An Empirical Research on Exploring the Trans-disciplinary Autocorrelationships Among the Social-Media Technology, MOOCs and Higher-Education Sustainability

  • Ming-Yuan HsiehEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11937)


Base on the serious and extensive influences of declining birth-rate with rapid development of Taiwanese higher education institutions, the Taiwanese higher education institutions have started to develop the most effective MOOCs to aggressively increase comprehensive institution revenues with the lowest course costs by means of multiple digital social-media technology in order to formulate the most effective strategic sustainability for surviving in this baptism of fire. Therefore, this research intensively employed the Quality Function Deployment Method of House of Quality (QFD-HOQ) model of qualitative analysis to construct the Most Valuable Social-media Technology MOOCs Interdisciplinary Course Evaluation Model (MVSTMICEM) to induce the most valuable decisive factor of Social-media Technology MOOCs Interdisciplinary Course to deeply explore the three most critical research mainstream topics: “how to offer the most high-quality social-media technology to advance the MOOCs quality for triggering school student’s self-studying interdisciplinary interests, how to supply the most the most diversified MOOCs for attracting corporate employee’s self-studying interdisciplinary demands and how to provide the most multiple-disciplinary MOOCs with the diversified social-media technology for aggressively increasing higher education institution’s revenues with the lowest courses costs.”


MOOCs Social-media technology Higher-education strategic sustainability 



This research was supported by research project (NTCU108107) of academic research supporting project National Taichung University of Education in Taiwan.


  1. 1.
    Bull, D.D.: From ripple to tsunami: the possible impact of MOOCs on higher education. DeQuarterly 10–11 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Casey, J.: Taking care of business? The political economy of MOOCs and open education (2012).
  3. 3.
    Chan, Y.K., Hsieh, M.Y., Lee, C.F., Huang, C.C., Ho, L.C.: Inquiring the most critical teacher’s technology education competences and in the highest efficient technology education learning organization. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 13(6), 2645–2664 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chamberlin, L., Parish, T.: MOOCs: massive open online courses or massive and often obtuse courses? eLearn. Mag. (2011).
  5. 5.
    Daniel, J.: Making sense of MOOCs: musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2012(3) (2012). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Curado, C., Henriques, P.L., Ribeiro, S.: Voluntary or mandatory enrollment in training and the motivation to transfer training. Int. J. Train. Dev. 19(2), 98–109 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunning, D., Heath, C., Suls, J.M.: Flawed self-assessment implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychol. Sci. Public Interes. 5(3), 69–106 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Earnest, D.R., Allen, D.G., Landis, R.S.: Mechanisms linking realistic job previews with turnover: a meta-analytic path analysis. Pers. Psychol. 64(4), 865–897 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grossman, R., Salas, E.: The transfer of training: what really matters. Int. J. Train. Dev. 15(2), 103–120 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hsieh, M.Y.: Online learning era: exploring the most decisive determinants of MOOCs in Taiwanese higher education. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 12(5), 1163–1188 (2016)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapicab, F.E., Giacchettab, G.: A fuzzy-QFD approach to supplier selection. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 12(1), 14–27 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeWaard, I., et al.: Using m-learning and MOOCs to understand chaos, emergence, and complexity in education. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 12(7), 94–115 (2011).
  13. 13.
    Kirkwood, K.: The wisdom of the clouds: distributed learning, MOOCs, edupunks, and the challenge to formal education. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Open Source and Open Content, WOSOC 2010, pp. 96–103. Gunadarma University, Jakarta (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koutropoulos, A., et al.: Emotive vocabulary in MOOCs: context & participant retention. Eur. J. Open Distance E-Learn. (2012).
  15. 15.
    Rodriguez, C.O.: MOOCs and the AI-stanford like courses: two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. Eur. J. Open Distance E-Learn. (2012).
  16. 16.
    Greene, J.A., Oswald, C.A., Pomerantz, J.: Predictors of retention and achievement in a massive open online course. Am. Educ. Res. J. 52(5), 925–955 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kizilcec, R.F., Saltarelli, A.J., Reich, J., Cohen, G.L.: Closing global achievement gaps in MOOCs. Science 355(6322), 251–252 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhenghao, C., Alcorn, B., Christensen, G., Eriksson, N., Koller, D., Emanuel, E.: Who’s benefiting from MOOCs, and why. Harv. Bus. Rev. 25, 1–21 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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).
  20. 20.
    Jordan, K.: MOOC completion rates: the data. Massive open online courses (MOOCs) database (2013). Accessed 21 Nov 2017
  21. 21.
    Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Williams, S., Adams, A.A.: The impact and reach of MOOCs: a developing countries’ perspective. E-Learn. Pap. 38–46 (2014). ISSN 1887-1542.
  22. 22.
    Jarrett, J.: What are ‘MOOC’s and why are education leaders interested in them? (2012).
  23. 23.
    Lunn, P., Bishop, A.: Subject leader and class teacher: exploring the conflict of a dual role in a primary school. Res. Educ. 68, 64–76 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mak, S., Williams, R., Mackness, J.: Blogs and forums as communication and learning tools in a MOOC. In: Networked Learning Conference, pp. 275–285. University of Lancaster, Lancaster (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Masters, K.: A brief guide to understanding MOOCs. Internet J. Med. Educ. 1(2) (2011).
  26. 26.
    Akao, Y.: QFD: past, present, and future. In: 1997 Proceedings of the International Symposium on QFD, Linkoping (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mehlenbacher, B.: Massive open online courses (MOOCs): educational innovation or threat to higher education? In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Open Source and Design of Communication, pp. 1–99 (2012).
  28. 28.
    McArdle, J.J.: Principles versus principals of structural factor analyses. Multivar. Behav. Res. 25(1), 81–87 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Saaty, T.L.: Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Taichung University of EducationTaichung CityTaiwan (R.O.C.)

Personalised recommendations