WHY INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATE IN MOOC? ATADEMIX SAMPLE

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to determine the reasons why the participants participate to Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in terms of performance, effort, social, and facilitating and the sources they heard about MOOC. The survey method was used in this study. The sample of the study was consisted of 698 participants selected at the courses of MOOC called Atademix, from Atatürk University and selected by convenience sampling method. These participants registered at least one of the courses in Atademix. Atademix is the first institutional MOOC from Atatürk University with technical infrastructure and experience in Turkey. The courses are taught via the Internet by using various course materials and exercises / applications in Atademix. Courses in the program are designed to support active participation by using presentations, interactive videos, discussion forums, assignments and end-of-course projects as well as lecture notes. In this study, questionnaire was used as data collection tool. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model was used while constructing the questionnaire. This model include performance, effort, social, and facilitating. Descriptive statistical methods were used in the analysis of the data. It has been determined that most of the students are informed by MOOC through social media. Participants were found to have a high average of the items that determine participation for reasons of performance, effort,f acilitating, and the social factor was lower than the other factors.

Keywords

• Massive Open Online Course,MOOC,reasons for participation,performance,effort,facilitating

KATILIMCILAR KİTLESEL AÇİK ÇEVRİMİÇİ DERSLERE NEDEN KATİLİYORLAR? ATADEMİX ÖRNEĞİ

Abstract

Bu çalışmada Kitlesel Açık Çevrimiçi Derslerdeki (KAÇD) katılımcıların KAÇD’ye katılım nedenlerini performans beklentisi, çaba beklentisi, kolaylaştırıcı şartlar ve sosyal faktörler açılarından tespit etmek ve KAÇD’den haberdar oldukları kaynakları belirlemek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden tarama yöntemi temel alınmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklemini Atatürk Üniversitesi’nin KAÇD platformu olan Atademix’teki kurslarda yer alan ve uygun örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilmiş 698 katılımcı oluşturmaktadır. Bu katılımcılar Atademix’teki kurslardan en az birine kayıtlı katılımcılardan oluşmaktadır. Bu çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak anket kullanılmıştır. Anketin yapısı oluşturulurken Teknoloji Kabul ve Kullanım Birleştirilmiş Modeli kullanılmıştır. Bu modelde performans beklentisi, çaba beklentisi, kolaylaştırıcı şartlar ve sosyal faktörler boyutları yer almaktadır. Verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistiki yöntemler kullanılmıştır. Katılımcıların en çok sosyal medya aracılığı ile KAÇD’den haberdar oldukları tespit edilmiştir. Katılımcıların KAÇD’ye performans beklentisi, çaba beklentisi ve kolaylaştırıcı şartlar nedenleriyle katılımını belirleyen maddelerin ortalamalarının yüksek olduğu ve sosyal faktörün diğer faktörlere oranla ortalamasının düşük olduğu belirlenmiştir. 

Keywords

• katılım nedenleri,Kitlesel Açık Çevrimiçi Dersler,KAÇD,performans beklentisi,çaba beklentisi,kolaylaştırıcı şartlar,sosyal faktörler

References

1. Agarwal, A. (2012). ‘Circuits and Electronics’, MITx. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(6), B10.
2. Allon, G. (2012). ‘Operations Management’, Udemy. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(6), B10–11.
3. Belanger, Y., & Thornton, J. (2013). Bioelectricity: A quantitative approach. Retrieved on May 7 from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/6216/Duke_Bioelectricity_MOOC_Fall2012.pdf.
4. Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom. Research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13–25.
5. Chen, Y. (2014). Investigating MOOCs through blog mining. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(2).
6. Chengjie, Y. (2015). Challenges and Changes of MOOC to Traditional Classroom Teaching Mode. Canadian Social Science, 11(1), 135-139.
7. Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3. Retrieved on February 21, 2015 from http://wwwjime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/viewArticle/2012-18/html
8. de Freitas, S.I., Morgan, J. & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 455-471.

9. Evans, D. (2012). ‘Introduction to computer science’, Udacity. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(6), B11.
10. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2012). Student participation in online discussions: Challenges, solutions, and future research. New York: Springer.
11. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12(2014), 45–58.
12. Jacobs, A. J. (2013). Two cheers for Web U! New York Times, 162(56113), 1–7.Kassabian, D. (2014). Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) at elite, early-adopter universities: Goals, progress, and value proposition. Published doctoral thesis. University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, USA.
13. Kaul, G. (2012). ‘Introduction to finance’, Coursera. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(6), B8.
14. Kikkas, K., Laanpere, M., & Põldoja, H. (2011). Open Courses: The Next big Thing in eLearning. In A. Rospigliosi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on e-Learning (pp. 370–376). Reading: Academic Publishing Limited.
15. Kirschner, A. (2012). A pioneer in online education tries a MOOC. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(6), B21–22.
16. Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 19–38.
17. Koutropoulos, A., Gallagher, M. S., Abajian, S. C., de Waard, I., Hogue, R. J., Keskin, N. O., & Rodgriguez, C. O. (2012). Emotive Vocabulary in MOOCs: Context & Participant Retention. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 1.
18. Mackness, J., Mak, S. & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010 (pp. 266–275). University of Lancaster: Lancaster.
19. Marques, J., & McGuire, R. (2013). What is a massive open online course anyway? MN+ R attempts a definition. MOOC News & Reviews
20. Martin, F. G. (2012). Will massive open online courses change how we teach? Communications of the ACM, 55(8), 26–28.
21. McMillan, H., & J. Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education Evidence-Based Inquiry. 6th Edition, Boston : Allyn and Bacon Inc.
22. Peter, S., and Deimann, M. (2013). On the role of openness in education: A historical reconstruction. Open Praxis, 5(1), 7-14.
23. Rai, L., & Chunrao, D. (2016). Influencing Factors of Success and Failure in MOOC and General Analysis of Learner Behavior. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(4), 262-268.
24. Rice, J. (2013). What I learned in MOOC. College Composition and Communication, 64(4), 695–703.
25. Sánchez-Vera, M. d. M., León-Urrutia, M., & Davis, H. C. (2014). Challenges in the creation, development and implementation of MOOCs: Web Science course at the University of Southampton. Comunicar, 22(44), 37-43.
26. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478
27. Young, J. R. (2013). What professors can learn from ‘hard core’ MOOC students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(37), A4.
28. Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. Cetis White Paper, 1-21.
29. Zutshi, S., O’Hare, S., & Rodafinos,A. (2013). Experiences in MOOCs: The perspective of students. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 218-227.