臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

隨著線上教育的推展，大規模開放式線上課程，又稱磨課師(Massive Open Online Courses, MOOCs)不僅改變線上遠距學習的風貌，而且也激發著高等教育的變革。正當主要的磨課師供應平台（如Coursera、edX）持續與頂尖大學（如史丹佛、哈佛）夥伴合作並發展多樣的商業模式的同時，愈來愈多高等教育單位已經體認到如何善用磨課師所帶來機會的重要。不同的磨課師興新實例正欣欣向榮的發展，藉以增進校園中的教與學、擴大學校的國際聲譽、亦或是開拓高等教育的潛在市場。然而，很少磨課師實徵研究關注於非西方的文化情境，而且對於學習者於磨課師上是如何學習的更是很少被清楚認識。

本研究聚焦於一個開創性的跨海峽兩岸磨課師教學模式，以期將一門磨課師課程擴展於華人社會。此磨課師教學模式首創透過台灣與中國間兩所清華大學的跨平台關係，以及在台灣基於小型私人線上課程(Small Private Online Course, SPOC)理念的跨校關係，藉此來推廣一門被共享的跨兩岸磨課師課程。為了催化此模式能永續維繫於未來高等教育，本研究目的在於調查此磨課師課程學習者的學習成效以及植基於如此特殊的華人社會情境中的整體學習經驗。透過問卷調查法的方式，本研究體現以三角檢證量化與質化資料的混合研究為取徑來進行調查。於本研究中，完成磨課師課程的431位受試者包含三組：台灣線上學習者(OLT group)、中國線上學習者(OLC group)以及基於台灣校院學習者(ILT group)。除了統計分析學習者的表現，本研究系統化的探索學習者對於此磨課師課程的投入程度、評估其感知與滿意程度，並且從學習者建議回饋的基礎上，進一步發展出此磨課師課程的課程設計方針。

資料分析指出當以小型私人線上課程之理念於高等教育推展磨課師時，需要更多教學法的思考來促進學習者在課程上的表現、投入與正向感知。而且本研究建議於磨課師課程中，學習者的認知投入需要透過融入策略性學習引導的課程設計來加以增強。整體而言本研究結果顯示，此磨課師教學模式成功有效推進一門跨兩岸課程被傳播於華人社會中，並透過支持的跨平台與跨校夥伴關係進而提供更多令人滿意的學習經驗。最後此研究對於增進本磨課師課程於影片、練習題、小考、討論區方面，分別總結出I.S.A.F.E.、3E、3A、O.R.I.G.I.N等課程設計方針。本研究對磨課師實務者與研究者在未來高等教育皆提供了具實用性與價值性的參考。

With the advancement of online education, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have not just transformed the landscape of online distance learning, but they have also stimulated higher education reforms. Established MOOC providers (e.g. Coursera, edX) have partnered with the elite universities (e.g. Stanford, Harvard) and developed various revenue models; and increasingly, higher education institutions (HEIs) have begun to acknowledge the significance of how to take advantage of the opportunities from MOOCs. Many emerging MOOC practices have been evolving to enhance on-campus learning and teaching, to enlarge universities’ worldwide reputation, and to broaden the potential market of HEIs. However, little empirical MOOC research focuses on the non-Western contexts, and there is little to be explicitly known about that how learners are learning on MOOCs.

The present study focused on a pioneering MOOC instructional mode across the Taiwan Straits which was anticipated to extend the reach of the MOOC in Chinese societies. The MOOC instructional mode had taken the initiative of promoting a cross-strait MOOC to be shared via cross-platforms relationship of the two Tsing-Hua universities in Taiwan and China, as well as cross-universities relationship using the SPOC (Small Private Online Course) approach in Taiwan. In order to catalyze the mode to be sustainable for future higher education, the present study aimed at investigating the learners’ learning effectiveness and overall experiences embedded within the unique context of Chinese societies.

This study, which incorporated a mixed-methods approach to triangulate both quantitative and qualitative data, was conducted through the use of questionnaire survey. In this study, 431 participants who completed the MOOC comprised three groups: online learners in Taiwan (OLT group), online learners in China (OLC group), and institution-based learners in Taiwan (ILT group). In addition to statistical analysis of learners’ performance, this study systematically explored learners’ engagement, assessed their perceptions and satisfaction regarding the MOOC, and further developed the MOOC courseware guidelines based on learners’ suggestions.

An analysis of the data indicated that learners’ performance, engagement, and perceptions all needed more pedagogical considerations when promoting the MOOC-by-SPOC approach in higher education. Moreover, the results of this study suggested that the integration of learning strategic guidance into courseware design reinforces learners’ cognitive engagement within the MOOC. As a whole, the findings have revealed that the MOOC instructional mode succeeded in leveraging a cross-strait course to create more satisfying learning experiences through underpinned cross-platforms and cross-universities partnerships in Chinese societies. Ultimately, the present study recommends the I.S.A.F.E., 3E, 3A, and O.R.I.G.I.N. guidelines for improving MOOC courseware design on video, exercise, quiz, and discussion forum respectively. Going forward, this study serves as a practical and valuable reference for MOOC practitioners and researchers in higher education.

Chinese Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………………………I
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… II
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………………………III
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………… IV
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………………………………VII
List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………………………………… VIII

Chapter 1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………1
1.1 Research Background ……………………………………………………………………………1
1.2 Research Motivation ……………………………………………………………………………3
1.3 Purposes of the Study and Research Questions……………5
1.4 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………7
1.5 Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………………………8
1.6 Definitions of Terminology……………………………………………………………9

Chapter 2 Literature Review………………………………………………………………………10
2.1 Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)…………………………………10
2.1.1 The Origin and Evolution of MOOCs…………………………………10
2.1.2 The Conception, Classification and Characteristics of MOOCs…………………………………………………………………………………13
2.1.3 Research Issues and Challenges for MOOCs………………16
2.2 Emerging MOOC Experiments Worldwide…………………………………20
2.2.1 MOOC Experiments in America…………………………………………………20
2.2.2 MOOC Experiments in Europe……………………………………………………22
2.2.3 MOOC Experiments in Asia…………………………………………………………24
2.2.4 Room for Enhancing the Research on MOOC Experiments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………26
2.3 Leaners’ Engagement……………………………………………………………………………30
2.3.1 Significance of Engagement……………………………………………………30
2.3.2 Notion of Engagement: Behavioral, Emotional, and Cognitive…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………31
2.3.3 Measuring Engagement in Technology-enhanced Learning Environments…………………………………………………………………………………………33
2.4 Instructional Video for Learning…………………………………………35
2.4.1 Importance of Instructional Video in Online Learning……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………35
2.4.2 Various Instructional Video Styles for Learning……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………36
2.4.3 Exploring Instructional Video Styles for MOOC Learners……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………39

Chapter 3 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………42
3.1 Research Context……………………………………………………………………………………42
3.1.1 MOOC Instructional Mode across the Taiwan Straits………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………43
3.1.2 Learning Ecosystem in the MOOC Instructional Mode………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………48
3.1.3 About the Course………………………………………………………………………………49
3.2 Participants………………………………………………………………………………………………58
3.2.1 Completion and Response Rates……………………………………………59
3.2.2 Demographic Data………………………………………………………………………………60
3.3 Research Method………………………………………………………………………………………62
3.3.1 Research Procedure…………………………………………………………………………62
3.3.2 Research Duration……………………………………………………………………………63
3.3.3 Research Framework…………………………………………………………………………64
3.3.4 Data Collection and Analysis………………………………………………66
3.4 Research Instruments…………………………………………………………………………67
3.4.1 Online Survey………………………………………………………………………………………67
3.4.2 Learning Performance Data………………………………………………………70
3.4.3 Reliability of the Instruments…………………………………………71

Chapter 4 Data Analysis and Presentation……………………………………72
4.1 Results of Learners’ Engagement……………………………………………72
4.1.1 Overall Engagement…………………………………………………………………………73
4.1.2 Behavioral Engagement…………………………………………………………………76
4.1.3 Emotional Engagement……………………………………………………………………79
4.1.4 Cognitive Engagement……………………………………………………………………83
4.2 Results of Learners’ Performance…………………………………………86
4.2.1 Weekly Quiz Performance……………………………………………………………86
4.2.2 Final Exam Performance………………………………………………………………87
4.2.3 Discussion Forum Learning Frequencies………………………88
4.2.4 Course Total Score…………………………………………………………………………90
4.3 Results of Learners’ Perceptions of MOOC Environment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………91
4.3.1 Learners’ Perceptions of Instructional Videos …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………91
4.3.2 Learners’ Perceptions of Exercises……………………………100
4.3.3 Learners’ Perceptions of Quizzes…………………………………103
4.3.4 Learners’ Perceptions of Discussion Forum…………105
4.4 Learners’ Satisfaction and Suggestions………………………108
4.4.1 Learners’ Satisfaction……………………………………………………………108
4.4.2 Learners’ Suggestions of the MOOC Courseware ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………109
4.5 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………118

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Future Work…………………………………………127
5.1 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………128
5.1.1 Learners’ Engagement within the MOOC Instructional Mode………………………………………………………………………………………………128
5.1.2 Learners’ Performance within the MOOC Instructional Mode………………………………………………………………………………………………129
5.1.3 Learners’ Perceptions of MOOC Learning Environment…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………130
5.1.4 Learners’ Satisfaction and Suggested Guidelines for the MOOC………………………………………………………………………………………………………………131
5.2 Future Work………………………………………………………………………………………………132
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………134
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………144

