Scalability and Effectiveness of MOOCs in Actuarial Science: A Global Perspective

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have expanded access to STEM education globally, yet their application in specialized fields like Actuarial Science remains underexplored. Actuarial education requires mastery of advanced mathematics and risk modeling areas that pose challenges for scalable, self-directed online formats. This systematic literature review (SLR) investigates the scalability and effectiveness of MOOCs in Actuarial Science from a global perspective.
Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, five databases (Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar) were searched using Boolean terms related to “MOOCs” and “Actuarial Science.” From 412 retrieved records, 28 peer-reviewed studies were included after screening. Narrative synthesis focused on course completion, learner engagement, instructional design, and regional variation.
Findings show MOOCs can effectively broaden actuarial education access, particularly in Southeast Asia and Africa, when supported by adaptive features, interactive tools, and multilingual content. However, challenges such as high dropout rates, limited professional alignment, and infrastructure disparities hinder effectiveness. Well-designed, locally contextualized MOOCs with real-world relevance yielded higher retention.
This review provides the first focused synthesis on actuarial MOOCs, offering guidance for course developers, universities, and actuarial bodies on enhancing design, equity, and global reach.

MOOCs, Actuarial Science, Scalability, Effectiveness, Systematic Review

1. M. Z. A. Chek and I. L. Ismail, “Retirement Planning Issues, Problems, and Opportunities in Malaysia,” Retire. Plan. Issues, Probl. Oppor. Malaysia, vol. VII, no. 2454, pp. 1926–1932, 2023, doi: 10.47772/IJRISS. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. M. Z. A. Chek, I. L. Ismail, and N. F. Jamal, “Personal Financial Planning through Massive Open Online Course,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 618–622, 2019, doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v9-i5/6004. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. A. R. Ridzuan, R. Chek, and S. Ismail, “Developing an introduction to actuarial science MOOC: A Malaysian initiative,” J. Learn. Teach. Digit. Age, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 78–88, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. I. L. Ismail, M. Zaki, A. Chek, and M. Syakir, “Understanding the Employment Insurance Scheme in Malaysia,” vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 2137–2143, 2023, doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i11/19622. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. R. Chek, S. Ismail, and A. R. Ridzuan, “Learning actuarial mathematics through UiTM Future MOOC: A Malaysian case study,” Asian J. Educ. e-Learning, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 45–53, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. L. Luo, L. Zhang, and Y. Wang, “Research on MOOC learning effectiveness based on learner behavioral classification,” China Educ. Technol., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 34–42, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. H. Khalil and M. Ebner, “MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention: A literature review,” in World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2014, pp. 1236–1244. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. A. N. A. Ahmad Ridzuan, M. Z. Awang Chek, N. M. Abdul Ghafar, and A. B. Ahmad, “Developing an Introduction to Actuarial Science MOOC,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 600–605, 2018, doi: 10.6007/ijarbss/v8-i1/3833. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. J. Qian, “Promoting educational equity and facilitating effective MOOC learning through smart analytics,” J. Digit. Educ., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 89–103, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. R. Sabanwar and M. Pandey, “Easy or difficult? MOOC difficulty and retention: An empirical investigation,” J. Online Learn. Res., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 21–39, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. T. K. Chan and S. Roca, “Analyzing the effectiveness of using enhanced activities in MOOCs,” Int. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 119–133, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. S. Grover, P. Franz, E. Schneider, and R. Pea, “The MOOC as distributed intelligence: Dimensions of a framework \& evaluation methodology for the MOOC,” Massive Open Online Course Forum, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2013. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. G. Siemens, “Massive open online courses: Innovation in education?,” Open Learn. J. Open, Distance e-Learning, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 207–214, 2013. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. N. Sonwalkar, “The first adaptive MOOC: A case study on pedagogy framework and learning design,” Int. J. E-Learning, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 203–216, 2013. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. K. M. Alraimi, H. Zo, and A. P. Ciganek, “Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation,” Comput. \& Educ., vol. 80, pp. 28–38, 2015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. G. Veletsianos and P. Shepherdson, “A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013–2015,” Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 198–221, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. A. Margaryan, M. Bianco, and A. Littlejohn, “Instructional quality of MOOCs,” Comput. \& Educ., vol. 80, pp. 77–83, 2015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. M. Bali, “MOOC pedagogy: Gleaning good practice from existing MOOCs,” J. Online Learn. Teach., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 44–56, 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Y. Liao, T. Tang, and D. Liang, “Course dropout prediction on MOOC platform via clustering and classification,” Educ. Data Min. J., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 101–114, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. L. Yu, J. Zhang, and B. Zhao, “Proximity effect in disciplinary and regional MOOC performance: Evidence from global data,” Educ. Technol. \& Soc., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 55–70, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. M. Z. A. Chek, I. L. Ismail, M. Syakir, and A. F. Mansor, “Development Micro-Credentials Overview Social Security,” vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 2201–2211, 2023, doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i11/19628. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. D. G. Glance, M. Forsey, and M. Riley, “The pedagogical foundations of massive open online courses,” First Monday, vol. 18, no. 5, 2013. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. S. Zheng, M. B. Rosson, P. C. Shih, and J. M. Carroll, “Understanding student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs,” in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on CSCW, 2015, pp. 1882–1895. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. I. L. Ismail, N. F. Jamal, M. Z. Awang Chek, and M. S. Baharuddin, “Learning Basic Statistics and Probability Through MOOC,” Int. J. Mod. Trends Soc. Sci., vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 99–107, 2019, doi: 10.35631/ijmtss.280010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. D. Laurillard, “The educational problem that MOOCs could solve: Professional development for teachers of disadvantaged students,” Res. Learn. Technol., vol. 24, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. M. Z. A. Chek and I. L. Ismail, “Understanding strategic enhancements for the coverage, efficiency, and sustainability of the social security system in Malaysia,” Int. J. Res. Innov. Soc. Sci., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1723–1730, 2024, doi: 10.47772/IJRISS.2024.804122. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]