CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 44Online Learning and AnalyticsE-Learning and COVID-19Higher Education Learning Practices

MOOCs and upskilling in Australia: A qualitative literature study

Open access
Santandreu Calonge, David, Aman Shah, Mariam, Riggs, Karina, Connor, Melissa, Wang, Shuyan·2019·Cogent Education
DOI 10.1080/2331186x.2019.1687392
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Access to digital technology has demonstrated the ability to change learning in the workplace with easily available resources and flexibility through often self-paced learning environments, offering employees the ability to take control of their learning experiences. The scarce existing body of research suggests that “specialised” MOOCs may be an effective means of upskilling the workforce. Whilst MOOCs offer a convenient, scalable and cost-effective means for businesses looking to increase or update skills within their workforce, much uncertainty still exists about both Australian employers’ and employee perceptions and attitudes towards the use of MOOCs as a way of addressing the skills gaps. The aim of this study was to explore the potential for MOOCs in addressing the skills gaps in the Australian workforce through a systematic qualitative review of the literature. In total, 19 research and media articles were reviewed. Three major themes emerged: MOOCs and flexibility for learning, MOOCs for on-demand, lifelong learning in a rapidly changing workplace, and credentialing of MOOCs towards a formal qualification. This study aims to contribute to this growing area of research by exploring the extent to which MOOCs might help address skills shortages and upskill employees in an Australian context.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/2331186x.2019.1687392

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Low-cost frugal solutions and innovations improve access to education, especially for students in low-resource settings or in remote regions, democratizing information.

    “As a result, these low-cost frugal solutions and innovations improve access to education, especially for students in low-resource settings or in remote regions [81], democratizing information and contributing to the wider educational setting.”

    From New Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Towards a Sustainable Multifaceted Revolution (2023) · cites this paper as [81]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Santandreu Calonge, D., Aman Shah, M., Riggs, K., Connor, M., & Wang, S.
Affiliations
  • Canadian University Dubai
  • Education, Lancaster University
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • University of Southern Mississippi (US)
ORCID
Venue
Cogent Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2019-01-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
ISSN
2331-186X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1080/2331186x.2019.1687392
OpenAlex
W2982786503
Cited by
44
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3
FWCI
4.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cogent Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
funding agencies
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Education › E-Learning and COVID-19
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Learning Practices
Keywords
MOOCs, upskilling, workforce skills gap, employer perceptions, employee perceptions, workplace learning, lifelong learning, self-paced learning, Australian workforce, online learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review