Advertisement

MOOC instructor designs and challenges: what can be learned from existing MOOCs in Indonesia and Malaysia?

  • Annisa R. SariEmail author
  • Curtis J. Bonk
  • Meina Zhu
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore Indonesian and Malaysian instructors’ perceptions of massive open online course (MOOC) design and how they deal with the design challenges. Surveys, email interviews, and course reviews are the main data-collection methods employed in this sequential mixed methods study. Forty-six instructors participated in the survey, and nine of them voluntarily participated in an email interview. The findings revealed that half of the courses were delivered using a hybrid/blended type of MOOC. Personal motives, institutional encouragement, and altruism were among the main reasons for instructors to offer MOOCs. Preparation, attraction, participation, and assessment were the categories used to explain the design strategies used by these instructors in designing their courses. The survey also revealed that collaboration encouragement, participant engagement, video development, and time constraints were the primary design challenges that the instructors experienced during the design process. Furthermore, most instructors sought advice from other MOOC instructors, MOOC providers, their institutions, video tutorials, and open educational resources (OERs) to surmount their design challenges.

Keywords

Massive open online course (MOOC) MOOC instructors Course design Design strategies Design challenges 

Notes

References

  1. Abas, Z. W. (2015). The glocalization of MOOCs in Southeast Asia. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education: Around the world (pp. 232–242). New York: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315751108-26.Google Scholar
  2. Alario-Hoyos, C., Perez-Sanagustin, M., Cormier, D., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Proposal for a conceptual framework for educators to describe and design MOOCs. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 20(1), 6–23.  https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-020-01-0006.Google Scholar
  3. Al-Atabi, M., & DeBoer, J. (2014). Teaching entrepreneurship using massive open online course (MOOC). Technovation, 34(4), 261–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.01.006.Google Scholar
  4. Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 142–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90004-X.Google Scholar
  5. Alevizou, G. (2015). From OER to MOOCs: Critical perspectives on the historical mediation trajectories of open education. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 11(2), 203–224.  https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.11.2.203_1.Google Scholar
  6. Ayub, E., & Leong, L. C. (2017). Developing a pedagogy framework for institution-wide implementation of MOOC: A case study from a Malaysian private university. Advanced Science Letters, 23(2), 809–813.  https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.7464.Google Scholar
  7. Azhari, A. F. (2014). Reconstruction of constitutional tradition in the Indonesian and Malaysian constitutions: A comparison. Review of History and Political Science, 2(3&4), 105–125.  https://doi.org/10.15640/rhps.v2n3-4a6.Google Scholar
  8. Bali, M. (2014). MOOC pedagogy: Gleaning good practice from existing MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 44.Google Scholar
  9. Belawati, T. (in press). Massive online open courses: The state of practice in Indonesia. In K. Zhang, C. J. Bonk, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education in the Global South: Challenges, successes, opportunities. New York: Routledge (to appear).Google Scholar
  10. Berkovsky, S., Kuflik, T., & Ricci, F. (2008). Mediation of user models for enhanced personalization in recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 18(3), 245–286.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-007-9042-9.Google Scholar
  11. Bonk, C. J. (2016). What is the state of e-learning? Reflections on 30 ways learning is changing. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 20(2), 6–20.Google Scholar
  12. Bonk, C. J., & Lee, M. M. (2017). Motivations, achievements, and challenges of self-directed informal learners in open educational environments and MOOCs. Journal of Learning for Development, 4(1). Retrieved from http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/195/188.
  13. Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (2018a). The emergence and design of massive open online courses. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed., pp. 250–258). New York, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  14. Bonk, C. J., Zhu, M., Kim, M., Xu, S., Sabir, N., & Sari, A. R. (2018b). Pushing toward a more personalized MOOC: Exploring instructor selected activities, resources, and technologies for MOOC design and implementation. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3439.Google Scholar
  15. Bowen, P. W., Rose, R., & Pilkington, A. (2017). Mixed methods-theory and practice. Sequential, explanatory approach. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, 5(2), 10–27.Google Scholar
  16. Branstetter, G. (2001). Hot tips mailing list update newsletter. Hippo Direct. Retrieved from http://www.hippodirect.com/tools/EmailTips.asp.
  17. Carson, S. (2009). The unwalled garden: Growth of the OpenCourseWare Consortium, 2001–2008. Open Learning, 24(1), 23–29.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510802627787.Google Scholar
  18. Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open educational resources: Enabling universal education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i1.469.Google Scholar
  19. Chauhan, A. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCS): Emerging trends in assessment and accreditation. Digital Education Review, 25, 7–18.  https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2014.25.7-17.Google Scholar
  20. Chonghui, L. (2016, August 7). Revolutionising online education. The Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com.my/news/education/2016/08/07/revolutionising-online-education/.
  21. Cross, S. (2013). Evaluation of the OLDS MOOC curriculum design course: Participant perspectives, expectations and experiences. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/37836/1/EvaluationReport_OLDSMOOC_v1.0.pdf.
  22. Dahlan, A. R. B. A., Juhari, S. S. B., & Shafiee, A. S. B. A. (2015). MOOCs at International Islamic University Malaysia. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology Research, 3(2), 140–149.Google Scholar
  23. Daradoumis, T., Bassi, R., Xhafa, F., & Caballé, S. (2013). A review on massive e-learning (MOOC) design, delivery and assessment. In F. Xhafa, L. Barolli, D. Nace, S. Vinticinque, & A. Bui (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2013 eighth international conference on P2P, parallel, grid, cloud and Internet computing (pp. 208–213). Compiegne: CPS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de Freitas, S., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 455–471.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12268.Google Scholar
  25. Dillahunt, T. R., Wang, B. Z., & Teasley, S. (2014). Democratizing higher education: Exploring MOOC use among those who cannot afford a formal education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1841.Google Scholar
  26. Drake, J. R., O’Hara, M., & Seeman, E. (2015). Five principles for MOOC design: With a case study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 14, 125–143.  https://doi.org/10.28945/2250.Google Scholar
  27. Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105.Google Scholar
  28. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Article update: Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Connecting “Yesterday’s” theories to today’s contexts. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Evans, S., & Myrick, J. G. (2015). How MOOC instructors view the pedagogy and purposes of massive open online courses. Distance Education, 36(3), 295–311.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1081736.Google Scholar
  30. Fadzil, M., Latif, L. A., & Munira, T. A. M. (2015). MOOCs in Malaysia: A preliminary case study. MOOCs in Malaysia: A preliminary case study. Retrieved from http://library.oum.edu.my/repository/1022/1/library-document-1022.pdf.
  31. Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 132–139.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015.Google Scholar
  32. Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134–2156.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117.Google Scholar
  33. Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). From massive access to cooperation: lessons learned and proven results of a hybrid xMOOC/cMOOC pedagogical approach to MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 24.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0024-z.Google Scholar
  34. Firmansyah, M., & Timmis, S. (2016). Making MOOCs meaningful and locally relevant? Investigating IDCourserians—an independent, collaborative, community hub in Indonesia. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(11), 11.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0032-6.Google Scholar
  35. Gené, O. B., Núñez, M. M., & Blanco, Á. F. (2014). Gamification in MOOC: Challenges, opportunities and proposals for advancing MOOC model. In F. J. García-Peñalvo (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality (pp. 215–220). New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2669711.2669902.Google Scholar
  36. Ghazali, N. B., & Nordin, M. S. (2017). The perception of university lecturers of teaching and learning in massive open online courses (MOOCs). Journal of Personalized Learning, 2(1), 52–57.Google Scholar
  37. Grajek, S., Bichsel, J., & Dahlstrom, E. (2013). What MOOCs mean to today’s students and institutions. Educause Review. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2013/10/erb1309-pdf.pdf.
