Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MOOC instructor designs and challenges: what can be learned from existing MOOCs in Indonesia and Malaysia?

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Education Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore Indonesian and Malaysian instructors’ perceptions of massive open online course (MOOC) design and how they deal with the design challenges. Surveys, email interviews, and course reviews are the main data-collection methods employed in this sequential mixed methods study. Forty-six instructors participated in the survey, and nine of them voluntarily participated in an email interview. The findings revealed that half of the courses were delivered using a hybrid/blended type of MOOC. Personal motives, institutional encouragement, and altruism were among the main reasons for instructors to offer MOOCs. Preparation, attraction, participation, and assessment were the categories used to explain the design strategies used by these instructors in designing their courses. The survey also revealed that collaboration encouragement, participant engagement, video development, and time constraints were the primary design challenges that the instructors experienced during the design process. Furthermore, most instructors sought advice from other MOOC instructors, MOOC providers, their institutions, video tutorials, and open educational resources (OERs) to surmount their design challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abas, Z. W. (2015). The glocalization of MOOCs in Southeast Asia. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education: Around the world (pp. 232–242). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315751108-26.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alario-Hoyos, C., Perez-Sanagustin, M., Cormier, D., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Proposal for a conceptual framework for educators to describe and design MOOCs. Journal of Universal Computer Science,20(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-020-01-0006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Atabi, M., & DeBoer, J. (2014). Teaching entrepreneurship using massive open online course (MOOC). Technovation,34(4), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,4(2), 142–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90004-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alevizou, G. (2015). From OER to MOOCs: Critical perspectives on the historical mediation trajectories of open education. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics,11(2), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.11.2.203_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayub, E., & Leong, L. C. (2017). Developing a pedagogy framework for institution-wide implementation of MOOC: A case study from a Malaysian private university. Advanced Science Letters,23(2), 809–813. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.7464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azhari, A. F. (2014). Reconstruction of constitutional tradition in the Indonesian and Malaysian constitutions: A comparison. Review of History and Political Science,2(3&4), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.15640/rhps.v2n3-4a6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bali, M. (2014). MOOC pedagogy: Gleaning good practice from existing MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,10(1), 44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belawati, T. (in press). Massive online open courses: The state of practice in Indonesia. In K. Zhang, C. J. Bonk, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education in the Global South: Challenges, successes, opportunities. New York: Routledge (to appear).

  • Berkovsky, S., Kuflik, T., & Ricci, F. (2008). Mediation of user models for enhanced personalization in recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction,18(3), 245–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-007-9042-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C. J. (2016). What is the state of e-learning? Reflections on 30 ways learning is changing. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 20(2), 6–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C. J., & Lee, M. M. (2017). Motivations, achievements, and challenges of self-directed informal learners in open educational environments and MOOCs. Journal of Learning for Development, 4(1). Retrieved from http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/195/188.

  • Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (2018a). The emergence and design of massive open online courses. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed., pp. 250–258). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C. J., Zhu, M., Kim, M., Xu, S., Sabir, N., & Sari, A. R. (2018b). Pushing toward a more personalized MOOC: Exploring instructor selected activities, resources, and technologies for MOOC design and implementation. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, P. W., Rose, R., & Pilkington, A. (2017). Mixed methods-theory and practice. Sequential, explanatory approach. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods,5(2), 10–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branstetter, G. (2001). Hot tips mailing list update newsletter. Hippo Direct. Retrieved from http://www.hippodirect.com/tools/EmailTips.asp.

  • Carson, S. (2009). The unwalled garden: Growth of the OpenCourseWare Consortium, 2001–2008. Open Learning,24(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510802627787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open educational resources: Enabling universal education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i1.469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chauhan, A. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCS): Emerging trends in assessment and accreditation. Digital Education Review,25, 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2014.25.7-17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chonghui, L. (2016, August 7). Revolutionising online education. The Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com.my/news/education/2016/08/07/revolutionising-online-education/.

  • Cross, S. (2013). Evaluation of the OLDS MOOC curriculum design course: Participant perspectives, expectations and experiences. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/37836/1/EvaluationReport_OLDSMOOC_v1.0.pdf.

