A Preliminary Study on the Learning Assessment in Massive Open Online Courses

  • Quan Yuan
  • Qin Gao
  • Yue Chen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10281)


Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) is a new online education form. MOOC aims to provide the advance systematic educations to the public and share the access to the best high educations to Internet users. Although the MOOC platform contained many video lessons of high-quality courses from famous universities around the world, the assessment of students’ learning, including testing methods, grading methods and feedback to student, was unsatisfactory according to XuetangX, an xMOOC websites leading by Tsinghua University in China. Setting effective and satisfactory assessment methods to test and grade students’ learning performance in MOOC has significant values for all stakeholders including instructors, students and the MOOC platform. An interview study was conducted to understanding the current situation of assessments and the opinions towards different types of assessment methods from both instructors and students. We interviewed five teachers, eight course assistants of different categories of MOOCs in XuetangX, and six students from different MOOC platforms. Some conclusions and suggestions about the assessment on students’ learning performance in different categories of MOOCs were drawn in the study. The findings in the study can be referred as guidelines for instructors to design great assessment methods in different MOOCs.


MOOC Learning assessment Test method Grading 



This study was supported by the Online Education Research Foundation of the Online Education Research Center, Ministry of Education, P.R. China (Project No. 2016ZD103) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. 71401087).


  1. 1.
    Anderson, T., Dron, J.: Three generations of distance education pedagogy. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 12(3), 80–97 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belanger, Y., Thornton, J.: Bioelectricity: A quantitative approach Duke University’s first MOOC (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, X., Dai, S., Zhao, X., Bai, Z., Liu, Q., Zhi, S.: Efficiency analysis of different question types in a medical imaging examination (in Chinese). Chin. J. Med. Educ. Res. 11(11), 1160–1163 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B., Bennett, A., Woods, D., Emanuel, E.J.: The MOOC phenomenon: who takes massive open online courses and why? (2013). SSRN 2350964Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cormier, D.: The CCK08 MOOC–Connectivism course, 1/4 way (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cross, S.: Evaluation of the OLDS MOOC curriculum design course: participant perspectives, expectations and experiences (2013).
  7. 7.
    Downes, S.: Connectivism: A theory of personal learning (2008). Accessed on July 14, 2014
  8. 8.
    Harmon, O.R., Lambrinos, J.: Are online exams an invitation to cheat? J. Econ. Educ. 39(2), 116–125 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hsia, L.H., Huang, I., Hwang, G.J.: Effects of different online peer-feedback approaches on students’ performance skills, motivation and self-efficacy in a dance course. Comput. Educ. 96, 55–71 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kolowich, S.: Coursera takes a nuanced view of MOOC dropout rates. The chronicle of higher education (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kop, R.: The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: learning experiences during a massive open online course. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 12(3), 19–38 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krathwohl, D.R.: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract. 41(4), 212–218 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luo, H., Robinson, A.C., Park, J.-Y.: Peer grading in a MOOC: reliability, validity, and perceived effects. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 18(2), n2 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maier, U., Wolf, N., Randler, C.: Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Comput. Educ. 95, 85–98 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manalo, J.M.A.: An Evaluation of Participants’ Levels of Satisfaction and Perceived Learning Regarding the MOOC in@ RAL Platform. Malays. J. Distance Educ. 16(1), 101–121 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miranda, S., Mangione, G.R., Orciuoli, F., Gaeta, M., Loia, V.: Automatic generation of assessment objects and remedial works for MOOCs. In: 2013 International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), pp. 1–8. IEEE (2013).
  17. 17.
    Nikola, S.: Effects of motivation on performance of students in MOOC. In: International Scientific Conference of IT and Business-Related Research-SINTEZA, pp. 418–422. Singidunum University (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Onah, D.F., Sinclair, J., Boyatt, R.: Dropout rates of massive open online courses: behavioural patterns. Proceedings on EDULEARN14, pp. 5825–5834 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parr, C.: MOOC completion rates ‘below 7%’. Times Higher Education, 9 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Readers, H.: Professionals against machine scoring of student essays in high-stakes assessment. Human Readers (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sandeen, C.: Assessment’s place in the new MOOC world. Res. Pract. Assess. 8, 5–12 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shah, N.B., Bradley, J., Balakrishnan, S., Parekh, A., Ramchandran, K., Wainwright, M.J.: Some scaling laws for MOOC assessments. In: KDD Workshop on Data Mining for Educational Assessment and Feedback (ASSESS 2014) (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suskie, L.: Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xia, H., Jiang, S.: Educational Psychology. Tsinghua University Press (2015). (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M.: What drives a successful MOOC? an empirical examination of criteria to assure design quality of MOOCs. In: 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), pp. 44–48. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations