Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have rapidly emerged as a new platform for online learning. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) must now determine if MOOC courses should be accepted as course credit. The authors propose a framework for determining if a MOOC course helps students develop the 21st century skills promoted through global learning. This framework is centered on the conditions for global learning – i.e. a process of diverse people collaboratively analyzing and addressing problems that transcend borders – and facilitated through the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model. Any course that attends to these aspects should produce global learning outcomes that fall within one or more of the following three categories: learning about the world, learning with others, and learning to act.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.
BaildonM. & DamicoJ. (2012). Using technology to support relational cosmopolitanism for social education. In MaguthB. (Ed.), New directions in social education research: The Influence of technology and globalization in the lives of students (pp. 21–40). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
4.
BoettcherJ. V., & ConradR. M. (2010). The online teaching survival guide: Simple and practical pedagogical tips. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
5.
BournD. (2014). The theory and practice of global learning. London, England: Development Education Research Centre, Institute of Education.
6.
BraskampL.A., BraskampD.C., & EngbergM.E. (2014). Global Perspective Inventory (GPI): Its purpose, construction, potential uses, and psychometric characteristics. Chicago: Global Perspective Institute, Inc.
7.
BruffeeK. A. (1995). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(1), 12–18.
ConoleG. (2013). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: Strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. RED – Revista de Educación, 39. Retrieved from http://www.um.es/ead/red/39
DarabiA., LiangX., SuryavanshiR., & YurekliH. (2013). Effectiveness of online discussion strategies: A meta–analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education. 27(xx), 228–241.
13.
DeardorffD.K. (2009). Understanding the Challenges of Assessing Global Citizenship. In. LewinR., (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship, pp. 346–364. New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
DíazS. R., SwanK., IceP., & KupczynskiL. (2010). Student ratings of the importance of survey items, multiplicative factor analysis, and the validity of the community of inquirysurvey. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 22–30.
15.
DoscherS. P. (2012). The development of rubrics to measure undergraduate students’ global awareness and global perspective: A validity study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (Accession No. 3517005).
16.
DowneyG. L., LucenaJ. C., MoskalB. M., ParkhurstR., BigleyT., HaysC., … & LehrJ. L. (2006). The globally competent engineer: Working effectively with people who define problems differently. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 107–122.
GadsbyH. & BullivantA. (Eds.). (2010). Global learning and sustainable development. London, UK: Routledge.
20.
GarrisonD. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72.
21.
GarrisonD. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning for the conceptual development and practice of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 93–104.
22.
GarrisonD. R., AndersonT., & ArcherW. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text–based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
23.
GarrisonD. R., AndersonT. & ArcherW. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 5–9.
24.
GarrisonD. R., & ArbaughJ. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10 (3), 157–172.
25.
GibsonK. L., RimmingtonG. M. & Landwehr–BrownM. (2008). Developing global awareness and responsible world citizenship with global learning. Roeper Review, 30(1), 11–23. doi. 10.1080/02783190701836270
26.
GreenM. F. (2012, January). Global citizenship: What are we talking about and why does it matter? Trends & Insights for Higher Education Leaders. Retrieved from https://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/ti_global_citizen.pdf
HanveyR. G. (1976). An attainable global perspective. Denver, CO: The American Forum for Global Education.
29.
HartmeyerH. (2008). Experiencing the world global learning in Austria: Developing, reaching out, crossing borders. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
30.
HartsellT., & YuenS. C. (2006). Video streaming in online learning. AACE Journal, 14(1), 31–43.
31.
HillJ. R., SongL., & WestR. E. (2009). Social learning theory and web–based learning environments: A review of research and discussion of implications. American Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 88–103.
32.
HusénT. (1990). Education and the global concern. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
33.
KniepW. M. (1989). Essentials for a global education. The ATA Magazine, 69(4), 12–15.
34.
LandorfH. & DoscherS. P. (2015). Defining global learning at Florida International University. Diversity & Democracy, 18(3): 24–25.
35.
LandorfH., DoscherS., & Simons–LaneL. B. (2015). Reviving the meaning of global learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.
36.
LarsonB. E. & KeiperT. A. (2002). Classroom discussion and threaded electronic discussion: Learning in two arenas. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(1), 45–62.
LiyanagunawardenaT. R. (2014). MOOC experience: a participant's reflection. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 44(1), 9–14.
39.
LiuM., KangJ., CaoM., LimM., KoY., MyersR., & Schmitz WeissA. (2014). Understanding MOOCs as an emerging online learning tool: Perspectives from the students. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(3), 147–159.
40.
LovelandE. (2010). Global learning for all. An interview with Carol Geary Schneider, president of AAC&U. International Educator, 10, 12–23. Retrieved from https://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/novdec10_voices.pdf
MaierL. (2012). What are online teaching faculty telling us about building community?Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(11), 884–896. doi:10.1080/10668926.2012.679463
MasonL. & MetzgerS. A. (2012). Reconceptualizing media literacy in the social studies: A pragmatic critique of the NCSS position statement on media literacy. Theory and Research in Social Education, 40(4), 436–455.
45.
MathewsS. A. & LandorfH. (2015). Global education 2.0: Can discussions of difference make a difference in an online format? In MaguthB. M. and HilburnJ. (Eds.), The state of global education: Learning with the world and its people (pp. 133–151). New York, NY: Routledge.
46.
MooreM. G. (2005). Theory of transactionaldistance. In KeeganD. (Ed.), Theoretical principles of (pp. 20–35). Taylor & Francis e–Library.
47.
MusilC. M. (2006). Assessing global learning: Matching good intentions with good practice. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.
OlsonC. L., GreenM. F., & HillB. A. (2005). Building a strategic framework for comprehensive internationalization. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
51.
PascarellaE. T., & TerenziniP. T. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
52.
PetersonA., & WarwickP. (2015). Global learning and education: Key concepts and effective practice. London, England: Routledge.
53.
PettigrewT. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187–199
54.
PettigrewT. F., & TroppL. R. (2006). A meta–analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (5), 751.
55.
PooleM. D. (2000). Student participation in a discussion–oriented online course: A case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 162–177.
56.
SaadatdoostR., SimA., MittallN., JafarkarimiH., & HeeJ. (2014). A netnography study of MOOC community. Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS). Association for Information Systems. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2014/116/
Soedjatmoko & NewlandK. (1987). The United Nations university: A new kind of university. The Washington Quarterly, 10(3), 215–224.
59.
SwanK. & ShihL. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136.
60.
SwanK., GarrisonD. R., & RichardsonJ. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In PayneC. R. (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
VoithoferR. & HenryB. A. (2012). “Great, they're gonna invade Second Life now”: Technology, bias, and global education. In MaguthB. (Ed.), New directions in social education research: The influence of technology and globalization in the lives of students (pp. 187–205). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
64.
VygotskyL. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
65.
WangY. & ChenV. (2008). Essential elements in designing online discussions to promote cognitive presence – A practical experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3/4), 157–177.
66.
WarschauerM. (1996). Comparing face to face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26.
67.
ZutshiS., O'HareS., & RodafinosA. (2013). Experiences in MOOCs: The perspectives of students. The American Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 218–227.