  • Dahlan, A. R. B. A., Juhari, S. S. B., & Shafiee, A. S. B. A. (2015). MOOCs at International Islamic University Malaysia. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology Research,3(2), 140–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daradoumis, T., Bassi, R., Xhafa, F., & Caballé, S. (2013). A review on massive e-learning (MOOC) design, delivery and assessment. In F. Xhafa, L. Barolli, D. Nace, S. Vinticinque, & A. Bui (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2013 eighth international conference on P2P, parallel, grid, cloud and Internet computing (pp. 208–213). Compiegne: CPS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • de Freitas, S., 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillahunt, T. R., Wang, B. Z., & Teasley, S. (2014). Democratizing higher education: Exploring MOOC use among those who cannot afford a formal education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, J. R., O’Hara, M., & Seeman, E. (2015). Five principles for MOOC design: With a case study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice,14, 125–143. https://doi.org/10.28945/2250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and Perspectives,38(1), 105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Article update: Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Connecting “Yesterday’s” theories to today’s contexts. Performance Improvement Quarterly,26(2), 65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, S., & Myrick, J. G. (2015). How MOOC instructors view the pedagogy and purposes of massive open online courses. Distance Education,36(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1081736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fadzil, M., Latif, L. A., & Munira, T. A. M. (2015). MOOCs in Malaysia: A preliminary case study. MOOCs in Malaysia: A preliminary case study. Retrieved from http://library.oum.edu.my/repository/1022/1/library-document-1022.pdf.

  • Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior,26(2), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Services Research,48(6), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). From massive access to cooperation: lessons learned and proven results of a hybrid xMOOC/cMOOC pedagogical approach to MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,13(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0024-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firmansyah, M., & Timmis, S. (2016). Making MOOCs meaningful and locally relevant? Investigating IDCourserians—an independent, collaborative, community hub in Indonesia. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning,11(11), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0032-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gené, O. B., Núñez, M. M., & Blanco, Á. F. (2014). Gamification in MOOC: Challenges, opportunities and proposals for advancing MOOC model. In F. J. García-Peñalvo (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality (pp. 215–220). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2669711.2669902.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ghazali, N. B., & Nordin, M. S. (2017). The perception of university lecturers of teaching and learning in massive open online courses (MOOCs). Journal of Personalized Learning,2(1), 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grajek, S., Bichsel, J., & Dahlstrom, E. (2013). What MOOCs mean to today’s students and institutions. Educause Review. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2013/10/erb1309-pdf.pdf.

  • Guàrdia, L., Maina, M., & Sangrà, A. (2013). MOOC design principles: A pedagogical approach from the learner’s perspective. eLearning Papers,33(4), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haavind, S., & Sistek-Chandler, C. (2015). The emergent role of the MOOC instructor: A qualitative study of trends toward improving future ractice. International Journal on E-Learning,14(3), 331–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartono, R. (2017). English teachers’ responses on the Indonesian MOOC: Technology for autonomous learning (A qualitative survey at Central Java Province, Indonesia). Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature,12(1), 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haug, S., Wodzicki, K., Cress, U., & Moskaliuk, J. (2014). Self-regulated learning in MOOCs: Do open badges and certificates of attendance motivate learners to invest more. In U. Cress & C. D. Kloos (Eds.), EMOOCs 2014—European MOOC stakeholder summit (pp. 66–72). Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F. (2015). Towards a model of engaging online students: Lessons from MOOCs and four policy documents. International Journal of Information and Education Technology,5(6), 425. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2015.v5.543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review,12, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewindati, Y. T., & Belawati, T. (2017). Massive open online courses as a community services programme. ASEAN Journal of Open Distance Learning,9, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iiyoshi, T., & Kumar, M. S. V. (Eds.). (2008). Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ismail, N. H., & Seng, L. C. (2016). The bold initiatives of the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia in preparing Millennial learners to enter the workforce. International Journal of Advanced Engineering and Management Research,1(3), 241–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel, M. J. (2015). Effectiveness of integrating MOOCs in traditional classrooms for undergraduate students. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,16(5), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods,18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x05282260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,15(1), 133–160. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, S. (2013). Online learning: How to make a MOOC. Nature,499(7458), 369–371. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7458-369a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalil, H., & Ebner, M. (2013). “How satisfied are you with your MOOC?”—a research study on interaction in huge online Courses. In J. Herrington, A. Couros, & V. Irvine (Eds.), EdMedia+ innovate learning (pp. 830-839). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/112057/.

  • Khalil, H., & Ebner, M. (2014, June). MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention—a literature review. In J. Viteli & M. Leikomaa (Eds.), World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (pp. 1305–1313). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/147656/.

  • Kim, P., & Chung, C. (2015). Creating a temporary spontaneous mini-ecosystem through a MOOC. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 157–168). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315751108-19.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • King, C., Doherty, K., Kelder, J. A., McInerney, F., Walls, J., Robinson, A., et al. (2014). ‘Fit for purpose’: A cohort-centric approach to MOOC design. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,11(3), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v11i3.2090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2016). Recommending self-regulated learning strategies does not improve performance in a MOOC. In J. Haywood, V. Aleven, J. Kay, & I. Roll (Eds.), Proceedings of the third (2016) ACM conference on learning@ scale (pp. 101–104). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2876034.2893378.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kolowich, S. (2013, March 21). The professors who make the MOOCs. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/TheProfessors-Behind-the-MOOC/137905/#id=overview.

  • Li, N., Verma, H., Skevi, A., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). Proceedings of the EMOOCs 2014—European MOOC stakeholder summit. In U. Cress & C. D. Kloos (Eds.), Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory (pp. 88–94). Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior,27(3), 1152–1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education,29, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liyanagunawardena, T. R. (2015). Massive open online courses. Humanities,4(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.3390/h4010035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,14(3), 202–227. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Parslow, P., & Williams, S. (2014). Dropout: MOOC participants’ perspective. In U. Cress & C. D. Kloos (Eds.), Proceedings of the EMOOCs 2014—European MOOC stakeholder summit (pp. 95–100). Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenthal, P., & Hodges, C. (2015). In search of quality: Using Quality Matters to analyze the quality of massive, open, online courses (MOOCs). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mak, S., Williams, R., & Mackness, J. (2010). Blogs and forums as communication and learning tools in a MOOC. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on networked learning 2010. Lancaster: University of Lancaster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education,80, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf.

  • Mesquita, M. A., Toda, A. M., & Brancher, J. D. (2014). BrasilEduca—An open-source MOOC platform for Portuguese speakers with gamification concepts. In Proceedings of the frontiers in education conference (FIE) (pp. 1–7). New York: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2014.7044063.

  • MIT. (2007, November 28). MIT Marks OpenCourseWare Milestone. November 2007 Newsletter. Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/about/media-coverage/press-releases/milestone/.

  • MIT Open Course Ware, (2012). Site statistics. Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/about/site-statistics/.

  • Mlikotic, R., Parker, B., & Rajapakshe, R. (2016). Assessing the effects of participant preference and demographics in the usage of web-based survey questionnaires by women attending screening mammography in British Columbia. Journal of medical Internet research,18(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najafi, H., Rolheiser, C., Harrison, L., & Håklev, S. (2015). University of Toronto instructors’ experiences with developing MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuböck, K., Kopp, M., & Ebner, M. (2015). What do we know about typical MOOC participants? First insights from the field. In M. Lebrun, I. de Waard, M. Ebner, & M. Gaebel (Eds.), Proceedings of the European MOOC stakeholders summit 2015 (pp. 183–190). Mons: Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordin, N., Norman, H., Embi, M. A., Mansor, A. Z., & Idris, F. (2016). Factors for development of learning content and task for MOOCs in an Asian context. International Education Studies,9(5), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n5p48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opdenakker, R. (2006, September). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4). Retrieved from https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/1948695/Metis202565.pdf.

  • Oyo, B., & Kalema, B. M. (2014). Massive open online courses for Africa by Africa. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pannen, P. (2015). Online lecturers’ experience: A reflection. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Berlin 2015: Global conference on learning and technology (pp. 204–212). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratislavová, K., & Ratislav, J. (2014). Asynchronous email interview as a qualitative research method in the humanities. Human Affairs,24(4), 452–460. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-014-0240-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravichandran, P. (in press). Global trends and policy strategies and their implications for sustainable development of MOOCs in Malaysia. To appear in K. Zhang, C. J. Bonk, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.). MOOCs and open education in the Global South: Challenges, successes, opportunities. New York: Routledge.

  • Richter, S. L., & Krishnamurthi, M. (2014). Preparing faculty for teaching a MOOC: Recommendations from research and experience. International Journal of Information and Education Technology,4(5), 411–415. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2014.v4.440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadigh, D., Seshia, S. A., & Gupta, M. (2012). Automating exercise generation: A step towards meeting the MOOC challenge for embedded systems. In Proceedings of the workshop on embedded and cyber-physical systems education (p. 2). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2530544.2530546.

  • Sahyoun, S. (2014, September 26). OpenLearning selected as Malaysia’s national MOOC platform. Retrieved from https://www.openlearning.com/blog/OpenlearningComSelectedAsMalaysiaSNationalMoocPlatform.

  • Sappleton, N., & Lourenço, F. (2016). Email subject lines and response rates to invitations to participate in a web survey and a face-to-face interview: The sound of silence. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,19(5), 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1078596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, D. (2017). A product at every price: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2017. Class Central. Retrieved from https://www.class-central.com/report/moocs-stats-and-trends-2017/.

  • Shah, D. (2019). Year of MOOC-based Degrees: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2018. Class Central. Retrieved from https://www.class-central.com/report/moocs-stats-and-trends-2018/.

  • Siemens, G. (2012, September). Designing and running a MOOC (in 9 easy steps). Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/09/04/designing-and-running-a-mooc-in-9-easy-steps/.

