[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
About the Journal
Aims & Scopes
Editorial Board
Indexing
Archive::
All Issues
Current Issue
For Authors::
Author's Guide
Reference Guide
Submit an Article
For Reviewers::
Reviewers Guide
Principles of Transparency::
Publication Ethics Statement
Research Ethics Statement
Open Access Statement
Copyright
Contact us::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: Volume 9, Issue 6 (January-February 2017) ::
Educ Strategy Med Sci 2017, 9(6): 458-470 Back to browse issues page
Perusal the factors affecting on the implementation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) in higher education (Mixed Method)
Mahdi Moeinikia1 , Ebrahim Aryani 2, Adel Zahed Bablan1 , Teyebeh Mousavi3 , Salim Kazemi1
1- Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education Sciences & Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil
2- Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education Sciences & Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil , e.aryani@uma.ac.ir
3- Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of management, University of Kharazmi, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (6874 Views)

Background and Aims: This study aimed to identify factors affecting on the implementation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) in higher education was conducted.

Methods: This study was mixed. The population in the qualitative part were Professors of educational technology and e-learning, doctoral students of educational technology and information in education that 18 people among them purposefully were selected for interviews. Qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews and structural factors were determined with open and axial coding. The validity of the findings with comparative methods by members and peer review was guaranteed. In the quantitative section, the factors affecting on implementation of MOOC period were determined from the viewpoint of 192 user, by using the Self-made questionnaire and the outcome of the quality part (with reliability α=0/86), and were analyzed using Chi-square test and Friedman.

Results: The results showed that 73 initial conceptual proposition with 16 sub-categories and 5 main categories Proposition, influencing on the course of MOOC in the form of immediate factors (internal) and intermediate (external) identification and the relationship between them was presented in the form of structural pattern. The results of chi-square and Friedman tests demonstrated that Factor of computers and means of communication and dialogue, managing user interface design, implementation, evaluation and assessment, Surround Factors, notification, acceptance and program management Factors and central learning Factor In order of preference As factors affecting on the implementation MOOC curses Have been identified

Conclusion: Many agents are effective on the using of MOOC curses in the higher education in the country and Implementation of these courses requires the use of specialized solutions.

    KeyWords: Higher Education, E-Learning, MOOC.
Keywords: Higher Education, E-Learning, MOOC.
Full-Text [JPG 2962 kb]   (2835 Downloads)    
Article Type: Qualitative Research | Subject: Theories of Learning and Teaching in Medical Sciences
Received: 2016/12/26 | Accepted: 2017/02/14 | Published: 2017/03/15
References
1. Karnouskos S, Holmlund M. Impact of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) on Employee Competencies and Innovation. School of management. 2014; Available from: http://www.diva-portal.org.
2. Mc Auley A, Stewart B, Siemens G, Cormier D. The MOOC model for digital practice. 2010; 1-63. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/ Articles/ MOOC- Final. pdf.
3. Kennedy J. Characteristics of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): A Research Review, 2009-2012. J IOL. 2014;13(1). [Homepage]
4. Shrivastava A, Guiney P. The arrival of MOOCs Massive Open Online Courses. Nezealand: Wellington; 2014. 1-42 [Homepage]
5. 5-Fini A. The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The Case of the CCK08 course tools. J IRRODL. 2009; 10(5): 1-26. [Homepage]
6. Liang D, Jia J, Wu X, Miao J, Wang A. Analysis of learners’ behaviors and learning outcomes in a massive open online course. KME-L J. 2014; 6(3): 27-42. [Homepage]
7. Rhoads R, Berdan J, Toven-Lindsey B. The open courseware movement in higher education: Unmasking power and raising questions about the movement’s democratic potential. J ET. 2013; 63(1): 87-109. [Homepage]
8. Waln L, Tara L. Massive Open Online Courses and Mission: A Qualitative Study Regarding Matching MOOC Opportunity. University of Nebraska – Lincoln. 2014. [Homepage]
9. Kop R, Fournier H, Mak J. A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses (MOOCs). J IRRODE.2011;12(7): 74-93. [Homepage]
10. Yuan L, Powell S, CETIS J. MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. 2013; Available from: http:// publications. cetis.ac. uk/ wp- content/ uploads/ 2013/ 03/ MOOCs- and Open Education. pdf. (Accessed 17 July 2015). [Homepage]
11. Hoy M. MOOCs 101: an introduction to massive open online courses. JMRS. 2014; 33(1): 85-91. [PubMed]
12. Ommati A, Tavasoli Farahi M. Moocs rise in medical education. JMIS.2015;1(3): 40-53.
13. Honeychurch S, Draper S. A First Briefing on MOOCs. 2013; Available from: http://eprints.gla.ac. uk/ 93069/. (accessed 18 July 2015).
14. Clow D. MOOCs and the funnel of participation. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. New York: ACM; 2013: 185-189. [Homepage]
15. Daniel J. Making sense of MOOCs: musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. J IME. 2012; 3.
16. Kop R, Hill A. Connectivism: learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?. J IRRODL. 2008; 9(3). [Homepage]
17. Cooper S, Sahami M. Reflections on Stanford’s MOOCs. Communications of the ACM. 2013; 56(2): 28-30. [Homepage]
18. Green K. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and other digital initiatives. JCBA. 2012;(9):8-29. [Homepage]
19. Lewin T. Universities Abroad Join Partnerships on the Web. New York Times: Retrieved 6 March 2013.
20. Breslow L, Pritchard D, DeBoer J, Stump G, Ho A, Seaton D. Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. RPA J. 2013; 8: 13-25. [Homepage]
21. Lyanagunawardena T, Adams A, Williams S. MOOCS: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. J IRRODL. 2013; 14(3):226.
22. Lee B. C, Yoon, J. O, Lee, I. Learners’ Acceptance of Elearning in South Korea: Theories and Results. Computers & Education. 2009; 53: 1320–1329. [Homepage]
23. Franco M. J, Martínez F. J, Martín-Velicia F. A. Exploring the Impact of Individualism and Uncertainty Avoidance in Web-based Electronic Learning: An Empirical Analysis in European Higher Education. Computers & Education. 2009; 52: 588–598. [Homepage]
24. Kitsantas A, Chow A. College Students_ Perceived Threat and Preference for Seeking Help in Traditional, Distributed, and Distance Learning Environments. Computers & Education. 2007; 48: 383–395. [Homepage]
25. Ozkan S, Koseler R. Multi-dimensional Students’ Evaluation of E-learning Systems in the Higher Education Context: An Empirical Investigation. Computers & Education. 2009; 53:1285–1296.
26. Scott JC. The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern transformations. J HE. 2006; 77(1): 1-39.
27. Cillay D. It’s time to redirect the conversation about MOOCs [Web log post]. 2013; Retrieved fromhttp://wcetblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/26redirect- mooc-conversation/.
28. Kendrick C, Gashurov I. Libraries in the Time of MOOCs. 2013; Available from: http://ifap-isobservatory.ittk.hu/node/ 1125. (Accessed 19 July 2015).
29. Gulti S. Technology-Enhanced learning in developing nations: a review. J IRRODL. 2008; 9(1): 1-16. [Homepage]
30. Beritain S, Limber O. A framework for the pedagogical evaluation of e-learning environments (internet). 2004; Available from: web ngram.
31. Liyan S, Emise S, Janette R.H. Improving online learning: student perception of useful and challenging characteristics. IHE J. 2004; 7(1): 59-70.
32. Ospina-Delgado J, García-Benau A, Zorio-Grima A. Massive Open Online Courses for IFRS education: a point of view of Spanish Accounting Educators, PSBS J. 2016; 228: 356 – 361.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Moeinikia M, Aryani E, Zahed Bablan A, Mousavi T, Kazemi S. Perusal the factors affecting on the implementation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) in higher education (Mixed Method). Educ Strategy Med Sci 2017; 9 (6) :458-470
URL: http://edcbmj.ir/article-1-1127-en.html
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 9, Issue 6 (January-February 2017) Back to browse issues page
دوماهنامه علمی- پژوهشی راهبــردهای آموزش در علوم پزشکی Education Strategies in Medical Sciences
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645