Teacher Perspective on MOOC Evaluation and Competency-Based Open Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v26i2.8203Keywords:
course evaluation, criteria and standards, competency-based instruction, open learning, MOOCs, quality MOOCs, teacher perspectiveAbstract
Quality MOOCs (massive open online courses) ensure open learning under the top-down guidance of established criteria and standards. With an evaluative approach, course providers can use the guiding frameworks in designing and refining courses while fostering students’ targeted open learning competency. This study explores the openness embedded into MOOC course design and the anticipated core competency, gathering insights from interviews with in-service teachers preparing MOOC lessons. The findings suggest that teachers’ evaluative approach remains necessary in its cyclical practice, using prior experience as the primary foundation while also referencing national and international frameworks for course refinement. However, the teachers’ observed high reliance on early experience has resulted in an unstable foundation, where only a bottom-up experiential perspective is adopted, instead of an ideal balance with the top-down standards. From the teachers’ perspective, task completion is prioritized as the only primary learning outcome, despite open learning providing students with extensive opportunities to extend beyond in-class task challenges. Future studies should address this unbalanced perspective with a more diverse respondent pool and continue efforts to triangulate data through mixed-method approaches.
References
Acosta, T., Acosta-Vargas, P., Zambrano-Miranda, J., & Lujan-Mora, S. (2020). Web accessibility evaluation of videos published on YouTube by worldwide top-ranking universities. IEEE Access, 8, 110994–111011. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3002175
Buhl, M., & Andreasen, L. B. (2018). Learning potentials and educational challenges of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in lifelong learning. International Review of Education, 64, 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-018-9716-z
Chiang, W. T. (2007). Beyond measurement: Exploring paradigm shift in assessment. Journal of Educational Practice and Research, 20(1), 173–200.
Cirulli, F., Elia, G., & Solazzo, G. (2017). A double-loop evaluation process for MOOC design and its pilot application in the university domain. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 9(4), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2017.09.027
eLearning Movement Office. (2021). Criteria for evaluating benchmark MOOC courses. Ministry of Education, Taiwan.
Ferreira, C., Arias, A. R., & Vidal, J. (2022). Quality criteria in MOOC: Comparative and proposed indicators. PLOS ONE, 17(12), Article e0278519. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278519
Grifoll, J., Huertas, E., Prades, A., Rodriguez, S., Rubin, Y., Mulder, F., & Ossiannilsson, E. (2010). Quality assurance of e-learning. ENQA Workshop report 14. ENQA. https://www.aqu.cat/doc/doc_39790988_1.pdf
Haavind, S., & Sistek-Chandler, C. (2015, July). The emergent role of the MOOC instructor: A qualitative study of trends toward improving future practice. International Journal on E-learning, 14(3), 331–350. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/150663/
Hovhannisyan, G., & Koppel, K. (2019). Students at the forefront of assessing quality of MOOCs. In EADTU, G. Ubachs, L. Konings, & B. Nijsten (Eds.), The 2019 OpenupEd trend report on MOOCs (pp. 29–32). EADTU. https://openuped.eu/images/Publications/The_2019_OpenupEd_Trend_Report_on_MOOCs.pdf
Johnstone, S. M., & Soares, L. (2014). Principles for developing competency-based education programs. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(2), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2014.896705
Kasch, J., Van Rosmalen, P., & Kalz, M. (2021). Educational scalability in MOOCs: Analyzing instructional designs to find best practices. Computers & Education, 161, Article 104054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104054
Koukis, N., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2019). MOOCs for teacher professional development: Exploring teachers’ perceptions and achievements. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(1), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-10-2018-0081
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lopes, A. M. Z., Pedro, L. Z., Isotani, S., & Bittencourt, I. I. (2015). Quality evaluation of web-based educational software: A systematic mapping. In D. G. Sampson, R. Huang, G.-J. Hwang, T.-C. Liu, N.-S. Chen, Kinshuk, C.-C. Tsai (Eds.), 2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 250–252). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2015.88
Mazoué, J. G. (2013, January 28). The MOOC model: Challenging traditional education. EDUCAUSE Review Online. EDUCAUSE.
Ossiannilsson, E. (2021). MOOCs for lifelong learning, equity, and liberation. In D. Cvetković (Ed.), MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses). IntechOpen. https://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99659
Patru, M., & Balaji, V. (2016). Making sense of MOOCs: A guide for policy-makers in developing countries. UNESCO and Commonwealth of Learning. https://doi.org/10.56059/11599/2356
Pelletier, K., Brown, M., Brooks, D. C., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Arbino, N., Bozkurt, A., Crawford, S., Czerniewicz, L., Gibson, R., Linder, K., Mason, J., & Mondelli, V. (2021). 2021 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: Teaching and Learning Edition. EDUCAUSE. https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2021/4/2021hrteachinglearning.pdf
Queirós, R. (Ed.). (2018). Emerging trends, techniques, and tools for massive open online course (MOOC) management. IGI Global.
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://www.openuped.eu/images/docs/OpenupEd_Q-label_for_MOOCs_INNOQUAL-160-587-1-PB.pdf
Sadhasivam, J. (2014). Educational paradigm shift: Are we ready to adopt MOOC? International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online), 9(4), 50–55. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v9i4.3756
Sandeen, C. (2013). Assessment’s place in the new MOOC world. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 5–12. https://www.rpajournal.com/assessments-place-in-the-new-mooc-world/
Steffens, K. (2015). Competences, learning theories and MOOCs: Recent developments in lifelong learning. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12102
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
Su, P.-Y., Guo, J.-H., & Shao, Q.-G.. (2021). Construction of the quality evaluation index system of MOOC platforms based on the user perspective. Sustainability, 13(20), Article 11163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011163
Wang, Y. R., & Chou, C. (2013). 开放式课程网站评鉴面向与指标:专家访谈研究 [A study of the evaluation dimensions and criteria for OpenCourseWare websites: Expert interview research]. In GCCCE 2013: The 17th Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 482–485). https://www.gcsce.net/proceedingsFile/2013/GCSCE%202013%20Proceedings.pdf
Yousef, A. M. F., & Sumner, T. (2021). Reflections on the last decade of MOOC research. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(4), 648–665. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22334
Zulkifli, N., Hamzah, M. I., & Bashah, N. H. (2020). Challenges to teaching and learning using MOOC. Creative Education, 11(3), 197–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2020.113014
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 License. The copyright for all content published in IRRODL remains with the authors.
This copyright agreement and usage license ensure that the article is distributed as widely as possible and can be included in any scientific 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.