Is My MOOC Learner-Centric? A Framework for Formative Evaluation of MOOC Pedagogy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i2.6898Keywords:
massive open online course, pedagogical quality of MOOCs, instructional design, quality evaluation methods, formative evaluation of MOOC pedagogyAbstract
MOOCs popularly support the diverse learning needs of participants across the globe. However, literature suggests well-known scepticism regarding MOOC pedagogy which questions the effectiveness of the educational experience offered by it. One way to ensure the quality of MOOCs is through systematic evaluation of its pedagogy with the goal to improve over time. Most existing MOOCs’ quality evaluation methods do not account for the increasing significance of learner-centric pedagogy towards providing a richer learning experience. This paper presents a MOOC evaluation framework (MEF), designed with a strong pedagogical basis underpinned by theory and MOOC design practices, which evaluates the integration of learner-centric pedagogy in MOOCs. Using mixed-methods research, the internal validation was conducted through expert reviews (N = 2), and external validation (N = 13) was conducted in the field to test model usability and usefulness. The framework was classified as “good” (SUS: 78.46) in terms of usability. A high perception of usefulness (84%–92%) was observed for the framework as a formative evaluation tool for assessing the integration of learner-centric pedagogy and bringing a positive change in MOOC design. Different participants acknowledged new learning from varied dimensions of the framework. Participants also recognized that the scores obtained using the MEF truly reflected the efforts taken to incorporate learner-centric design strategies in the evaluated dimensions. The framework focuses on learner-centric evaluation of MOOC design with a goal to facilitate improved pedagogy.
References
Aloizou, V., Villagrá Sobrino, S. L., Martínez Monés, A., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., & García-Sastre, S. (2019) Quality assurance methods assessing instructional design in MOOCs that implement active learning pedagogies: An evaluative case study. In M. Calise, C. Delgado Kloos, C. Mongenet, J. Reich, J. A. Ruipérez-Valiente, G. Shimshon, T. Staubitz, & M. Wirsing (Eds.), EMOOCs 2019 work in progress papers of research, experience and business tracks (pp. 14–19). Sun SITE CEUR. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2356/research_short3.pdf
Alturkistani, A., Lam, C., Foley, K., Stenfors, T., Blum, E. R., Van Velthoven, M. H., & Meinert, E. (2020). Massive open online course evaluation methods: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(4), Article e13851. https://doi.org/10.2196/13851
Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press. http://www.csun.edu/~SB4310/How%20People%20Learn.pdf
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, I. L. McClelland, & B. Weerdmeester (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (chapter 21). Taylor & Francis. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9781498710411-35/sus-quick-dirty-usability-scale-john-brooke
Burd, E. L., Smith, S. P., & Reisman, S. (2015). Exploring business models for MOOCs in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 40(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9297-0
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3–7. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed282491
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. https://www.ijsr.net/get_abstract.php?paper_id=NOV151323
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (Eds.). (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119239086
Conole, G. G. (2013). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: Strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 39. https://revistas.um.es/red/article/view/234221
Creelman, A., Ehlers, U., & Ossiannilsson, E. (2014). Perspectives on MOOC quality: An account of the EFQUEL MOOC Quality Project. INNOQUAL-International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 78–87. https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lup/publication/225285a4-84b4-49d4-9f64-59ec16b15a83
Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2020). Learner engagement in MOOCs: Scale development and validation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12810
Egloffstein, M., & Ifenthaler, D. (2017). Employee perspectives on MOOCs for workplace learning. TechTrends, 61(1), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0127-3
Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2015). Methodological approach and technological framework to break the current limitations of the MOOC model. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 21(5), 712–734. https://repositorio.grial.eu/bitstream/grial/426/1/jucs_21_05_0712_0734_blanco.pdf
Geri, N., Winer, A., & Zaks, B. (2017). Challenging the six-minute myth of online video lectures: Can interactivity expand the attention span of learners? Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management (OJAKM), 5(1), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.36965/OJAKM.2017.5(1)101-111
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), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811812000107
Jansen, D., Rosewell, J., & Kear, K. (2017). Quality frameworks for MOOCs. In M. Jemni, Kinshuk, & M. Khribi (Eds.), Open education: From OERs to MOOCs (pp. 261–281). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52925-6_14
Kizilcec, R. F., Reich, J., Yeomans, M., Dann, C., Brunskill, E., Lopez, G., Turkay, S., Williams, J. J., & Tingley, D. (2020). Scaling up behavioral science interventions in online education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14900–14905. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921417117
Konrad, A. (2017, December 20). Coursera fights to keep the promise of MOOCs alive with corporate customer push. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2017/12/20/coursera-goes-corporate-to-keep-alive-promise-of-moocs/?sh=1c5e03b2543c
Lee, G., Keum, S., Kim, M., Choi, Y., & Rha, I. (2016). A study on the development of a MOOC design model. Educational Technology International, 17(1), 1–37. https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO201612359835226.pdf
Lowenthal, P. R., & Hodges, C. B. (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, 16(5), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2348
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
Mayer, R. E. (2019). Thirty years of research on online learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3482
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024
Oh, E. G., Chang, Y., & Park, S. W. (2020). Design review of MOOCs: Application of e-learning design principles. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(3), 455–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09243-w
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. International Council for Open and Distance Education. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:10879
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 27–42). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.004
Pilli, O., & Admiraal, W. F. (2017). Students’ learning outcomes in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Some suggestions for course design. Journal of Higher Education, 7(1), 46–71. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2903812/view
Read, T., & Rodrigo, C. (2014). Towards a quality model for UNED MOOCs. Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit, 282-287. https://www.oerknowledgecloud.org/record686
Richey, R. C. (2006). Validating instructional design and development models. In J. M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. Van Schaack, & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology (pp. 171–185). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613684
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. http://oro.open.ac.uk/41173/
Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research, 27(2), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/27.2.94
Shah, V., Murthy, S., Warriem, J., Sahasrabudhe, S., Banerjee, G., & Iyer, S. (2022). Learner-centric MOOC model: A pedagogical design model towards active learner participation and higher completion rates. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(1), 263-288. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-022-10081-4
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Rand McNally. https://www.scirp.org/(S(czeh2tfqw2orz553k1w0r45))/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=3081112
Shattuck, K. (2015). Research inputs and outputs of Quality Matters: Update to 2012 and 2014 versions of What We’re Learning from QM-Focused Research. Quality Matters. https://ascnet.osu.edu/storage/meeting_documents/1384/FINAL-9_18_15%20update-QM%20Research.pdf
Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/85.3.257
Stracke, C. M., & Trisolini, G. (2021). A systematic literature review on the quality of MOOCs. Sustainability, 13(11), Article 5817. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115817
Stracke, C. M. (2019). Quality frameworks and learning design for open education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i2.4213
Stracke, C. M., Tan, E., Texeira, A. M., do Carmo Pinto, M., Vassiliadis, B., Kameas, A., Sgouropoulou, C., & Vidal, G. (2018). Quality reference framework (QRF) for the quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Developed by MOOQ in close collaboration with all interested parties worldwide. MOOQ. https://research.ou.nl/en/publications/quality-reference-framework-qrf-for-the-quality-of-massive-open-o
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., Kalyuga, S. (2011). Measuring cognitive load. Cognitive load theory, 71-85. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4_6
Tessmer, M. (1993). Planning and conducting formative evaluations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203061978
Toven-Lindsey, B., Rhoads, R. A., & Lozano, J. B. (2015). Virtually unlimited classrooms: Pedagogical practices in massive open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.07.001
Watson, W. R., Watson, S. L., & Janakiraman, S. (2017). Instructional quality of massive open online courses: A review of attitudinal change MOOCs. International Journal of Learning Technology, 12(3), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2017.088406
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674576292
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. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/joltida/issue/55467/760086
Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., & Wosnitza, M. (2014, July). 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 (pp. 44–48). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2014.23
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. The copyright of all content published in IRRODL is retained by the authors.
This copyright agreement and use license ensures, among other things, that an article will be as widely distributed as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific and/or scholarly archive.
You are free to
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
