The final version of the survey has been validated following the original method of validation. Therefore, the structure and content of the survey were validated using a content and face validation (Holden, 2010) process that guarantee the appropriateness and relevance of the items as they appear to the persons answering the survey (Connell et al., 2018).

2.2. Study Context

UPV is a mid-sized public Spanish university (UPV, 2021a) that is the leader of the Spanish-speaking MOOC offer, with over 100 courses and 3.5 million enrolments on edX at the moment of writing this paper (edX, 2022). UPV launched its own MOOC initiative in 2013 and, since then, has been using MOOC as one of its strategic levers for digital transformation (Despujol et al., 2018). UPV started with its own MOOC platform (upvx.es, which is still in use today), participated in miriadaX.net (a Spanish speaking MOOC platform), and joined the edX.org at the end of 2014, launching over 600 editions of 115 MOOCs –most of them in Spanish– with almost 4 million enrolments (Despujol et al., 2022).

UPV is open to any of its faculty or staff proposing the creation of a MOOC. A commission approves the new MOOC proposals, and once they are approved, the instructors are directed to the MOOC department. There is a yearly program to incentivize the creation of digital learning materials that gives faculty a little money and academic points if they present their MOOC (UPV, 2021b). The program also provides academic points for MOOC supervision each time a new run is launched.

In a few cases, the university gave course release time for the MOOC creation to the instructors that created university entry-level MOOC for new university students (Llorente-Ruiz et al., 2021), and in others, instructors got financing from edx.org for preparing specific MOOC demanded by institutional customers. Nevertheless, most developers create their MOOCs without knowing if they will get any income from them (the University splits the revenue from edx.org via the certificate fees, and a few UPV MOOCs have been successful in revenue generation, but most are not producing earnings for the instructors).

UPV has a specific department to help instructors develop and run MOOCs, with a set of processes that lets them choose between focusing only on content design and development and participating in the design of the courses as much as they want (Despujol et al., 2018; Turro et al., 2010).

The MOOC team has created a SPOC (Small Private Online Course) to train MOOC instructors that is always open as a self-paced course (https://bit.ly/3Fx6wtp), and two synchronous runs are launched per year. A pdf guide for MOOC instructors has also been created.

UPV has a common team of teaching assistants that attends the forums of all running courses, scanning the questions and sending them to MOOC instructors only when necessary, so all instructors can rely on them when managing the forum of their MOOC.

2.3. Participants

A Web-based survey was sent by email to the 89 main instructors of UPV’s MOOCs (there are over 100 courses, but some instructors teach in more than one MOOC), and 79 (88.8%) completed the survey. Even if this is a self-selected sample, its big size regarding the population should correct the selection bias and reinforce the results and conclusions, making them even more important to be considered for the entire institution (Hirschauer et al., 2021).

In terms of the gender of the participants, 50 identify themselves as male (63.3%) and as 29 female (36.7%). Their ages varied between 25 and 79 years old, with an average 51.5 years.

Most instructors in the sample work for UPV either as faculty, researchers, or technical staff (Figure 1). 83% were faculty, with most being full professors (33%), called Catedráticos, or associate professors (33%), called Titulares de Universidad, 6% were technical staff (identified in figure 2 as PAS) and 4% were researchers (identified in figure 2 as Investigador). There was a retired faculty (identified in figure 2 as Profesor jubilado), 2 emeritus professors, and 5% were external collaborators. The rest of faculty positions (Profesor contratado doctor, Profesor ayudante doctor, Profesor colaborador, Catedrático de escuela universitaria and Profesor Asociado) are difficult to translate to other university systems outside of Spain.

Figure 1. Position of MOOC instructors.

Figure 2. Online or blended courses taught before.

Half of the sample had never participated in an online or blended course, and 5% had participated in 5 or more (Figure 2).

As for the number of MOOCs developed, most participants had developed one (36%) or two (32%) MOOCs, with 11% having developed 5 or more MOOCs (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Number of MOOC taught.

