Research on instructional design and evaluation of Japanese-Language MOOCs for the digital age

Abstract

Moocs can be described as a basic form of digital instruction. With the continuous development of AI technology, the production of digital courses based on artificial intelligence is no longer out of reach. However, whether it is MOOCs or future courses automatically generated by AI, Instructional design (ID) and its related theories will be the key to engaging, efficient and effective courses. This paper empirically investigates 83 Japanese-language MOOCs on major MOOCs in China and the United States,conducted an Instructional evaluation and analysis of e³ based on first principles of instruction of digital ID, and considers how to improve the effective participation and human-computer interaction of MOOCs from the perspective of instructional design. This paper finds that although student-centered learning theory has been widely recognized as early as more than 10 years ago, the ID of the most Japanese-languge MOOCs is still difficult to completely get rid of the behaviorism of knowledge transfer. Additionally, the problem-focused instructional design of the demonstration and application of language skills is lacking, and learners’ awareness of their own initiative and ability in the learning process is insufficient. Therefore, on the basis of using this theory to evaluate the Instructional design of Japanese-language MOOCs empirically, this paper discusses effective teaching strategies with teaching cases with good human-computer interaction effect, hoping to provide useful enlightenment for future AI digital courses.

Cited as:

Gu, C., Wang, J., Li, T., & Liu, Z. (2024). Research on instructional design and evaluation of Japanese-language MOOCs for the digital ge: An analysis framework based on first principles of instruction. Education and Lifelong Development Research, 1(4): 192-203. https://doi.org/10.46690/elder.2024.04.04

References

Al - Mekhlafi, A. B.A., Othman, I., Kineber, A.F., Mousa, A.A., & Zamil, A.M.A. (2022). Modeling the impact of massive open online courses (MOOC) implementation factors on continuance intention of students: PLS - SEM approach. Sustainability, 14, 5342.

AN, Z. F., & Zhang, F. F. (2018). Construction of stereoscopic model for MOOC learning quality based on the perspective of learner experience. Aulte Education,377(6): 18 - 23.

Barman, L., McGrath, C., & Stöhr, C. (2019). Higher education; for free, for everyone, for real? Massive open online courses (MOOCs) and the responsible university: history and enacting rationalities for MOOC initiatives at three Swedish universities. In The Responsible University: Exploring the Nordic Context and Beyond; Sørensen, M.P., Geschwind, L., Kekäle, J., & Pinheiro, R., Eds. (2019). Springer International Publishing: Cham, 117 - 143.

Branch, R.M., & Kopcha, T.J. (2014). Instructional design models. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology; Spector, J.M., Merrill, M.D., Elen, J., & Bishop,  M.J., Eds. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 4th Ed.Springer: New York, NY, 77 - 87.

Chickering, A.W., Gamson, Z.F. (1991). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Dir. Teach. Learn, 47, 63–69.

Chickering, A.W., Ehrmann, S.C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: technology as lever. AAHE Bull. 49, 3–6.

Cline, R. W. & Merrill, M. D. (1995). Automated instructional design via instructional transactions. Automating instructional design: Computer - based development and delivery tools. New York: Springer - Verlag, 317 - 353.

Commonwealth of Learning. Guidelines for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of MOOCs. 2016. Available online: http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/2362/2016__Guidelines - QAA - MOOCs.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y

accessed on 2023.10.

Cuseo, J. B. (2008). Assessment of the first - year experience: six significant questions. In Proving and Improving: Strategies for Assessing the First College Year; Swing, R.L., Ed.; University of South Carolina: Columbia,27 - 34.

Merrill, M. D., Translated by Li, X., proofread by Sheng, Q. L. (2023). First Principles of Instruction Revisited (Ⅱ). Foreign Observation, 9(04), 85 - 92.

Feng, X. Q., & Zhao, K. Y. (2005). Merill’s first principle and the evaluation of web - based course. Open Education Research, 11.67 - 71.

Frick, T. W., Myers, R. D. & Dagli, C. (2022). Analysis of patterns in time for evaluating effectiveness of first principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(1), 1 - 29.

Guo, S. Q., & Qiu,X. C. (2017). Quality analysis of English MOOCs’ instructional design based on first principles of instruction. Journal of Xi’an Foreign Studies University, 25, 84 - 88.

He, K. K. (1998a). Research on theory and method of instructional design(Ⅰ). E - education Research, 02, 3 - 9. 

He, K. K. (1998b). Research on theory and method of instructional design(Ⅱ). E - education Research, 03, 19 - 26.

He, K. K. (1998c). Research on theory and method of instructional design(Ⅲ). E - education Research, 04, 29 - 32.

He, K. K. (1997a). Constructivism - Innovating the theoretical basis of traditional teaching(Ⅰ). E - education Research, 03, 3 - 9.

He, K. K. (1997b). Constructivism - Innovating the theoretical basis of traditional teaching(Ⅱ). E - education Research, 04, 25 - 27.

He, K. K. (1998d). Constructivism - Innovating the theoretical basis of traditional teaching(Ⅲ). E - education Research. 01, 30 - 32.

He, K. K., Li, K. D., Xie, Y. R., & Wang, B. Z. (2000). The theoretical basis of the “dominant - main part” instructional model. E - education Research, 02, 3 - 9.

Japan Foundation. Survey Report on Japanese - Language Education Abroad. (2018). Available online: https://www.jpf.go.jp/e/project/japanese/survey/result/survey18.html

Accessed on 2021.12.20.

Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn, 15, 133 - 160.

Lee, S. A. (2013). Relationship between course - level implementation of first principles of instruction and cognitive engagement: A multilevel analysis. Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.

Liu, J. (2022). Research on the evaluation of teaching quality of university MOOC based on support vector regression. Information Technology, 03, 12 - 16+23.

Liu, Y., et al. (2021). Research on the Construction of MOOC Teaching Quality Evaluation System from the Perspectives of Students: Taking

Academic Information Literacy MOOC Courses as An Example. Library Journal, 40(2), 95 - 103.

Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J., & ID₂ Research Group. (1996a). Reclaiming instructional design. Educ. Technol, 36, 5 - 7.

Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1990a). Limitations of first generation instructional design. Educ. Technol, 30, 7 - 11.

Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1990b). Second generation instructional design (ID₂). Educ. Technol, 30, 7 - 14.

Merrill, M. D.; ID₂ Research Group. (1996b). Instructional transaction theory: instructional design based on knowledge objects. Educ. Technol, 36, 30–37.

Merrill, M. D. Component Display Theory. In C. Reigeluth (ed.) (1983). Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 279 - 333.

Merrill, M. D. (2013). First Principles of Instruction; Pfeiffer: San Francisco, CA.

Mirriahi, N., Alonzo, D., Fox, B. A (2015). Blended learning framework for curriculum design and professional development. Research in Learning Technol, 23, 1 - 14.

Su, P. Y., Guo, J. H., & Shao, Q. G. (2021). Construction of the quality evaluation index system of MOOC platforms based on the user perspective. Sustainability, 13(20), 11163.

Pi, L., & Wu, H. (2011). Two orientations of instructional theories and the research on effective teaching. Educ. Res. 32, 25 - 30.

Qiu, J. P., & Ou, Y. F. (2015)The construction and application research of MOOC quality evaluation indicators system. Higher Education Development and Ealuation, 5, 72 - 100.

Reich, J., & Ruipérez - Valiente, J. A. (2019). The MOOC pivot. Science, 363, 130 - 131.

Reigeluth, C. M. (2016). ID theories and models, Volumes I, II, III and IV; Routledge.

Sang, X. M., Jia, Y. M., Xie, Y. B., & Zhao, J. M. (2017) Learning science and technology: The cultivation of learning ability in the information age. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 07.

Sheng, Q. L., & Li, Z. Q. (1998). The modern instructional design theory. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Education Press. 12.

Stracke, C. M., Tan, E., Texeira, A., Pinto, M., Vassiliadis, B., Kameas, A., Sgouropoulou, C., & Vidal, G. (2018). Quality reference framework (QRF) for the quality of MOOCs. Available online: http://mooc - quality.eu/wp - content/uploads/2019/11/Quality_Reference_Framework_for_MOOCs_v11.pdf.accessed on 2023.10.

Suzuki, K. (2002). Textbook design manual - to help self - study. Kyoto: Kitaohji Syobo.

Suzuki, K. (2015). Training design manual: Instructional design of talent training. Kyoto:Kitaohji Syobo.

Thomson. (2002). Thomson job impact study: The next generation of learning (electronic version). Accessed on, 01. 2024 from https://mdavidmerrill.wordpress.com/wp - content/uploads/2019/04/thompsonjobimpact.pdf

Tong, X. S., & Jia X. Y. (2017). Constructing quality evaluation system for MOOCs. Distance Education In China, (5), 63 - 80.

Watson, S. L., Loizzo, J., Watson, W. R., Mueller, C., Lim, J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Instructional design, facilitation, and perceived learning outcomes: An exploratory case study of a human trafficking MOOC for attitudinal change. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(6), 1273 - 1300.

Wu, M.N. (1994). Instructional design. Beijing:Higher Education Press, 10.

Zhang, W. L., Dong Y. N., Sun, Li & CAO, H. Q.(2022). Learner - based evaluation indexes of foreign language online course. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 4, 111 - 121.

Guo, Shu. Q., & Qiu, X. C. (2017). Quality analysis of english MOOCs instructional design based on first principles of instruction. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University, 25(3), 84 - 88.

Zhong, Z. A. (2006). Framework of instructional design toward knowledge age: Promoting the development of the learner; China Social Sciences Press.

Zhong, Z. (2008). Innovating the instructional model in higher education: A perspective of instructional design; Educational Science Press.