  • Szolnoki, G., & Hoffmann, D. (2013). Online, face-to-face and telephone surveys—Comparing different sampling methods in wine consumer research. Wine Economics and Policy,2(2), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2013.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teplechuk, E. (2013). Emergent models of Massive Open Online Courses: An exploration of sustainable practices for MOOC institutions in the context of the launch of MOOCs at the University of Edinburgh. MBA Dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Retrieved from https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/7536/1/MOOCs_MBADissertationTeplechuk_Master.pdf.

  • Terras, M. M., & Ramsay, J. (2015). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Insights and challenges from a psychological perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology,46(3), 472–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change (Vol. 219). Lexington, KY: CreateSpace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trehan, S., Sanzgiri, J., Li, C., Wang, R., & Joshi, R. M. (2017). Critical discussions on the massive open online course (MOOC) in India and China. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology,13(2), 141–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler-Smith, K. (2006). Early attrition among first time eLearners: A review of factors that contribute to drop-out, withdrawal and non-completion rates of adult learners undertaking eLearning programmes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,2(2), 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences,15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review,94(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.94.1.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G., Collier, A., & Schneider, E. (2015). Digging deeper into learners’ experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of MOOCs, Notetaking, and contexts surrounding content consumption. British Journal of Educational Technology,46(3), 570–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vest, C. (2001, April 4). MIT to make nearly all course materials available free on the World Wide Web. MIT News. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/ocw.html.

  • Wong, B. T. (2016). Factors leading to effective teaching of MOOCs. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal,11(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/aaouj-07-2016-0023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2019). People. Retrieved from http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/themes/people.html.

  • Xiong, Y., & Suen, H. K. (2018). Assessment approaches in massive open online courses: Possibilities, challenges and future directions. International Review of Education,64(2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-018-9710-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamada, T. (2015). New component technologies and development strategies of e-learning in MOOC and post-MOOC eras. In T. Zin, J. W. Lin, J. S. Pan, P. Tin, & M. Yokota (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on genetic and evolutionary computing. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ying, W. (2015). A case study: The development of MOOCs in China. In K. Bowon (Ed.), MOOCs and educational challenges around Asia and Europe (pp. 9–20). Seoul: KNOU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., & Wosnitza, M. (2014). What drives a successful MOOC? An empirical examination of criteria to assure design quality of MOOCs. In D. G. Sampson, J. M. Spector, N.-S. Chen, R. Huang, & Kinshuk (Eds.), Proceedings of 2014 IEEE 14th international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 44–48). New York: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icalt.2014.23.

  • Zhang, Y. (2013). Benefiting from MOOC. In J. Herrington, A. Couros, & V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World conference on educational media and technology (pp. 1372–1377). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, K., Bonk, C. J., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.). (in press). MOOCs and open education in the Global South: Challenges, successes, opportunities. New York: Routledge.

  • Zhu, M., Bonk, C. J., & Sari, A. (2017, October). Instructor experiences in designing and delivering MOOCs in higher education. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education, 2017, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 502–508). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). ISBN 978-1-939797-31-5. http://www.learntechlib.org/pv/181226/.

  • Zhu, M., Bonk, C. J., & Sari, A. (2019). MOOC instructor motivations, innovations, and designs: Surveys, interviews, and course reviews. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 45(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zutshi, S., O’Hare, S., & Rodafinos, A. (2013). Experiences in MOOCs: The perspective of students. American Journal of Distance Education,27(4), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.838067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Systems Technology Department, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, USA

    Annisa R. Sari & Curtis J. Bonk

  2. Learning Design and Technology Program, College of Education, Wayne State University, Detroit, USA

    Meina Zhu

  3. Accounting Education Department, Yogyakarta State University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

    Annisa R. Sari

Authors
  1. Annisa R. Sari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Curtis J. Bonk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meina Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annisa R. Sari.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

figure a
figure b
figure c
figure d

Appendix 2: E-mail interview

  1. 1.

    Please briefly introduce yourself and the course that you taught.

  2. 2.

    Could you please explain the history of how you made this course from scratch until the course started?

  3. 3.

    How do you decide your course structure, and why?

  4. 4.

    Given the various students’ educational background, culture, and goals, what was your strategy to solve this challenge?

  5. 5.

    How do you choose the learning contents for your students? Which one do you emphasize more—local, national, or international content?

  6. 6.

    What was your strategy to improve students’ learning?

  7. 7.

    What is the main consideration for your MOOC design, and why?

  8. 8.

    Do you face any challenge in designing your course? If yes, please explain.

  9. 9.

    What is your suggestion in terms of design for other instructors who is going to offer a MOOC in Indonesia/Malaysia?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sari, A.R., Bonk, C.J. & Zhu, M. MOOC instructor designs and challenges: what can be learned from existing MOOCs in Indonesia and Malaysia?. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 21, 143–166 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09618-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09618-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation