MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344754606 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n5p48

Factors for Development of Learning Content and Task for MOOCs in an Asian Context

2016· article· en· W2344754606 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norazah Nordin, Helmi Norman, Mohamed Amin Embi, Ahmad Zamri Mansor, Fazilah Idris

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialog boxContext (archaeology)Educational technologyLearner autonomyMathematics educationPsychologySynchronous learningPedagogyComputer scienceCooperative learningTeaching methodWorld Wide WebLanguage education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid advancement of emergent learning technologies has led to the introduction of massive open online courses (MOOCs) which offer open-based online learning courses to a large number of students. In line with the advancement, the Malaysia Ministry of Education has recently initiated Malaysia MOOCs via collaboration with four public universities. This paper proposes factors that could be used in development of MOOC learning content, which are: (i) type of MOOC, (ii) type of video lectures, (iii) integration of cultural aspects in video lectures, (iv) communication style in video lectures; and (v) humor effect in video lectures. The paper also proposes factors in developing MOOC learning tasks, namely: (i) structure of learning tasks; (ii) dialog in learning tasks; (iii) learner autonomy in learning tasks; (iv) social settings of learning tasks; and (v) transactional distance of learning tasks. The factors are based on experiences during development of MOOC for ethnic relations and are aligned with learning concepts and strategies such as the transactional distance theory and the theory of the computer model of a sense of humor. Future directions on the development and research on MOOCs are also proposed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207