Journals / Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education / 2019 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 2

Comparative Study SPOC vs. MOOC for Socio-Technical Contents from Usability and User Satisfaction

Pages
4–20
Publication Date
2019-04-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Both formats present significantly lower dropout rates (47.50% in MOOCs and 36.94% in SPOCs) and higher completion rates (52.50% in MOOCs and 63.06% in SPOCs) compared to those generally observed in free enrollment courses.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:According to literature, usability and user satisfaction directly influence learning achievement.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Relevant questions such as “Are drop-out rates similar between SPOCs (small private open courses) and MOOCs?” and “Are there significant usability and satisfaction differences between both formats?” may help improve initiatives and dissemination policies regarding open knowledge.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Both formats present significantly lower dropout rates (47.50% in MOOCs and 36.94% in SPOCs) and higher completion rates (52.50% in MOOCs and 63.06% in SPOCs) compared to those generally observed in free enrollment courses.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:MOOC · SPOC · usability

Abstract

According to literature, usability and user satisfaction directly influence learning achievement. However, few studies address those elements in MOOCs (massive open online courses). Relevant questions such as “Are drop-out rates similar between SPOCs (small private open courses) and MOOCs?” and “Are there significant usability and satisfaction differences between both formats?” may help improve initiatives and dissemination policies regarding open knowledge. This study aims to upgrade guidelines for the conversion of SPOCs into MOOCs, by exploring usability and satisfaction in both formats. A quantitative research based on a questionnaire was designed, and the validated SUSE (Satisfaction and Usability of Software in Education) instrument was applied to 7 courses of each type, with the same contents, and 5,192 students. The results revealed validity and reliability, with higher satisfaction scores on the open platform. Genders, regions of residence, and age groups also provided interesting findings: students are predominantly male, young, and from diverse geographic locations. Women, the younger, and residents of economically disadvantaged regions evaluated their experiences more positively. Both formats present significantly lower dropout rates (47.50% in MOOCs and 36.94% in SPOCs) and higher completion rates (52.50% in MOOCs and 63.06% in SPOCs) compared to those generally observed in free enrollment courses.

🔖

Cite This Article

JUNIOR, G. L. D. C., ROBLES, D. C., SERNA, M. C. D. L., RIVAS, M. R. (2019). Comparative Study SPOC vs. MOOC for Socio-Technical Contents from Usability and User Satisfaction. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 2, 4–20. https://ajindex.com/articles/140255

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Aleman de la Garza, L. Y., Sancho-Vinuesa, T., & Gómez Zermeno, M. G. (2015). Atypical: Analysis of a massive open online course (MOOC) with a terminal efficiency of 22.35%. Global Education Review, 2(3). 68-81. Retrieved from: http://ger.mercy.edu/index.php/ger/article/view/127
  2. Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015) Understanding the MOOCs continuance: the role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.006
  3. Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016) Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.010
  4. Barba, P. G., Kennedy, G. E., & Ainley, M. D. (2016). The role of students' motivation and participation in predicting performance in a MOOC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 218-231. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12130
  5. Bevan, N. (1998). Quality and usability: A new framework. In Van-Veenendaal, E. & MCMullan, J. (Eds.), Achieving Software Product Quality. Netherlands: Tutein Nolthenius, 25-34. Retrieved from: https://goo.gl/Jtb71V
  6. Bozkurt, A., Akgun-Ozbek, E., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2017). Trends and Patterns in Massive Open Online Courses: Review and Content Analysis of Research on MOOCs (2008-2015). International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 118-147. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3080
  7. Canas-Bajo, J., Leikas, J., Jokinen, J., Canas, J. J., & Saariluoma, P. (2016). How older and younger people see technology in Northern and Southern Europe: Closing the generation gap. Gerontechnology 2016, 14(2), 110-117, https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2016.14.2.010.00
  8. Cabero-Almenara, J., & Llorente-Cejudo, M.d.C. (2017). Los MOOC: encontrando su camino. @tic. Revista d'innovació educativa, 18, 24-30. https://doi.org/10.7203/attic.18.9928
  9. Chen, P.-S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222-1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
  10. Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B., Bennett, A., Woods, D., & Emanuel, E. J. (2013). The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why? SSRN Electronic Journal. (November 6, 2013). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2350964
  11. Clow, D. (2013). MOOCs and the funnel of participation. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on le