Gap between MOOC Designers' and MOOC Learners' Perspectives on Interaction and Experiences in MOOCs: Findings from the Global MOOC Quality Survey

C. Stracke, Esther Tan, A. Teixeira, M. D. C. Pinto, B. Vassiliadis, A. Kameas, C. Sgouropoulou
{"title":"Gap between MOOC Designers' and MOOC Learners' Perspectives on Interaction and Experiences in MOOCs: Findings from the Global MOOC Quality Survey","authors":"C. Stracke, Esther Tan, A. Teixeira, M. D. C. Pinto, B. Vassiliadis, A. Kameas, C. Sgouropoulou","doi":"10.1109/ICALT.2018.00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) became very popular during the last years leading to an increasing global debate about their quality. To address the quality issues, several research surveys and instruments were developed to analyse the current status of MOOCs and to examine the different perspectives of learning with MOOC from core MOOC stakeholders. Based on a literature review and analysis of existing quality approaches and indicators for MOOCs, the Global MOOC Quality Survey was designed and conducted (n=267). Final objective is the development of the Quality Reference Framework (QRF) with quality indicators and tools in close collaboration with all interested stakeholders worldwide. This paper presents first results from the Global MOOC Quality survey relating to the overall experiences with MOOCs and their offered four interaction types: learner-facilitator (LF), learner-resource (LR), learner-learner (LL) and group-group (GG). There was a very high significant relationship (p<.001) between the learners' MOOC experience and the three interaction types LF, LR and LL and a significant relationship (p=.026) for the fourth interaction type GG. There was not a significant relationship between the designers' MOOC experience and all four interaction types. Comparing the different perspectives of learners and designers, our analysis presents significant differences in MOOC learners' and designers' intentions and experiences. Hence, it can be questioned whether MOOC designers are currently understanding and meeting the interests and demands of the MOOC learners.","PeriodicalId":361110,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2018.00007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) became very popular during the last years leading to an increasing global debate about their quality. To address the quality issues, several research surveys and instruments were developed to analyse the current status of MOOCs and to examine the different perspectives of learning with MOOC from core MOOC stakeholders. Based on a literature review and analysis of existing quality approaches and indicators for MOOCs, the Global MOOC Quality Survey was designed and conducted (n=267). Final objective is the development of the Quality Reference Framework (QRF) with quality indicators and tools in close collaboration with all interested stakeholders worldwide. This paper presents first results from the Global MOOC Quality survey relating to the overall experiences with MOOCs and their offered four interaction types: learner-facilitator (LF), learner-resource (LR), learner-learner (LL) and group-group (GG). There was a very high significant relationship (p<.001) between the learners' MOOC experience and the three interaction types LF, LR and LL and a significant relationship (p=.026) for the fourth interaction type GG. There was not a significant relationship between the designers' MOOC experience and all four interaction types. Comparing the different perspectives of learners and designers, our analysis presents significant differences in MOOC learners' and designers' intentions and experiences. Hence, it can be questioned whether MOOC designers are currently understanding and meeting the interests and demands of the MOOC learners.
MOOC设计者和MOOC学习者对MOOC互动和体验的看法差异:来自全球MOOC质量调查的结果
大规模在线开放课程(MOOCs)在过去几年中变得非常流行,导致全球对其质量的争论越来越多。为了解决质量问题,我们开发了一些研究调查和工具来分析MOOC的现状,并从MOOC核心利益相关者的角度研究MOOC学习的不同观点。在文献回顾和分析现有MOOC质量方法和指标的基础上,设计并进行了全球MOOC质量调查(n=267)。最终目标是与全球所有感兴趣的利益相关者密切合作,制定质量参考框架(QRF),其中包括质量指标和工具。本文介绍了全球MOOC质量调查的初步结果,该调查涉及MOOC的总体体验,并提供了四种互动类型:学习者-促进者(LF)、学习者-资源(LR)、学习者-学习者(LL)和小组-小组(GG)。学习者的MOOC体验与LF、LR、LL三种互动类型呈极显著相关(p< 0.001),第四种互动类型GG呈显著相关(p= 0.026),设计者的MOOC体验与四种互动类型均不显著相关。通过对比学习者和设计师的不同视角,我们的分析发现,MOOC学习者和设计师的意图和体验存在显著差异。因此,MOOC设计者目前是否理解并满足了MOOC学习者的兴趣和需求是一个问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信