Advertisement

Instructional Interaction of MOOCs in China

  • Qinhua ZhengEmail author
  • Li Chen
  • Daniel Burgos
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)

Abstract

MOOCs’ interaction has the great impact on the quality of the courses. The purpose of this study is to analyze the interaction of MOOCs and to compare the differences in the interaction among different types of courses. In this study, we selected 622 accessible courses of 14 MOOC platform in China and discussed the student levels, teaching models, video types, learning support, and evaluation methods, etc., by comparing the number of posts, the time characteristics of the posts, and the interactive engagement of the teachers of different MOOCs. The study found that MOOCs interaction level was generally low and imbalance in China. Analysis showed that 20% of the courses produced about 90% of the interaction. Teaching model had a great impact on the level of interaction. The inquiry-based courses had the higher level of interaction. MOOCs with flipped-classroom model had better interaction level. Courses with Khan Academy style video had the higher level of interaction. Rich learning support and well-designed certification system were also important to achieve the higher level of interaction. Based on research results, we suggest that MOOCs construction and application in China need to explore the teaching model in depth, design the whole process of learning support, carry out the process-based evaluation, and establish a sound certification system.

References

  1. ACE. (2012). ACE to assess potential of MOOCs, evaluate courses for credit-worthiness [DB/OL] [2012-11-13]. http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/ACE-to-Assess-Potential-of-MOOCs-Evaluate-Courses-for-Credit-Worthiness.aspx.
  2. Bates, T. (2012). What’s right and what’s wrong about Coursera-Style MOOCs? [DB/OL] [2012-09-20]. http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/05/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-about-coursera-style-MOOCs/.
  3. Beaven, T., Hauck, M., Comas-Quinn, A., Lewis, T., & de los Arcos, B. (2014). MOOCs: Striking the right balance between facilitation and self-determination. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 31–43.Google Scholar
  4. Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC Videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scaleconference (pp. 41–50). Atlanta, GA, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  5. Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A., Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2015). Precise Effectiveness Strategy for analyzing the effectiveness of students with educational resources and activities in MOOCs. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Shen, C. W., & Kuo, C. J. (2015). Learning in massive open online courses: Evidence from social media mining. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 568–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sun, H., & Chen, L. (2014). A framework for analysing the social affordance of Web 2.0 tools. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 2(1), 37–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Beijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR)LogroñoSpain

Personalised recommendations