Email this article 
Development of Adaptive MOOCs to Support Personalized Learning: Mixed Method Analysis
Ahmad Chafid Alwi, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Siti Irene Astuti Dwiningrum, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Amrih Setyo Raharjo, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Akhsin Nurlayli, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Abstract
This study aims to explain the development of adaptive MOOCs that support personalized learning. This study was designed with a mixed method design of sequential explanatory type at the association level. Quantitative analysis used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (n = 110) and was deepened with qualitative analysis of the Miles and Huberman model. Quantitatively measured domains include accessibility, learning curriculum, competence, motivation, satisfaction, efficacy, and self-study. The domain was used as a reference for qualitative data mining through focus group discussions (FGD) involving lecturers and doctoral students (n = 25). The analysis results show that the curriculum domain and one of the motivational indicators should be removed because it did not meet the requirements after bootstrapping. The second running algorithm showed all valid and reliable variables. Some domains that significantly affect MOOC user satisfaction are efficacy, competence, and motivation. R square results showed 37% influenced by motivation, accessibility, efficacy, and self-study, and the rest influenced by other variables. In the qualitative analysis, 19 subcodes were found that were included in the three main codes. In conclusion, there is new information in the accessibility domain that expands quantitative data, including information on MOOCs, marketing traps, regulation, and dropouts. Meanwhile, what strengthens and deepens quantitative data is found in the information on metacognitive and personalized coding that strengthens the domain of efficiency, the domain of competence, which is strengthened by content, mentoring collaboration, and motivation reinforced by coding the user's motivations and goals.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
R. Pahlevi, “Pengguna Internet di Dunia Capai 4,95 Miliar Orang Per Januari 2022,” https://databoks.katadata.co.id/datapublish/2022/02/07/pengguna-internet-di-dunia-capai-495-miliar-orang-per-januari-2022, Jan. 26, 2022.
Kominfo, “Pengguna Internet Indonesia Nomor Enam Dunia,” https://kominfo.go.id/content/detail/4286/pengguna-internet-indonesia-nomor-enam-dunia/0/sorotan_media, Nov. 24, 2014.
E. Kennedy and D. Laurillard, “The potential of MOOCs for large-scale teacher professional development in contexts of mass displacement,” London Rev. Educ., vol. 17 (2), 2019.
D. Laurillard, “The educational problem that MOOCs could solve: Professional development for teachers of disadvantaged students,” Res. Learn. Technol., vol. 24, 2016, doi: 10.3402/rlt.v24.29369.
W. Purnomo, “Penerapan Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) berbasis Moodle sebagai Learning Management System (LMS),” Simposium Nasional Pengembang Teknologi Pembelajaran. 2016.
M. H. Baturay, “An Overview of the World of MOOCs,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 174, pp. 427–433, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.685.
DailySocial.id, “MOOC in Indonesia Survey 2017,” 2017, vol. 2017, no. c, 2017, [Online]. Available: https://dailysocial.id/research/mooc-in-indonesia-survey-2017
N. A. Albelbisi, “The role of quality factors in supporting self-regulated learning ( SRL ) skills in MOOC environment Content courtesy of Springer Nature , terms of use apply . Rights reserved . Content courtesy of Springer Nature , terms of use apply . Rights reserved .,” pp. 1681–1698, 2019.
N. A. Albelbisi, A. S. Al-adwan, and A. Habibi, “Self-regulated learning and satisfaction : A key determinants of MOOC success Content courtesy of Springer Nature , terms of use apply . Rights reserved . Content courtesy of Springer Nature , terms of use apply . Rights reserved .,” 2021.
N. A. Albelbisi, “Development and validation of the MOOC success scale (MOOC-SS),” Educ. Inf. Technol., 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10186-4.
A. Littlejohn, N. Hood, C. Milligan, and P. Mustain, “Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs,” Internet High. Educ., vol. 29, pp. 40–48, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003.
N. A. Albelbisi, A. S. Al-adwan, and A. Habibi, “Self-regulated learning and satisfaction : A key determinants of MOOC success Content courtesy of Springer Nature , terms of use apply . Rights reserved . Content courtesy of Springer Nature , terms of use apply . Rights reserved .,” 2021.
L. Corno, “The Metacognitive Control Components of Self-Regulated Learning,” 1986.
A. W. Radford et al., “International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning The Employer Potential of MOOCs : A Mixed-Methods Study of Human Resource Professionals ’ Thinking on MOOCs The Employer Potential of MOOCs : A Mixed- Methods Study of Human Resource Profes,” 2020.
Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan kombinasi (Mixed Method), Edisi 2. Bandung: Penerbit Alfabeta, 2020.
R. F. Kizilcec, M. Pérez-Sanagustín, and J. J. Maldonado, “Recommending self-regulated learning strategies does not improve performance in a MOOC,” L@S 2016 - Proc. 3rd 2016 ACM Conf. Learn. Scale, pp. 101–104, 2016, doi: 10.1145/2876034.2893378.
G. Schraw and D. Moshman, “Metacognitive Theories,” 1995. [Online]. Available: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers/40
Ö. Özyurt and H. Özyurt, “Learning style based individualized adaptive e-learning environments: Content analysis of the articles published from 2005 to 2014,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 52, pp. 349–358, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.020.
K. Agustianto, A. E. Permanasari, S. S. Kusumawardani, and I. Hidayah, “Design adaptive learning system using metacognitive strategy path for learning in classroom and intelligent tutoring systems,” in AIP Conference Proceedings, 2016, vol. 1755. doi: 10.1063/1.4958507.
Y. Sun, “Understanding the determinants of learner engagement in MOOCs: An adaptive structuration perspective,” Comput. Educ., vol. 157, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103963.
J. Wong, M. Baars, D. Davis, T. Van Der Zee, G. J. Houben, and F. Paas, “Supporting Self-Regulated Learning in Online Learning Environments and MOOCs: A Systematic Review,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact., vol. 35, no. 4–5, pp. 356–373, 2019, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2018.1543084.
E. Handoko, S. L. Gronseth, S. G. Mcneil, C. J. Bonk, and B. R. Robin, “Goal Setting and MOOC Completion: A Study on the Role of Self-Regulated Learning in Student Performance in Massive Open Online Courses,” Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn., vol. 20, no. 3, p. 176, 2019.
S. A. Chapman, S. Goodman, J. Jawitz, and A. Deacon, “A strategy for monitoring and evaluating massive open online courses,” Eval. Program Plann., vol. 57, pp. 55–63, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.04.006.
O. Babanskaya, G. Mozhaeva, and U. Zakharova, “Integrating Moocs Into the System of Lifelong Learning: Tsu Experience,” EDULEARN16 Proc., vol. 1, no. July, pp. 4353–4360, 2016, doi: 10.21125/edulearn.2016.2054.
C. G. Northcutt, A. D. Ho, and I. L. Chuang, “Detecting and preventing ‘multiple-account’ cheating in massive open online courses,” Comput. Educ., vol. 100, pp. 71–80, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.008.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/elinvo.v7i2.55481
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2023 Elinvo (Electronics, Informatics, and Vocational Education)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Our Journal indexed by:
ISSN 2477-2399 (online) || ISSN 2580-6424 (print)
