Design review of MOOCs: application of e-learning design principles
- 45 Downloads
The purpose of this study is to explore the pedagogical design of massive open online courses (MOOCs) using evidence-based e-learning principles. MOOCs have become an important part of discourse in higher education. However, there has been shared concern on the quality of MOOCs as learning systems for engaging learners as well as fulfilling their needs. The researchers conducted a design review of 40 computer science MOOCs from two major MOOC providers. The findings indicate a relatively low application of the principles in general, with the exception of those related to the organization and presentation of content. MOOC platforms and the difficulty level of MOOCs used the application of e-learning principles and guidelines differently. Implications for future research and design of MOOCs are discussed.
KeywordsMOOCs E-learning design Instructional quality MOOCs design
- Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
- Beaven, T., Hauck, M., Comas-Quinn, A., Lewis, T., & de los Arcos, B. (2014). MOOCs: Striking the right balance between facilitation and self-determination. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,10(1), 31–43.Google Scholar
- Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin,3, 7.Google Scholar
- Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B., Bennett, A., Woods, D., & Emanuel, E. (2013). The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why? Retrieved January 7, 2018 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2350964.
- Chukwuemeka, E. J., Yoila, A. O., & Iscioglu, E. (2015). Instructional design quality: An evaluation of Open Education Europa Networks’ open courses using the first principles of instruction. International Journal of Science and Research,4(11), 878–884.Google Scholar
- Creelman, A., Ehlers, U., & Ossiannilsson, E. (2014). Perspectives on MOOC quality: An account of the EFQUEL MOOC quality project. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning,2(3), 78–87.Google Scholar
- Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference (pp. 41–50). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
- Hathaway, K. L. (2013). An application of the seven principles of good practice to online courses. Research in Higher Education Journal,22, 1.Google Scholar
- Hew, K. F. (2018). Unpacking the strategies of ten highly rated MOOCs: Implications for engaging students in large online courses. Teachers College Record,120, 1–40.Google Scholar
- Konrad, A. (2017). Coursera fights to keep the promise of MOOCs alive with corporate customer push. Forbes. Retrieved January 7, 2018 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2017/12/20/coursera-goes-corporate-to-keep-alive-promise-of-moocs/#40181021543c.
- Linn, M., & Dalbey, J. (1989). Cognitive consequences of programming instruction [reprinted]. In E. Soloway & J. C. Spohrer (Eds.), Studying the novice programmer (pp. 57–81). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Assessing and responding to the growth of computer science undergraduate enrollments. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Ossiannilsson, E., Williams, K., Camilleri, A. F., & Brown, M. (2015). Quality models in online and open education around the globe: State of the art and recommendations. Oslo: International Council for Open and Distance Education.Google Scholar
- Quality Matters. (2014). Introduction to the quality matters program. Retrieved January 10, 2018 from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/Introduction%20to%20the%20Quality%20Matters%20Program%20HyperlinkedFinal2014.pdf.
- Rosewell, J., & Jansen, D. (2014). The OpenupEd quality label: Benchmarks for MOOCs. INNOQUAL: The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning,2(3), 88–100.Google Scholar
- Shah, D. (2017). A product at every price: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2017. Class Central. Retrieved January 7, 2018 from https://www.class-central.com/report/moocs-stats-and-trends-2017/.
- Tawfik, A. A., Reeves, T. D., Stich, A. E., Gill, A., Hong, C., McDade, J., et al. (2017). The nature and level of learner-learner interaction in a chemistry massive open online course (MOOC). Journal of Computing in Higher Education,29(3), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9135-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O., & Lenz, E. R. (2010). Measurement in nursing and health research (5th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- Waters, J. (2015). How nanodegrees are disrupting higher education, campus technology. Retrieved January 11, 2018 from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2015/08/05/how-nanodegrees-are-disrupting-higher-education.aspx.
- Watson, S. L., Loizzo, J., Watson, W. R., Mueller, C., Lim, J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Instructional design, facilitation, and perceived learning outcomes: An exploratory case study of a human trafficking MOOC for attitudinal change. Educational Technology Research and Development,64, 1273–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wexler, E. (2015). Moocs are still rising at least in numbers. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 7, 2018 from http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/moocs-are-still-rising-at-least-in-numbers/57527.
- Williams, L., & Kessler, R. (2002). Pair programming illuminated. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
- Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why? The Link Magazine, 6. Retrieved January 11, 2018 from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why.
- Yilmaz, A. B., Ünal, M., & Çakir, H. (2017). Evaluating MOOCs according to instructional design principles. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age,2(2), 26–35.Google Scholar
- Yoila, A. O., & Chukwuemeka, E. J. (2015). Instructional design quality evaluation of eastern mediterranean university open courses. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology,1(6), 1–7.Google Scholar
- Zhang, Q., Peck, K. L., Hristova, A., Jablokow, K. W., Hoffman, V., Park, E., et al. (2016). Exploring the communication preferences of MOOC learners and the value of preference-based groups: Is grouping enough? Educational Technology Research and Development,64, 809–837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9135-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhenghao, C., Alcorn, B., Christensen, G., Eriksson, N., Koller, D., & Emanuel, E. J. (2015). Who’s benefiting from MOOCs, and why. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved January 8, 2018 from https://hbr.org/2015/09/whos-benefiting-from-moocs-and-why.