Most MOOCs had been run several times (the average number of runs per course was 5, with a maximum of 15 runs and a minimum of 1), usually starting with an instructor-led run and following with self-paced runs, so all instructors had experience with both types of MOOC delivery.

The instructor participating in this study had created 122 MOOCs, of which 616 runs had been delivered since January 2013. The average enrolment in a MOOC run was around 7,000, with a maximum of 160,000 enrolments and a few runs of some MOOC with a few tens.

3. Results

This section has organized data and results using the Research Questions order.

RQ 1: What motivates UPV instructors to teach MOOCs, and what support have they received from the institution?

Two questions support the answer to this research question (section a). The first one aimed to know the types of support that instructors perceive they have gotten from the university. As it is clear in Figure 4, more than half the instructors mention technical support (55% of respondents), with additional compensation and colleague support in a second tier (identified by 40% of people), and training and productivity or service recognition in a third (32.5%). Support by the administration (chosen by 15% of instructors), discretionary funding (12.5%), and course release time (selected by 11.25%) were the less mentioned types (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Support received by instructors.

In the next question (Figure 5), instructors were asked to grade different motivation factors from 0 to 5; “Opportunity to reach more people” was graded with 4.3, “Wanting to share knowledge” with 4.0, and “Commitment to open education” with 3.9. “Learning new methods and pedagogies” and “Personal challenges” also ranked high. “Personal branding and reputation” with 3.0 and “Department or institution branding” and “Career development” with 2.7 ranked in the middle of the table. Factors related to incentives as money or course release time ranked low.

Figure 5. Motivational factors.

RQ 2: What outcomes have instructors gotten from teaching MOOCs?

Three questions (survey section b) are aimed to answer this research question, one devoted to career outcomes and the other two dedicated to asking about the impact of teaching MOOC on the instructor’s teaching style.

The answers to the first question of the section (Figure 6) show that instructors consider the most important outcomes obtained to be related to learning new pedagogies (with an average of 3.4/5), increasing their social and international awareness (3.2/5), improving their teaching skills (3.1/5), boosting their commitment with the international service (2.8/5), and enhancing their reputation (2.7/5). The instructors don’t seem interested in using MOOC data for research (1.3/5) or departmental/institutional respect (1.7/5).

Figure 6. Career outcomes.

Answers to the second and third questions of this section, included in Figure 7 and Figure 8, reveal that MOOCs have had an important impact on the teaching style of the instructors (65% answered yes to the question “has MOOC teaching affected your pedagogy?”), and 62.5% believe they have changed the way they teach other courses.

Figure 7. Impact on teaching style.

Figure 8. Impact on other courses.

RQ3: How do MOOC instructors get their training to create and deploy MOOCs?

More than half the instructors that answered the survey (42 of 79, 53.2%) declared they had received no formal training on MOOC development. Among the other 38 instructors that participated in the survey (Figure 9), the formal training average time is 8 hours. Three instructors had received a big amount of training in the field (150, 60 and 40 hours), 13 instructors declared they had received 10 hours, 6 declared 20 hours and 5 answered 5 hours of training.

Figure 9. Hours of training received.

As in Figure 10, when instructors are asked about the usefulness of the resources they have used to learn about MOOC teaching, it is essential to remark there are no resources scored with an average higher than 2.5 (from 5 possible), and two of the resources scored beyond 2 points on average. The most valued resources are browsing or attending other MOOCs (that scored 2.5 on average) and receiving training about the MOOC platform (that scored 2.1 on average).

Figure 10. Usefulness of training received.

According to data in Figure 11, a little more than half of the MOOC instructors surveyed (52.5%) have used their MOOC as an example for other colleagues, 37.5% have presented their experiences related to MOOC in events, and 33.75% provided an informal demonstration or presentation related to their experience.

Figure 11. Support to other colleagues.

To explore the skills that instructors considered important to improve their MOOC developing skills, the study included the open-ended question “Which skills would you like to gain to improve your MOOC teaching?” 34 instructors (43.03% of the entire sample) answered it. Three main themes surfaced in the coding phase: technical skills (mentioned 20 times by 25.31% of instructors), online pedagogy (mentioned 10 times in 12.65% of the answers), and presentation skills (mentioned 4 times, by 5.06% of instructors). Two answers mentioned languages capabilities, another mentioned learning about student feedback, two mentioned that they needed no extra training, two made improvement proposals to the platform, and two contained positive feedback for the MOOC team.

Delving into the technical capabilities demands, the most demanded technical skill included in the answers was the one related to generating videos (6 mentions), “video editing in order to make them more flexible in terms of format and to integrate other types of material” (participant 14). The second most mentioned was new technologies abilities (4 mentions), and 3D/simulation software – “Ability to create interactive simulations, such as virtual laboratories, with significant graphic support to facilitate the acquisition of skills by students” (participant 24)– and presentation tools (with 3 mentions each). Two answers mentioned learning more about the course statistics tool, and one mentioned learning about course development in the MOOC platform.

The training demands related to pedagogy mentioned training in MOOC learning strategies and online learning strategies (with 3 mentions each) – “…how to reach learners online, online teaching practice” (participant 18) , personalization of the learning experience, “Strategies for designing pedagogically appropriate content for different learner segments” (participant 32)–, new evaluation methods and forum dynamization (with one mention each), and the gathering of good practices (with one mention).

The four answers that mentioned presentation skills were related to improving speaking capabilities – “diction” (participant 20), “the way of expressing” (participant 31)– (3 mentions), or video presentation skills (1 mention).

RQ4: What aspects of the MOOC process do UPV instructors think can be improved and how?

46 instructors answered the open-ended question, “What would you improve in the support offered by the university?” 23 of the instructors answered with positive comments about the support received; 19 did not add any other suggestion – “I can't think of anything, because it is a magnificent support” (participant 8).

We also gathered 8 improvement suggestions from the other open-ended question in the survey (that asked about any other comment they wanted to make and was not included in the rest of the questions) and incorporated them into this question.

Most answers are related to the lack of formal recognition by the university of the work done, with 8 answers asking for course release time, 3 answers asking for more points for annual faculty productivity reports, and 2 answers demanding more recognition from the administration. We can see instructors think more resources should be dedicated to recognizing their dedication to MOOC preparation and running – “I think that the UPV does not correctly value the performance of MOOCs in aspects such as IAD and POD. In the end all MOOCs are treated in a similar way, regardless of the results (enrolment, certifications, UPV image…). In my opinion, this is a mistake” (participant 18).

Six answers ask for support in development of course materials (4 for video edition and recording, one for other video formats, one for generic support) – “More post-recording editing to improve the final result” (participant 18) – 5 answers ask for more resources – “Create a stable advisory and support service” (participant 35)– and 3 for more course promotion – “Improve the dissemination of existing courses” (participant 4). Two answers ask for a periodic report from the MOOC team, one asks for a more profound revision and support of senior instructor designers when starting the first MOOC, one for more training, and another for more financial support. One answer asks for a change in the mechanism of reinforcement questions and another for creating MOOC templates.

RQ5: Are instructors satisfied with their MOOC experience?

The survey contained one question that directly asked if it was worth teaching a MOOC. The answer is unanimous among instructors; all 79 instructors think it was worth having created their MOOC.

The other two questions (Figures 12 and 13) were devoted to discovering if the small monetary incentive given by the university had motivated them to make the MOOC and if the support offered by the university had helped them to decide about making the MOOC. The answers are clear, the monetary incentive did not influence the decision to make the MOOC in 76% of cases but having strong support to develop the MOOC was a very important factor to make the decision (88.75% of the sample answered yes).

Figure 12. Importance of monetary incentives.

Figure 13. Importance of technical support.

26 instructors answered the open-ended question, “Any other comments you want to add”. Nine used it to ask for improvements (2 reinforcing what they answered in the former question and 8 with new demands incorporated in the previous RQ), 9 were used to make positive comments about the support provided, and 5 were used to make suggestions (about extending the use of MOOCs to all basic training and courses, linking MOOCs with continuing education, compiling success cases, giving extended support to the instructors starting their first MOOC, and incorporating YouTube formats).

In the other answers, one commented on her main motivational factor, another commented on the enlargement of his professional network as an outcome of making the MOOC, and another commented the role of MOOCs as a tool to transform teaching.

4. Discussion

This paper explores and analyses the MOOC instructor’s motivations, satisfaction, and concerns of a big MOOC initiative from a technological Higher Education Institution in Spain. It is a significant MOOC initiative with more than a hundred courses with almost 4 million enrolments that has been running since 2013, and it compares the findings with the ones made by a more global study (Young-Doo et al., 2020) that reports general findings. The insights gathered will be useful for MOOC administrators and instructors, pointing to areas where improvements can be made.

This study has at least two evident limitations that have been commented along the paper. First, this research is a case study, so its conclusions can only be applied to the community of UPV MOOC instructors. Second, the survey used in this research was developed for practical purposes, so it lacks psychometric properties needed to apply certain methodologies. In addition, a more profound qualitative exploration is needed to explore other emergent possibilities, which is limited by using a questionnaire.

Focusing on the findings regarding the support received by instructors from the university, this study finds that instructors perceived that UPV had provided less technical support than the global instructors analyzed in the Young-Doo et al. (2020) study reported (55% versus 63.38%) and less administrative encouragement (15% versus 55.63%). Nevertheless, they perceived to have more additional compensation (40% against 24.65%). Other compensations are similarly mentioned. The big difference is that UPV’s instructors reported having received training twice the figure reported in the global study (26,25% versus 13.38%), a figure that is still low but significatively higher.

The conclusions in this area, reinforced by the answers to one of the open-ended questions of the survey (What would you improve in the support offered by the university?), are the same; more official recognition from the institutions is needed to keep most instructors motivated. They also coincide with problems reported by Zheng et al. (2016) in a similar study of MOOC instructor opinions, in which 93% of instructors mentioned lack of institutional support (resources or policy support). This is a hygiene factor as mentioned in Herzberg’s ‘Two-Factor Theory’ (Herzberg, 2003), as official recognition of the work of MOOC instructors probably will not motivate them, yet it might encourage them to quit if not properly addressed.

As seen in the question about motivation, the motivations of MOOC instructors are highly intrinsic, with reaching more people, sharing knowledge, commitment to open education, learning new pedagogies, or personal challenge as the top motivating factors. These findings are aligned with the findings of the study by Young-Doo et al. (2020) that groups motivation factors in 7 categories and points the 4 categories related to intrinsic factors as the most important being the three extrinsic categories: financial incentives and course release, research purpose, and institutional goals. Zheng et al. (2016) identifies four broad types of motivations that influence instructors to teach MOOCs, listed in order of importance: global impact on students, professional growth, research opportunities, and enhanced name recognition, which is in line with the findings of this study.

These findings are optimistic, as intrinsic motivation can positively influence individuals’ behaviors and attitudes toward jobs and job satisfaction (Herzberg, 2003), but institutions should not forget that instructors feel there is insufficient official recognition for the workload that a MOOC conveys, and that is a strong extrinsic factor, that, if not properly addressed, can make instructors lose their interest in MOOC (as some of the open-ended answers indicated).

Personal and institutional branding and reputation are also ranked high as motivational factors by the instructors that perceive MOOC as a good tool to showcase the quality of their work. This is also mentioned in the study by Young-Doo et al. (2020).

The motivational factors are not exclusive, so institutions should deploy strategies to boost as many of them as possible, setting objectives that consider its institutional strengths and weaknesses related to MOOC.

The most important career outcomes mentioned by instructors were related to the improvement of their teaching, with the social and international commitment and professional reputation enhancement also ranking high.

The two questions about the impact of MOOC teaching in the teaching style and other courses taught by instructors remark on the use of MOOC as a tool to help instructors integrate the online paradigm in all their teaching activities.

Providing training in new technologies and pedagogies for the new online environment to their instructors is key for HE institutions to succeed in the not-so-distant future. The answers to the questions about which training instructors had received, with a little more than half of them stating they have received no formal training, are a little discouraging, considering that UPV has made a big effort to provide training opportunities to teachers (including a SPOC permanently open in the platform). One plausible explanation is that all instructors that have created MOOCs in the eight-year period from 2013 to 2021 have been surveyed, so the first instructors didn’t have the training courses available when they created their MOOC. Nonetheless, these data are distant from the ones found in Young-Doo et al. (2020), where fewer than 14% of the instructors declared having received formal training. This difference remarks that the training effort made by UPV has succeeded to some extent, but actions should be taken so all new instructors are trained before they start the MOOC creation process.

Teacher networks are a powerful resource, and the confirmation that half of the UPV’s MOOC instructors have supported other teachers in their onboarding to MOOCs is an important indicator for institutions that should foster this type of networking by giving instructors the tools and opportunities to collaborate. This is also highlighted in Young-Doo et al. (2020) findings.

When asked about which skills they would like to gain, most of the instructors mentioned technical skills in content production, online pedagogy, and presentation skills, which is in line with findings by Young-Doo et al. (2020).

To the question about what can be improved and how, most instructors gave positive feedback about the support process during MOOC creation and delivery. This is probably why no instructor mentioned the problems with scaling, dealing with massive unknowns, or reputation crisis mentioned by Zheng et al. (2016).

The bigger number of demands was related to the lack of official recognition (even as the UPV gives points for annual faculty productivity reports, they are a small recognition for the effort needed), with giving course release time being the most demanded item. A second group of demands was related to having more resources to develop MOOCs, either to develop course materials, to have more support from the team, or to promote the courses. These two demands coincide with previous research regarding HE institutions’ development of digital implementations (Castañeda, Esteve-Mon, & Postigo_Fuentes, 2022).

The final questions were devoted to ask about the instructor’s satisfaction with having created a MOOC, and the answer was unanimous. All instructors think the experience has been worth it. The small monetary incentive given by the university had much less influence on the decision of making a MOOC than having a strong and proactive support infrastructure to help them.

This paper has confirmed and extended the findings of the two most comprehensive studies to date about MOOC instructor motivations and concerns (Young-Doo et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2016), but with an institutional perspective, surveying the MOOC instructors of UPV.

79 instructors answered a survey, and they all think creating the MOOC has been worth it, with having a strong and proactive support structure being one factor that influenced their decision about creating a MOOC. Their main motivators are intrinsic factors (reaching more people, sharing knowledge, commitment to open education, learning new pedagogies, or personal challenge), but instructors complain about the lack of recognition of their hard work. This can be a problem if the university doesn’t increase the funding of the initiative to recognize the effort made by teachers. Taking these factors into account is key for long-term MOOC sustainability.

Many instructors created their MOOCs without formal training, which is important if the university wants to transition to online and hybrid learning. This is probably because MOOCs are a new trend, and no training materials were available initially. The university has created the training resources and encourages all new MOOC instructors to use them.

The most crucial career outcomes mentioned by instructors were related to improving their teaching, with social and international commitment and professional reputation enhancement also ranking high. MOOCs had a substantial impact on the teaching style of most MOOC instructors.

Most instructors want to improve their technical skills in content production, online pedagogy, and presentation.

All these findings remarked the importance of the strategic approach of the UPV in their MOOC initiative as a crucial factor of success, not just to increase the opportunities for expansion and international recognition, but to reinforce the positive internal perception of the initiative and the engagement of some of the most important part the workforce implicated in it (Castañeda, et al., 2022; Illanes et al., 2018; Papadimitriou, 2020).

Declaration of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy regulations.

Funding

This projects partially supported this research: “Competencies for Universities - using Technology in Education” CUTE, an ERASMUS+ Strategic Partnership (KA203-867FE04B), funded by the European Union.

References

Babori, A. (2020). Trends in MOOCs Research: Analysis of Educational Technology Journals. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET). 15(17). 47–68. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i17.14637

Bartolomé-Pina, A. R., & Steffens, K. (2015). Are MOOCs promising learning environments? Comunicar, 22(44), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.3916/C44-2015-10

Blackmon, S. (2018). MOOC makers: Professors’ experiences with developing and delivering MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3718

Brouns, F., Teixeira, A., Morgado, L., Fano, S., Fueyo, A., & Jansen, D. (2017). Designing Massive Open Online Learning Processes: The sMOOC Pedagogical Framework. In: M. Jemni, Kinshuk, & M. Khribi (Eds.) Open Education: from OERs to MOOCs (pp 315–336). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52925-6_16

Bulfin, S., Pangrazio, L., & Selwyn, N. (2014). Making MOOC: The construction of a new digital higher education within news media discourse. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1856

Castañeda, L., Esteve-Mon, F., & Postigo_Fuentes, A. (2022). Digital teaching competence development in higher education: Key elements for an institutional strategic approach. In R. Sharpe, S. Bennett, & T. Varga-Atkins (Eds.), Handbook for Digital Higher Education. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Clark, D. (2013). MOOCs: taxonomy of 8 types of MOOC. Donald Clark Plan B, April 16, 2013. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3Fz9Hkf. May, 23rd 2022

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research Methods in Education. 8th Edition.

Connell, J., Carlton, J., Grundy, A., Taylor Buck, E., Keetharuth, A. D., Ricketts, T., Barkham, M., Robotham, D., Rose, D., & Brazier, J. (2018). The importance of content and face validity in instrument development: Lessons learnt from service users when developing the Recovering Quality of Life measure (ReQoL. Quality of Life Research, 27(7), 1893–1902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1847-y

Conole, G. (2014). A new classification schema for MOOC. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 65–77. https://goo.gl/bL4GwN

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Despujol, I., Castañeda, L., & Turro, C. (2018). Developing A MOOC Initiative: Lessons Learned from the Universitat Politècnica de València Experience. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.382805

Despujol, I., Castañeda, L., & Turró, C. (2022). What Does the Data Say about Effective University Online Internships? The Universitat Politecnica de Valencia Experience Using MOOC during COVID-19 Lockdown. Sustainability, 14(1), 520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010520

edX (2022). https://www.edx.org/es/search?tab=course

García-Peñalvo, F. J., Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., & Sein-Echaluce, M. L. (2018). An adaptive hybrid MOOC model: Disrupting the MOOC concept in higher education. Telematics and Informatics, 35, 1018–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.012

Gonçalves, B. M. F., & Goncalves, V. B. (2019). Professional Development in MOOC: Teachers Motivation. In 2019 14th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI.2019.8760597

Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, January 2003. https://bit.ly/3WdQPNI

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001

Hirschauer, N., Grüner, S., Mußhoff, O., Becker, C., & Jantsch, A. (2021). Inference using non-random samples? Stop right there! Significance, 18(5), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1740-9713.01568

Holden, R. R. (2010). Face Validity. In The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (pp. 1–2). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0341

Illanes, P., Lund, S., Mourshed, M., Rutherford, S., & Tyreman. (2018). Retraining and reskilling workers in the age of automation. McKinsey Global institute. https://mck.co/3NtnACO

Khalil, H., & Ebner, M. (2014). MOOC completion rates and possible methods to improve retention a literature review. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 1, 1305–1313.

Kolowich, S. (2013). The professors who make the MOOCs. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(28), A20– A23.

Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOC: A systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(3), 202–227. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455

Llorente-Ruiz, A., Despujol, I., & Castañeda, L. (2021). MOOC como estrategia de nivelación en la enseñanza universitaria: El caso de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Campus Virtuales, 10(2), 9–25.

Lowenthal, P., Snelson, C., & Perkins, R. (2018). Teaching Massive, Open, Online, Courses (MOOCs): Tales from the Front Line. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3505

Lugton, M. (2012). What is a MOOC? What Are the Different Types of MOOC? XMOOC and cMOOC. Reflections. http://goo.gl/9Szd6o

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

Najafi, H., Rolheiser, C., Harrison, L., & Håklev, S. (2015). University of Toronto instructors’ experiences with developing MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2073

OpenedX. (2018). Global Open edX deployments. https://bit.ly/3FDdywP

OpenedX. (2021). Sites powered by Open edX platform. https://bit.ly/3FyLoTC

Osuna-Acedo, S., Marta-Lazo, C., & Frau-Meigs, D. (2018). From sMOOC to tMOOC, learning towards professional transference. ECO European Project. [De sMOOC a tMOOC, el aprendizaje hacia la transferencia profesional: El proyecto europeo ECO]. Comunicar, 55, 105–114. https://doi.org/10.3916/C55-2018-10

Papadimitriou, A. (2020). Beyond rhetoric: Reinventing the public mission of higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 26, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09046-9

Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., Abdullah, N. A., Zakari, A., & Haruna, K. (2019). A Systematic Mapping Study of the Empirical MOOC Literature. IEEE Access, 7, 124809–124827. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2938561

Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOC and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 15(2).

Rolfe, V. (2015). A systematic review of the socio-ethical aspects of massive online open courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 18(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2015-0004

Ross, J., Sinclair, C., Knox, J., Bayne, S., & Macleod, H. (2014). Teacher Experiences and Academic Identity: The Missing Components of MOOC Pedagogy. 10(1), 13.

Roth, M. (2013). My Modern Experience Teaching a MOOC. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(34), B18–21.

Saldaña, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. (3rd Ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Schuwer, R., Jaurena, I. G., Aydin, C. H., Costello, E., Dalsgaard, C., Brown, M., & Teixeira, A. (2015). Opportunities and threats of the MOOC movement for higher education: The European perspective. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2153

Shah, D. (2016). Monetization over Massiveness: A Review of MOOC Stats and Trends in 2016. Class Central. https://bit.ly/3DQeAEz

Shah, D. (2021). By The Numbers: MOOC in 2020. Class Central. https://bit.ly/3zxrHb7

Toven-Lindsey, B., Rhoads, R. A., & Lozano, J. B. (2015). Virtually unlimited classrooms: Pedagogical practices in massive open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.07.001

Turro, C., Cañero, A., & Busquets, J. (2010). Video learning objects creation with polimedia. In 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (pp. 371–376). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISM.2010.69

UPV (2021a). Memoria del curso académico 2019-2020. Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV). https://bit.ly/3NrLCxG

UPV (2021b). Convocatoria programa docencia en red 21-22. Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV). https://bit.ly/3fmNb3F

Young-Doo, M., Tang, Y., Bonk, C. J., & Zhu, M. (2020). MOOC instructor motivation and career development. Distance Education, 41(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1724770

Zheng S., Wisniewski P., Rosson M.B., & Carroll J. M. (2016). Ask the Instructors: Motivations and Challenges of Teaching Massive Open Online Courses. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '16) (pp. 206–221). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820082

Zhu, M., Bonk, C. J., & Sari, A. R. (2018). Instructors’ Experience of Designing MOOCs in Higher Education: Considerations and Challenges. Online Learning, 22(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1495

Appendix I. Survey text

(1)¿Cuál es tu año de nacimiento? (What is your birth year?)

Selecciona de 1940 a 2000 (Select from 1940 to 2000)

(2)¿Cuál es tu género? (What is your gender?)