English

Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28-38. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.006
Balfour, S. P. (2013). Assessing writing in MOOCs: Automated essay scoring and calibrated peer review. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8(1), 40-48.
Bansal, S., & Singh, P. (2015). Blending active learning in a modified SPOC based classroom. A Thesis Report of Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi (IIIT-D), India.
Beaudin, B. P., & Quick, D. (1996). Instructional video evaluation instrument. Journal of Extension, 34(3). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1996june/a1.php
Birch, S., & Ladd, G. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children's early school adjustment. Journal of Schoo1 Psychology, 35, 61-79.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013, June). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA.
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1-13.
Brooks, D. (2012). The campus tsunami. The New York Times, 4, A29. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/opinion/brooks-the-campus-tsunami.html?_r=0.
Brown, M. (2013, April 5). Moving into the post-MOOC era [Blog post]. EDUCAUSE Review Online Blog. Retrieved from http://www. educause. edu/blogs/mbbrown/moving-post-mooc-era.
Caulfield, M. (2013). xMOOC Communities Should Learn From cMOOCs [Blog post]. Open Questions, EDUCAUSE Review Online Blog. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/blogs/mcaulfield/xmooc-communities-should-learn-cmoocs
Chen, C. M., & Wu, C. H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 80, 108-121.
Cheng, M. M., & Zhang, J. P. (2014, October). CH-SPOC: A Hybrid Learning Mode and Its Exploration in Zhejiang University. 2014 International Conference In Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT), of (pp. 158-161). IEEE.
Chorianopoulos, K., & Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Usability design for video lectures. In The 11th European Conference on interactive TV and video, June 24-26, Como, Italy (pp.163-164).
Clarà, M., & Barberà, E. (2013). Learning online: massive open online courses (MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34(1), 129-136.
Combéfis, S., Bibal, A., & Van Roy, P. (2014). Recasting a Traditional Course into a MOOC by Means of a SPOC. Presentado en E-moocs.
Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life-span. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), The self in transition: lnfancy to childhood (pp. 61-67). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 23). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Conway, M. R. (2013). HarvardX’s new fall offerings to include two SPOCs. The Harvard Crimson, June, 21. Retrieved from http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/6/21/new-edx-fall-2013/
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88-108.
Coughlan, S. (2013). Harvard plans to boldly go with ‘Spocs’. BBC Business News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24166247
Cross, A., Bayyapunedi, M., Cutrell, E., Agarwal, A., & Thies, W. (2013, April). TypeRighting: combining the benefits of handwriting and typeface in online educational videos. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 793-796). ACM.
Cummins, S., Beresford, A., & Rice, A. (2015). Investigating Engagement with In-Video Quiz Questions in a Programming Course. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (TLT), 99, 1-10. DOI: 10.1109/TLT.2015.2444374.
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of interactive Media in education, 2012(3), Art-18.
Danielson, J., Preast, V., Bender, H., & Hassall, L. (2014). Is the effectiveness of lecture capture related to teaching approach or content type?. Computers & Education, 72, 121-131.
Day, J. A., Foley, J. D., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Investigating multimedia learning with web lectures.
DeBoer, J., Ho, A. D., Stump, G. S., & Breslow, L. (2014). Changing “Course” Reconceptualizing Educational Variables for Massive Open Online Courses. Educational Researcher. doi: 10.3102/0013189X14523038.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale Development Theory and Applications. London: SAGE.
De Waard, I., Koutropoulos, A., Hogue, R. J., Abajian, S. C., Keskin, N. Ö., Rodriguez, C. O., & Gallagher, M. S. (2012). Merging MOOC and mLearning for increased learner interactions. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 4(4), 34-46.
Dey, E. L., Burn, H. E., & Gerdes, D. (2009). Bringing the classroom to the web: Effects of using new technologies to capture and deliver lectures. Research in Higher Education, 50(4), 377-393.
Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban high school. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of educational research, 59(2), 117-142.
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Voelkl, K. E. (1995). Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn behavior and achievement among fourth graders. Elementary School Journal, 95,421-454.
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,221-234.
Fischer, G. (2014). Beyond hype and underestimation: identifying research challenges for the future of MOOCs. Distance Education, 35(2), 149-158.
Fisher, William W. (2014). HLS1X: CopyrightX: Spring 2013 Course Report. HarvardX Working Paper Series No. 5: 1-31.
Fox, A. (2013) From MOOCs to SPOCs: Supplementing the classroom experience with small private online courses. Communications of the ACM, 56(12), 38-40.
Fox, A. (2014). Ubiquity symposium: MOOCs and technology to advance learning and learning research: from MOOCs to SPOCs: curricular technology transfer for the 21st century. Ubiquity, 2014(June), 3.
Fox, A., Patterson, D. A., Ilson, R., Joseph, S., Walcott-Justice, K., & Williams, R. (2014) Software Engineering Curriculum Technology Transfer: Lessons learned from MOOCs and SPOCs. (Technical Report UCB/EECS-2014-17).
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J. & Paris, A. (2005). School engagement. In K. A. Moore & L. Lippman (Eds), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 305–321). New York: Springer.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C. & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59-109.
Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763-782). Springer US.
Griffin, D. K., Mitchell, D., & Thompson, S. J. (2009). Podcasting by synchronising PowerPoint and voice: What are the pedagogical benefits?. Computers & Education, 53(2), 532-539.
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (pp. 41-50). ACM.
Hartsell, T., & Yuen, S. (2006). Video streaming in online learning. AACE Journal, 14(1), 31-43.
Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36-53.
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.
Hill, P. (2012). Online educational delivery models: A descriptive view. Educause Review, 47(6), 85-97.
Ilioudi, C., Giannakos, M. N., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2013). Investigating differences among the commonly used video lecture styles. In WAVe 2013 the Workshop on Analytics on video-based learning (pp. 21-26).
