Abstracts
Abstract
This study examines how college students rate Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in terms of User Interface Design and Universal Instructional Design. The research participants were 115 undergraduate students from a public midwestern university in the United States. Each participant evaluated three randomly chosen MOOCs, all of which were developed on the Coursera platform, using rubrics for User Interface Design and Universal Instructional Design. The results indicated that students had an overall positive impression of each MOOC’s course design. This study concludes that overall course design strategies are not associated with the massive dropout rates currently documented in MOOC learning environments. The authors suggest the use of appropriate instructional design principles be further explored.
Keywords:
- MOOC,
- online courses,
- universal instructional design,
- user interface design,
- web-based courses
Résumé
La présente étude examine comment les étudiants à l’université évaluent les cours en ligne ouverts et massifs (MOOC) en ce qui a trait au design de l’interface utilisateur et à la conception universelle de l’apprentissage. Cent quinze étudiants de premier cycle d’une université publique du Midwest des États-Unis ont participé à la recherche. À l’aide de rubriques portant sur le design de l’interface utilisateur et la conception universelle de l’apprentissage, chaque participant a évalué trois MOOC choisis aléatoirement parmi un ensemble de cours développés sur la plateforme Coursera. Les résultats indiquent que les étudiants ont une impression générale positive de chacun des designs de MOOC. L’étude conclut qu’en général les stratégies de design de cours ne sont pas associées aux taux élevés de décrochage recensés actuellement dans la littérature sur les environnements d’apprentissage des MOOC. Les auteurs proposent que l’usage de principes de design d’enseignement-apprentissage appropriés soit davantage exploré.
Mots-clés :
- MOOC,
- cours en ligne,
- conception universelle de l’apprentissage,
- design de l’interface utilisateur,
- cours sur le Web
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2001). Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/
- Cheng, J., Kulkarni, C. and Klemmer, S. 2013. Tools for predicting drop-off in large online classes. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work companion. ACM.
- Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. doi:10.3102/00346543053004445 Retrieved from University of Oldenburg website: http://www.c3l.uni-oldenburg.de
- Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., ...Vanderheiden, G. (1997). The principles of universal design (Version 2.0). Raleigh, NC: The Center for Universal Design.
- Cross, S. (2013). Evaluation of the OLDS MOOC curriculum design course: participant perspectives, expectations and experiences. Retrieved from Open Research Online website: http://oro.open.ac.uk
- Eastmond, D. V. (1995). Alone but together: Adult distance study through computer conferencing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
- Fini, A. (2009). The technological dimension of a massive open online course: the case of the CCK08 course tools. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org
- Fink, L. D. (2005). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. Retrieved from Fink Consulting website: http://finkconsulting.info
- Galitz, W. O. (2007). The essential guide to user interface design: an introduction to GUI design principles and techniques. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
- George, D., & Mallery, P. (2009). SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and reference 16.0 update (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
- Graves, K. (2008). Teachers as course developers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale conference, 41–50. Retrieved from http://pgbovine.net/publications/edX-MOOC-videoproduction-and-engagement_LAS-2014.pdf
- Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1755-1765. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.005 Retrieved from Min-Shiang Hwang’s personal website: http://isrc.ccs.asia.edu.tw
- Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1989). English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- International Organization for Standardization (2014) . Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso_9000.htm
- Irani, Z. (1998). Investment justification of information systems: a focus on the evaluation of MRPII (Ph. D. thesis, Brunel University). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
- Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: learning and teaching in cyberspace. Toronto, Canada: Wadsworth.
- Kolowich, S. (2013, June 7). MOOC students who got offline help scored higher, study finds. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/mooc-students-who-got-offline-help-scored-higher-study-finds
- Lee, A., & Lochovsky, F. H. (1985). User interface design. In D. C. Tsichritzis (Ed.) Office Automation (pp. 3-20). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-82435-7_1
- Legon, R., & Runyon, J. (2007, August). Research on the impact of quality matters course review process. Paper presented at 23rd Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI. Retrieved from University of Wisconsin-Extension website: http://www.uwex.edu
- Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers and Education, 80, 77-83. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005
- Merisotis, J. P., & Phipps, R. A. (1999). What’s the difference? Outcomes of distance vs. traditional classroom-based learning. Change, 31(3), 12-17. doi:10.1080/00091389909602685
- Najjar, L. J. (1998). Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40(2), 311-323. doi:10.1518/001872098779480505 Retrieved from the author’s personal website: http://www.lawrence-najjar.com
- Opperman, R. (2002). User interface design. In H. H. Adelsberger, B. Collis, and J. M. Pawlowski, Handbook on information technologies for education and training (pp. 233-248). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-07682-8_15
- Owston, R. D. (1997). The world wide web: a technology to enhance teaching and learning? Educational Researcher, 26(2), 27-33. doi:10.2307/1176036
- Pliner, S. M., & Johnson, J. R. (2004). Historical, theoretical, and foundational principles of universal instructional design in higher education. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37(2), 105-113. doi:10.1080/10665680490453913 Retrieved from Smith College website: http://www.smith.edu
- Romiszowski, A., & Cheng, E. (1992). Hypertext’s contribution to computer-mediated communication: in search of an instructional model. In M. Giardina (Ed.), Interactive Multimedia Learning Environments (pp. 111-130). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-77705-9_10
- Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: a new paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and Special Education, 24(6), 369-379. doi:10.1177/07419325030240060801 Retrieved from Regent University website: http://www.regent.edu
- Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10. Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org
- Siemens, G. (2009). Different social networks. Retrieved from the author’s personal blog: http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/
- Silver, P., Bourke, A. B., & Strehorn, K. C. (1998). Universal instructional design in higher education: An approach for inclusion. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(2), 47-51. doi:10.1080/1066568980310206
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.usability.gov
- Vu, P., & Fadde, P. (2014). Ring of engagement: A model for MOOC enrollment. Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging Pedagogies. 2(3), 240-247.
- Waite, M., Mackness, J., Roberts, G., & Lovegrove, E. (2013). Liminal participants and skilled orienteers: learner participation in a MOOC for new lecturers. Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 9(2). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org
- Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Zutshi, S., O’Hare, S., & Rodafinos, A. (2013). Experiences in MOOCs: The Perspective of Students. American Journal Of Distance Education, 27(4), 218-227.