  38. Guàrdia, L., Maina, M., & Sangrà, A. (2013). MOOC design principles: A pedagogical approach from the learner’s perspective. eLearning Papers, 33(4), 1–6.Google Scholar
  39. Haavind, S., & Sistek-Chandler, C. (2015). The emergent role of the MOOC instructor: A qualitative study of trends toward improving future ractice. International Journal on E-Learning, 14(3), 331–350.Google Scholar
  40. Hartono, R. (2017). English teachers’ responses on the Indonesian MOOC: Technology for autonomous learning (A qualitative survey at Central Java Province, Indonesia). Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature, 12(1), 31–40.Google Scholar
  41. Haug, S., Wodzicki, K., Cress, U., & Moskaliuk, J. (2014). Self-regulated learning in MOOCs: Do open badges and certificates of attendance motivate learners to invest more. In U. Cress & C. D. Kloos (Eds.), EMOOCs 2014—European MOOC stakeholder summit (pp. 66–72). Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne).Google Scholar
  42. Hew, K. F. (2015). Towards a model of engaging online students: Lessons from MOOCs and four policy documents. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(6), 425.  https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2015.v5.543.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. Hewindati, Y. T., & Belawati, T. (2017). Massive open online courses as a community services programme. ASEAN Journal of Open Distance Learning, 9, 1–11.Google Scholar
  45. Iiyoshi, T., & Kumar, M. S. V. (Eds.). (2008). Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Ismail, N. H., & Seng, L. C. (2016). The bold initiatives of the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia in preparing Millennial learners to enter the workforce. International Journal of Advanced Engineering and Management Research, 1(3), 241–255.Google Scholar
  47. Israel, M. J. (2015). Effectiveness of integrating MOOCs in traditional classrooms for undergraduate students. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(5), 102–118.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2222.Google Scholar
  48. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x05282260.Google Scholar
  49. Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1), 133–160.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651.Google Scholar
  50. Kellogg, S. (2013). Online learning: How to make a MOOC. Nature, 499(7458), 369–371.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7458-369a.Google Scholar
  51. Khalil, H., & Ebner, M. (2013). “How satisfied are you with your MOOC?”—a research study on interaction in huge online Courses. In J. Herrington, A. Couros, & V. Irvine (Eds.), EdMedia+ innovate learning (pp. 830-839). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/112057/.
  52. Khalil, H., & Ebner, M. (2014, June). MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention—a literature review. In J. Viteli & M. Leikomaa (Eds.), World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (pp. 1305–1313). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/147656/.
  53. Kim, P., & Chung, C. (2015). Creating a temporary spontaneous mini-ecosystem through a MOOC. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 157–168). New York: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315751108-19.Google Scholar
  54. King, C., Doherty, K., Kelder, J. A., McInerney, F., Walls, J., Robinson, A., et al. (2014). ‘Fit for purpose’: A cohort-centric approach to MOOC design. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 11(3), 108–121.  https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v11i3.2090.Google Scholar
  55. Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2016). Recommending self-regulated learning strategies does not improve performance in a MOOC. In J. Haywood, V. Aleven, J. Kay, & I. Roll (Eds.), Proceedings of the third (2016) ACM conference on learning@ scale (pp. 101–104). New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2876034.2893378.Google Scholar
  56. Kolowich, S. (2013, March 21). The professors who make the MOOCs. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/TheProfessors-Behind-the-MOOC/137905/#id=overview.
  57. Li, N., Verma, H., Skevi, A., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). Proceedings of the EMOOCs 2014—European MOOC stakeholder summit. In U. Cress & C. D. Kloos (Eds.), Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory (pp. 88–94). Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne).Google Scholar
  58. Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1152–1161.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.009.Google Scholar
  59. Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003.Google Scholar
  60. Liyanagunawardena, T. R. (2015). Massive open online courses. Humanities, 4(1), 35–41.  https://doi.org/10.3390/h4010035.Google Scholar
  61. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202–227.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455.Google Scholar
  62. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Parslow, P., & Williams, S. (2014). Dropout: MOOC participants’ perspective. In U. Cress & C. D. Kloos (Eds.), Proceedings of the EMOOCs 2014—European MOOC stakeholder summit (pp. 95–100). Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne).Google Scholar
  63. Lowenthal, P., & Hodges, C. (2015). In search of quality: Using Quality Matters to analyze the quality of massive, open, online courses (MOOCs). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2348.Google Scholar
  64. Mak, S., Williams, R., & Mackness, J. (2010). Blogs and forums as communication and learning tools in a MOOC. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on networked learning 2010. Lancaster: University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
  65. Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005.Google Scholar
  66. McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf.
  67. Mesquita, M. A., Toda, A. M., & Brancher, J. D. (2014). BrasilEduca—An open-source MOOC platform for Portuguese speakers with gamification concepts. In Proceedings of the frontiers in education conference (FIE) (pp. 1–7). New York: IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2014.7044063.
  68. MIT. (2007, November 28). MIT Marks OpenCourseWare Milestone. November 2007 Newsletter. Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/about/media-coverage/press-releases/milestone/.
  69. MIT Open Course Ware, (2012). Site statistics. Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/about/site-statistics/.
  70. Mlikotic, R., Parker, B., & Rajapakshe, R. (2016). Assessing the effects of participant preference and demographics in the usage of web-based survey questionnaires by women attending screening mammography in British Columbia. Journal of medical Internet research, 18(3), 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5068.Google Scholar
  71. 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.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2073.Google Scholar
  72. Neuböck, K., Kopp, M., & Ebner, M. (2015). What do we know about typical MOOC participants? First insights from the field. In M. Lebrun, I. de Waard, M. Ebner, & M. Gaebel (Eds.), Proceedings of the European MOOC stakeholders summit 2015 (pp. 183–190). Mons: Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium.Google Scholar
  73. Nordin, N., Norman, H., Embi, M. A., Mansor, A. Z., & Idris, F. (2016). Factors for development of learning content and task for MOOCs in an Asian context. International Education Studies, 9(5), 48–61.  https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n5p48.Google Scholar
  74. Opdenakker, R. (2006, September). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4). Retrieved from https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/1948695/Metis202565.pdf.
  75. Oyo, B., & Kalema, B. M. (2014). Massive open online courses for Africa by Africa. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1889.Google Scholar
  76. Pannen, P. (2015). Online lecturers’ experience: A reflection. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Berlin 2015: Global conference on learning and technology (pp. 204–212). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  77. Ratislavová, K., & Ratislav, J. (2014). Asynchronous email interview as a qualitative research method in the humanities. Human Affairs, 24(4), 452–460.  https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-014-0240-y.Google Scholar
  78. Ravichandran, P. (in press). Global trends and policy strategies and their implications for sustainable development of MOOCs in Malaysia. To appear in K. Zhang, C. J. Bonk, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.). MOOCs and open education in the Global South: Challenges, successes, opportunities. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Richter, S. L., & Krishnamurthi, M. (2014). Preparing faculty for teaching a MOOC: Recommendations from research and experience. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(5), 411–415.  https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2014.v4.440.Google Scholar
  80. Sadigh, D., Seshia, S. A., & Gupta, M. (2012). Automating exercise generation: A step towards meeting the MOOC challenge for embedded systems. In Proceedings of the workshop on embedded and cyber-physical systems education (p. 2). New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2530544.2530546.
  81. Sahyoun, S. (2014, September 26). OpenLearning selected as Malaysia’s national MOOC platform. Retrieved from https://www.openlearning.com/blog/OpenlearningComSelectedAsMalaysiaSNationalMoocPlatform.
  82. Sappleton, N., & Lourenço, F. (2016). Email subject lines and response rates to invitations to participate in a web survey and a face-to-face interview: The sound of silence. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(5), 611–622.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1078596.Google Scholar
  83. Shah, D. (2017). A product at every price: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2017. Class Central. Retrieved from https://www.class-central.com/report/moocs-stats-and-trends-2017/.
  84. Shah, D. (2019). Year of MOOC-based Degrees: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2018. Class Central. Retrieved from https://www.class-central.com/report/moocs-stats-and-trends-2018/.
  85. Siemens, G. (2012, September). Designing and running a MOOC (in 9 easy steps). Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/09/04/designing-and-running-a-mooc-in-9-easy-steps/.
  86. Szolnoki, G., & Hoffmann, D. (2013). Online, face-to-face and telephone surveys—Comparing different sampling methods in wine consumer research. Wine Economics and Policy, 2(2), 57–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2013.10.001.Google Scholar
  87. Teplechuk, E. (2013). Emergent models of Massive Open Online Courses: An exploration of sustainable practices for MOOC institutions in the context of the launch of MOOCs at the University of Edinburgh. MBA Dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Retrieved from https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/7536/1/MOOCs_MBADissertationTeplechuk_Master.pdf.
  88. Terras, M. M., & Ramsay, J. (2015). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Insights and challenges from a psychological perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 472–487.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12274.Google Scholar
  89. Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change (Vol. 219). Lexington, KY: CreateSpace.Google Scholar
  90. Trehan, S., Sanzgiri, J., Li, C., Wang, R., & Joshi, R. M. (2017). Critical discussions on the massive open online course (MOOC) in India and China. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 13(2), 141–165.Google Scholar
  91. Tyler-Smith, K. (2006). Early attrition among first time eLearners: A review of factors that contribute to drop-out, withdrawal and non-completion rates of adult learners undertaking eLearning programmes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 73–85.Google Scholar
  92. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048.Google Scholar
  93. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94(1), 3.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.94.1.3.Google Scholar
  94. Veletsianos, G., Collier, A., & Schneider, E. (2015). Digging deeper into learners’ experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of MOOCs, Notetaking, and contexts surrounding content consumption. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 570–587.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12297.Google Scholar
  95. Vest, C. (2001, April 4). MIT to make nearly all course materials available free on the World Wide Web. MIT News. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/ocw.html.
  96. Wong, B. T. (2016). Factors leading to effective teaching of MOOCs. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 11(1), 105–118.  https://doi.org/10.1108/aaouj-07-2016-0023.Google Scholar
  97. Xiong, Y., & Suen, H. K. (2018). Assessment approaches in massive open online courses: Possibilities, challenges and future directions. International Review of Education, 64(2), 241–263.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-018-9710-5.Google Scholar
  98. Yamada, T. (2015). New component technologies and development strategies of e-learning in MOOC and post-MOOC eras. In T. Zin, J. W. Lin, J. S. Pan, P. Tin, & M. Yokota (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on genetic and evolutionary computing. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  99. Ying, W. (2015). A case study: The development of MOOCs in China. In K. Bowon (Ed.), MOOCs and educational challenges around Asia and Europe (pp. 9–20). Seoul: KNOU Press.Google Scholar
  100. Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., & Wosnitza, M. (2014). What drives a successful MOOC? An empirical examination of criteria to assure design quality of MOOCs. In D. G. Sampson, J. M. Spector, N.-S. Chen, R. Huang, & Kinshuk (Eds.), Proceedings of 2014 IEEE 14th international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 44–48). New York: IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/icalt.2014.23.
  101. Zhang, Y. (2013). Benefiting from MOOC. In J. Herrington, A. Couros, & V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World conference on educational media and technology (pp. 1372–1377). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  102. Zhang, K., Bonk, C. J., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.). (in press). MOOCs and open education in the Global South: Challenges, successes, opportunities. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  103. Zhu, M., Bonk, C. J., & Sari, A. (2017, October). Instructor experiences in designing and delivering MOOCs in higher education. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education, 2017, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 502–508). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). ISBN 978-1-939797-31-5. http://www.learntechlib.org/pv/181226/.
  104. Zhu, M., Bonk, C. J., & Sari, A. (2019). MOOC instructor motivations, innovations, and designs: Surveys, interviews, and course reviews. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 45(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  105. Zutshi, S., O’Hare, S., & Rodafinos, A. (2013). Experiences in MOOCs: The perspective of students. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 218–227.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.838067.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instructional Systems Technology DepartmentIndiana University BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Learning Design and Technology Program, College of EducationWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  3. 3.Accounting Education DepartmentYogyakarta State UniversityYogyakartaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations