Loizzo and Ertmer (2016) presented findings from a study examining the experiences of adults enrolling in massive open online courses (MOOCs). Interested in the construct of learning culture and how it influences individual beliefs and attitudes (Xiaojun and Peng 2010; Loizzo and Ertmer 2016) used virtual ethnography to investigate learners’ perceptions of their experiences within social science MOOCs. After an analysis of course artifacts, field notes, and post-course interview data, they argued that a unique adult learning culture exists within MOOCs and that this culture comprises a “dynamic global social learning democracy” (p. 1018).

To encapsulate these findings, Loizzo and Ertmer (2016) coined the term “MOOCocracy”—a portmanteau of MOOC and democracy—to refer to the dynamic learning culture emerging within MOOCs. They then described six themes thought to support the MOOCocracy concept. These themes, edited here for clarity and length, included: (1) participating in MOOCs leads to critical education consumers; (2) voting and reputation mechanisms enable a social media mentality; (3) lurking is recognized as a form of learning; (4) engaging with instructors is nice, but not expected; (5) reviewing peer work is accepted and common; and (6) participating in MOOCs fosters a sense of hope. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of MOOCocracy for anyone tasked with designing or implementing MOOCs.

From a research perspective, Loizzo and Ertmer (2016) introduced a number of valuable ideas pertinent to the “Shift to Digital”. One of these ideas is the concept of viewing online environments as spaces with unique learning cultures. A learning culture has been defined as “a collective, dynamic system of basic assumptions, values and norms which direct the learning of people within an organization” (van Breda-Verduijn and Heijboer 2016, p. 124). In this case, Loizzo and Ertmer (2016) argued that MOOCs are a form of organization and the themes they identified represent some of the assumptions, values, and norms of the organization’s members. Building on these ideas, it is possible to argue a learning culture is collective when it is participatory, meaning “large numbers of people from all walks of life have the capacity to produce and share media with each other” (Jenkins 2019, p. 3). Similarly, a learning culture is dynamic when it is student-centered, meaning it is student-centric and individualized as opposed to instructor-centered and standardized (Kaput 2018), suggesting it will inevitably evolve as students come and go. In short, the concept of a learning culture is a particularly valuable lens for examining various online educational contexts.

In terms of application, there are multiple ideas researchers might consider. One promising avenue is to examine the degree to which each theme identified by Loizzo and Ertmer (2016) contributes to adults’ sense of participating in a MOOCocracy. Which theme, or combinations of themes, seems to influence the experience of a dynamic learning culture the most? A related line of inquiry would investigate how the size and scope of an online environment interacts with each theme. Examining such relationships would advance the field’s understanding of how specific design decisions at the course level influence the resulting learning culture.

Another possibility for application is to delve deeper into one of the supporting themes. For example, how should the first theme, which noted the ways in which adults are becoming critical consumers of education, inform efforts to offer online learning experiences? Rather than being passive recipients with few opinions or preferences, today’s learners are discriminating consumers who want “more voice in, and control over, their learning path” (p. 1021). Thus, researchers may want to study how instructors can give students more control over their learning, an idea that aligns with Lee and Hannafin’s (2016) “own it, learn it, share it” framework for student-centered learning. If the backgrounds, needs, and preferences of individual learners are accounted for, the field might finally transcend the standard, one-size-fits-all model of education, engaging an entire generation in a more personalized and tailored educational experience.

There are some limitations to consider regarding Loizzo and Ertmer’s (2016) study. Besides the obvious limitation of generalizing from a small sample, another concern has to do with a possible tension between viewing MOOCs as simultaneously embodying social learning democracy and promoting critical education consumers. How compatible are these two ideas over time? This is an important question given existing concerns about consumerist ethos emerging within higher education (Tomlison 2017). Another limitation has to do with the applicability of the tenets of MOOCocracy outside of social science courses because previous research has found differences in learners’ social and societal orientations depending on their pursuit of “hard” or “soft” sciences (Diekman et al. 2017; Struyf et al. 2017). Thus, further research is needed to understand the extent to which a social learning culture is present and valued in other domains.

For future work, the findings described by Loizzo and Ertmer (2016) point to several possibilities. One possibility is to examine how the concept of a social learning democracy is applicable and appropriate to contexts that aren’t massive or adult-oriented. For example, how do K-12 learners experience a social learning culture? And what skills and knowledge do young learners need to participate meaningfully? Similarly, it is recommended that future research explore the prerequisite skills learners need to participate in and benefit from MOOCocracies. This is essential since prior work has shown that digital competence and interaction skills are predictors of MOOC enrollment and participation (Castaño-Muñoz et al. 2017). Such work will help the field understand the extent to which the concept of MOOCocracy is suitable for other online settings and audiences.

In closing, Loizzo and Ertmer’s (2016) study shared valuable insights and prompted important questions about the future of MOOCs, which are still in their  “experimental stages” (p. 1026). From a research perspective, their work is particularly useful since most, if not all, of their themes can be applied to other contexts experiencing the “shift to digital”. Readers are encouraged to continue applying the lens of learning culture as openness and technology continue to transform education into a global and participatory enterprise (Bonk 2009).