted that the courses in technology are among the most popular in

the world of MOOCs. The demographic data for them, in that case, must probably be

representative for the audience of online courses. If that is true, then one thing about

these demographic data is very alarming: the most basic (that is, available without

any prior knowledge of IT or maths) course at Udacity, Computer Science 101, has an

astonishing rate of male audience—87.5% (Niazi 2013c). The scarce demographic

data available for courses in other fields, such as economics, reveals similar

trends—only 11% of those who completed the course in computational investment

9

were female (Balch 2013). The reason for this disparity might be the zeitnot that

pressures women more than men because of the house chores and childcare, which

are still largely women’s responsibilities (Mitchell 2013). Still, the factor of the lack of

time would not be enough to account for such a significant gap. The lesser

engagement of women in workforce, the glass ceiling that would not allow women to

climb the career ladder regardless of what skills they obtained, internalized

orientation towards the fields that require investment of emotions rather than

reasoning—gender disparity in online education could be a topic for further research.

Whatever the reasons, these new data limit the reach of the MOOCs even

further. Let us charitably assume that women constitute as much as 25% of the

MOOCs audience. If about half of the 9% of the world population that have access to

the Internet and speak English are female, and the quota reserved for that half is only

25%, that would mean that only ⅓ of those 4.5% of the women have a statistical

chance to engage in e-learning. This gives us the final approximate figure—all factors

taken into consideration, only 6% of the world population are likely to study online.

Can we really call the 6% “everyone”?

Conclusions. The Bigger Picture and the Individual Approach

We have seen that, while claiming to provide “a future where everyone has

access to a world-class education that has so far been available to a select few”

(Coursera 2013a), MOOC providers in fact either ignore the factors that limit access

to their services, or deal sporadically with individual cases. In fact, they propose an

individualistic solution to a systematic problem: instead of addressing the root of

inequalities, they propose to bridge them for some lucky few from the number of the

disadvantaged. The underlying hidden assumption of the discourse of opportunity

provided to everyone is that if one fails to take the opportunity which is out

there—just reach out and grab it!—it is their fault, or, to use the terms of that

discourse, their choice. Moreover, as Melonie Fullick (Fullick 2013) sharply noticed, of

those who succeed to take the opportunity, MOOCs create perfect workers for the

10

new economy of precarious labor—self-governing and flexible.

The systematic failure of the MOOCs mission is perfectly illustrated by the

content of success stories in the blog sections of the MOOC provider websites. This

paper is an overview of the general trends that shape the MOOC audience. I plan to

enhance the research with an article containing some content analysis of the success

stories of MOOC users, in particular, of the most curious and contradictory case of

the star of the Davos World Economic Forum Meeting, the author and the heroine of

numerous articles (see e.g. Niazi 2013 a, b, c; Niazi and Niazi 2013), a 13-year-old

Pakistani girl Khadija Niazi and her brother Muhammad. I also plan to include my own

observations of the audience of MOOCs in two Second World cities—in Kyiv and in

Shanghai.

Finally, I have to make a disclaimer: I did not at all mean to discard the MOOCs

and online learning altogether. In fact, I can testify as an online learner with some

experience with all the sites investigated here, that online education facilities are very

powerful tools for such white, middle-class, European, educated young people as

myself. They do indeed provide an environment for “self-paced” learning process,

almost perfectly adjusted to one’s needs, habits and personality type (that is, of

course, if you previously learned the skill to learn). The problem with them is just that

they do not really try hard to make this experience really available not for “a select

few,” but for “everyone.” In fact, it looks like online education is bound to be available

to the select—maybe not that few as I figured in this article ; maybe less and less few, 6

as the rapidness of the increase in MOOC audience suggests—but only within certain

limits which have to be dealt with systematically. It might even be the case that to deal

with this systematic level is impossible within the developmentalist framework which

MOOCs operate in, and that only a radical change of the principles that run the

society that supports education can truly provide everyone with inspiring

6 Indeed, community telecenters are spreading, many people speak English as a second  language and courses are being made in other languages, the situation with women might be less tragic in social sciences and arts, etc.—so probably 6% is a little too pessimistic.

11

opportunities to learn.

References:

Alexandre, J., 2012. Introducing KA Lite, an offline version of Khan Academy. Available at: http://jamiealexandre.com/blog/2012/12/12/ka-lite-offline-khan-academy/

Balch, T., 2013. MOOC Student Demographics (Spring 2013). In: The Augmented Trader. Available at: http://augmentedtrader.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/mooc- student-demographics/

Bolt, D. and Crawford, R., 2000. Digital Divide. Computers and Our Children’s Future. New York: TV Books.

Coursera, 2013a. About Coursera. Available at: https://www.coursera.org/about

Coursera, 2013b. Courses. Available at: https://www.coursera.org/courses

Department for Business Innovation & Skills, 2013. The Maturing of the MOOC. Literature Review of Massive Open Online Courses and Other Forms of Online Distance Learning. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240193/13-1173-maturing-of-the-mooc.pdf

Dreze, J. and Sen, A., 2013. An Uncertain Glory. India and Its Contradictions. London and New York: Penguin.

EdX, 2013. About Us. Available at: https://www.edx.org/about-us

Fullick, M., 2013. MOOCs, Access, and Privileged Assumptions. In: University Affairs. Available at: http://www.universityaffairs.ca/speculative-diction/moocs-access-and- privileged-assumptions/

Haythornthwaite, C. and Andrews, R., 2011. E-learning Theory and Practice. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage.

Holderness, B., 2006. Toward Bridging Digital Divides in Rural (South) Africa. In: Buckingham, D. and Willett, R. (eds.), 2006. Digital Generations. Children, Young People and New Media. Mahwah and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 251—273.

Holsinger, B., 2013. Mulling Our MOOC: Crowd-sourcing a Controversy. In: Burnable Books. Available at: http://burnablebooks.com/mulling/

Internet World Stats, 2010. Internet World Users by Language. In: Internet World Stats.

12

Available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm

Internet World Stats, 2013. World Internet Usage and Population Statistics. In: Internet World Stats. Available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Khan Academy, 2013a. About. In: Khan Academy. Available at: https://www.khanacademy.org/about

Khan Academy, 2013b. Khan Academy en Español. In: Khan Academy. Available at: http://khanacademy.org/about/blog/post/61052142503/khan-academy-en-espanol

Khan, S., 2011. Let’s use video to reinvent education. In: TED. Available at [video]: http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education.html

Khan, S., 2012. The One World Schoolhouse. New York and Boston: Twelve.

Kolovich, S., 2012. Who Takes MOOCs? In: Inside Higher Ed. Available at: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/06/05/early-demographic-data-hints-what-type-student-takes-mooc

Knox, J., 2013. The limitations of access alone: Moving towards open processes in education technology. In: Open Praxis, vol. 5, issue 1, pp. 21—29.

Koller, D., 2012a. Top college courses, for free? In: CNN. Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/23/opinion/koller-online-college-courses

Koller, D., 2012b. What we’re learning from online education. In: TED. Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/daphne_koller_what_we_re_learning_from_online_education.html

Lapowsky, I., 2013. MOOCs Try to Break the Language Barrier. In: Inc. Available at: http://www.inc.com/issie-lapowsky/mooc-providers-break-language-barrier.html

Marcus, J., 2013. All Hail MOOCs! Just Don’t Ask If They Actually Work. In: Time. Available at: http://nation.time.com/2013/09/12/all-hail-moocs-just-dont-ask-if-they- actually-work/

Liyanagunawardena, T., Adams, A., Rassool, N. and Williams, S., 2013. Using Non-Personal Computers for eLearning: Sri Lankan Experience. In: Journal of Education and Training Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 152—158.

Mitchell, A., 2013. The Underlying Inequality of MOOCs. In: eLearning Africa. Available at: http://elearning-africa.com/eLA_Newsportal/the-underlying-inequality-of-moocs/

Niazi, K., 2013a. 3 Helpful Tips for Younger Students on Coursera. In: Coursera Blog.

13

Available at: http://blog.coursera.org/post/55578977319/3-helpful-tips-for-younger- students-on-coursera

Niazi, K., 2013b. Education For All?—A Young Girl’s Proposal and Where MOOCs Fit In. In: MOOC News & Reviews. Available at: http://moocnewsandreviews.com/education- for-all-a-young-girls-proposal-and-where-moocs-fit-in/

Niazi, K. and Niazi, M., 2013. 8th Grade Twins Take Astrobiology and Einstein Courses. In: Coursera Blog. Available at: http://blog.coursera.org/post/54132976778/8th-grade- twins-take-astrobiology-and-einstein-courses

Niazi, M., 2013c. After “Every Astronomy Book in Pakistan,” A 12 Year Old Turns to MOOCs. In: MOOC News & Reviews. Available at: http://moocnewsandreviews.com/ after-every-astronomy-book-in-pakistan-a-12-year-old-turns-to-moocs/

Oxford Dictionaries, 2013. Definition of MOOC in English. Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/MOOC

Pappano, L., 2012. The Year of the MOOC. In: The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html

Pinchuk Foundation, 2013. 6th Davos Philanthropic Roundtable “RevolutionOnline.edu - Online Education Changing the World”. In: Youtube. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6OXXZXBntA

Qualtrics, 2013. Qualtrics and Instructure Partner Reveal Top Motivations for MOOC Students. In: Qualtrics. Available at: http://qualtrics.com/press/press-releases/ qualtrics-and-instructure-partner-reveal-top-motivations-for-mooc-students/

Soldak, K., 2013. Online Education: No Longer Lost In Translation. In: Forbes. Available at:http://forbes.com/sites/katyasoldak/2013/05/28/online-education-no-longer-lost-in-translation/

Udacity, 2013a. About Us. Available at: https://www.udacity.com/us

Udacity, 2013b. Course Catalog. Available at: https://www.udacity.com/courses

Watters, A., 2013. [Expletive Deleted] Ed-Tech #Edinnovation. In: Hack Education. Available at: http://hackeducation.com/2013/05/04/ed-tech-argo-f-k-yourself/

14