Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Gauging the value of MOOCs

Gauging the value of MOOCs PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine hiring managers’ perceptions of massive open online courses (MOOCs) as compared to traditional degree-conferred forms of higher education in relation to hiring and employment decisions.Design/methodology/approachA literature review is presented along with a triangulated theoretical framework. Using online survey data, quantitative methods reveal findings related to the main research question: what are hiring managers’ attitudes toward MOOCs as a form of post-secondary education?FindingsAnalysis of the data reveals that hiring managers have a clear preference for traditionally educated job applicants but employer demographics, apart from organizational procedures, do not significantly impact their overall perceptions of MOOCs’ value.Research limitations/implicationsMost of the research is based on anecdotal research. Very little has been written on how to fix this problem.Practical implicationsThis paper illustrates implications of MOOCs’ future development and implementation both in higher education and in the labor-force. The main implication is that MOOCs represent neither a panacea to the issues facing higher education and the American labor-force nor an alarming threat to stakeholders appreciative of the status quo.Originality/valueThis paper fills a current research gap as evidenced in the literature; employers’ perceptions of MOOC-educated job applicants when compared to traditionally educated/degree-conferred job applicants. By determining the value of MOOCs as employers pragmatically view them, stakeholder groups can better determine their future positioning of MOOC-related resources in addition to time and money allocated in MOOCs’ direction. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning Emerald Publishing

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/gauging-the-value-of-moocs-aoXJLJTwMB
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
2042-3896
DOI
10.1108/HESWBL-09-2016-0065
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine hiring managers’ perceptions of massive open online courses (MOOCs) as compared to traditional degree-conferred forms of higher education in relation to hiring and employment decisions.Design/methodology/approachA literature review is presented along with a triangulated theoretical framework. Using online survey data, quantitative methods reveal findings related to the main research question: what are hiring managers’ attitudes toward MOOCs as a form of post-secondary education?FindingsAnalysis of the data reveals that hiring managers have a clear preference for traditionally educated job applicants but employer demographics, apart from organizational procedures, do not significantly impact their overall perceptions of MOOCs’ value.Research limitations/implicationsMost of the research is based on anecdotal research. Very little has been written on how to fix this problem.Practical implicationsThis paper illustrates implications of MOOCs’ future development and implementation both in higher education and in the labor-force. The main implication is that MOOCs represent neither a panacea to the issues facing higher education and the American labor-force nor an alarming threat to stakeholders appreciative of the status quo.Originality/valueThis paper fills a current research gap as evidenced in the literature; employers’ perceptions of MOOC-educated job applicants when compared to traditionally educated/degree-conferred job applicants. By determining the value of MOOCs as employers pragmatically view them, stakeholder groups can better determine their future positioning of MOOC-related resources in addition to time and money allocated in MOOCs’ direction.

Journal

Higher Education, Skills and Work-based LearningEmerald Publishing

Published: May 8, 2017

There are no references for this article.