Student Performance and Learning Experience in MOOCs: The Possibilities of Interactive Activity-Based Online Learning Materials

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 715)

Abstract

The most common criticisms against the effectiveness of MOOCs usually point out the high attrition rates and the low level of learning effectiveness. Open courses generally require self-regulation (self-regulated learning), task awareness and learning methodology at a level most students cannot achieve. To increase the effectiveness of open courses, the planning process should focus on the stronger control over students’ activities; another important factor is that the learning materials should be able to ensure the continuous activity of the learners. The application of appropriate activity-based instructional design solutions can largely increase the effectiveness of open courses. Our research focuses on the possibilities of activity-based learning material development for online education purposes.

Keywords

Activity-based online learning material Instructional design MOOC 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The first author’s research was supported by the grant EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00001 (“Complex improvement of research capacities and services at Eszterhazy Karoly University”).

References

  1. Allen, E., Seaman, J.: Grade change: tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC (2014)Google Scholar
  2. Anders, A.: Theories and applications of massive online open courses (MOOCs): the case for hybrid design. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 16(6), 39–61 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. Fini, A.: The technological dimension of a massive open online course: the case of the CCK08 course tools. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 10(5), 74–96 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. Greenberg, A.D., Zanetis, J.: The Impact of Broadcast and Streaming Video in Education. Report commissioned by Cisco Systems Inc. to Wainhouse Research, LLC. Ainhouse Research (2012)Google Scholar
  5. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., Ludgate, H.: NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition. The New Media Consortium, Austin (2013)Google Scholar
  6. Jordan, K.: Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 15, 133–160 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Adams, A.A., Williams, S.A.: MOOCs: a systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 14(3), 202–227 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. Macdonald, J., Twining, P.: Assessing activity–based learning for a networked course. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 33(5), 603–618 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Stewart, B.: Massiveness + openness = new literacies of participation? MERLOT J. Online Learn. Teach. 9(2), 228–238 (2013). http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/stewart_bonnie_0613.htm Google Scholar
  10. Wilkowski, J., Deutsch, A., Russell, M.D.: Student skill and goal achievement in the mapping with Google MOOC. In: L@S 2014 Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference, pp. 3–10. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eszterházy Károly UniversityEgerHungary
  2. 2.University of Novi SadSuboticaSerbia

Personalised recommendations