Jonassen, D. H, Peck, K. L, &Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Merrill.
Jordan, K. (2014). MOOC Completion Rates: The Data. Retrieved from http://www.katyjordan.com/MOOCproject.html
Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1).
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758-773.
Kay, R. H. (2012). Exploring the use of video podcasts in education: A comprehensive review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 820-831.
Kim, J., Guo, P. J., Seaton, D. T., Mitros, P., Gajos, K. Z., & Miller, R. C. (2014, March). Understanding in-video dropouts and interaction peaks inonline lecture videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (pp. 31-40). ACM.
Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013, April). Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 170-179). ACM.
Kolowich, S. (2013). The professors who make the MOOCs. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(28), A20-A23.
Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 19-38.
Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. S. F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 74-93.
Koutropoulos, A., Gallagher, M. S., Abajian, S. C., de Waard, I., Hogue, R. J., Keskin, N. O., & Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). Emotive Vocabulary in MOOCs: Context & Participant Retention. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness: The inventory for student engagement and success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Li, N., Kidziński, Ł., Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2015). MOOC Video Interaction Patterns: What Do They Tell Us? In Design for Teaching and Learning in a Networked World (pp. 197-210). Springer International Publishing.
Li, N., Verma, H., Skevi, A., Zufferey, G., Blom, J., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). Watching MOOCs together: investigating co-located MOOC study groups. Distance Education, 35(2), 217-233.
Liyanagunawardena, T., Adams, A., & Williams, S. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 202-227.
Mackness, J., Mak, S. F. J., and Williams J. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning, University of Lancaster, United Kingdom, 266–275. Available online at http://eprints.port.ac.uk/5605/1/The_Ideals_and_Realilty_of_Participating_in_a_MOOC.pdf
Manlove, J. (1998). The influence of high school dropout and school disengagement on the risk of school-aged pregnancy. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 82, 187-220.
Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional Quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005
Marks, H . M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153-184.
Martinez, S. (2014). OCW (OpenCourseWare) and MOOC (Open Course Where?). In Proceedings of OpenCourseWare Consortium Global 2014: Open Education for a Multicultural World.
Matkin, G. W. (2013). Open Educational Resources in the Post MOOC Era. eLearn, 2013(4), 1. DOI: 10.1145/2460459.2460460
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis（2nd ed.）. New York: Sage.
Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Méndez Rodriguez, E., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2014). SPOCs for Remedial Education: Experiences at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Proc. 2nd European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261-290.
Owston, R., Lupshenyuk, D., & Wideman, H. (2011). Lecture capture in large undergraduate classes: Student perceptions and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 262-268.
Ramesh, A., Goldwasser, D., Huang, B., Daumé III, H., & Getoor, L. (2013). Modeling learner engagement in MOOCs using probabilistic soft logic. In NIPS Workshop on Data Driven Education.
Richardson, J. C., & Newby, T. (2006). The role of students' cognitive engagement in online learning. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 23-37.
Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford Like Courses- Two Successful and Distinct Course Formats for Massive Open Online Courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ982976
Russell, D. M. (2014, April). Measuring learned skill behaviors post-MOOC. In CHI'14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2233-2238). ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2559206.2581180
Saadatdoost, R., Sim, A. T. H., Jafarkarimi, H., & Mei Hee, J. (2015). Exploring MOOC from education and Information Systems perspectives: a short literature review. Educational Review, 67(4), 505-518.
Sharma, A., & Rani, R. (2014, December). A 3-level model for implementing MOOC in India. In MOOC, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), (pp. 132-137). IEEE.
Shen, L., Han, X., & Cheng, J. (2014). Post MOOC Should Eventually Be Positioned in the Systems of Open and Online Education - An Analysis of the Characteristics and Trends Reflected in the Studies on MOOCs between 2008-2014. Modern Distance Education Research, 3, 002.
Shigeta, K. (2015). Open Education Practices at Hokkaido University. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/katshige/open-education-practices-at-hokkaido-university
Siemens, G. (2012, July 25). MOOCs are really a platform. [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/
Sinha, T., Jermann, P., Li, N., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). Your click decides your fate: Inferring information processing and attrition behavior from mooc video clickstream interactions. In 2014 Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing Workshop on Modeling Large Scale Social Interaction in Massively Open Online Courses (No. EPFL-TALK-202095).
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of educational psychology, 85(4), 571.
Smith, A. (2010). Home broadband. Pew Internet & American Life Project. <http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Home-Broadband-2010.aspx>.
Spector, J. M. (2014). Remarks on MOOCS and Mini-MOOCS. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 385-392.
Stephenson, J. E., Brown, C., & Griffin, D. K. (2008). Electronic delivery of lectures in the university environment: An empirical comparison of three delivery styles. Computers & Education, 50(3), 640-651.
Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191-204.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
The New York Times (2012). The Year of the MOOC. Available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Toothaker LE. (1993). Multiple comparison procedures. London: Sage Publications.
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
Trowler, P., & Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement evidence summary. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
UNESCO (2013). Introduction to MOOCs: Avalanche, Illusion or Augmentation? Policy Brief Published by the UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education. Retrieved from http://iite.unesco.org/publications/3214722 .
Universities, U. K. (2013). Massive open online courses: Higher education's digital moment? Retrieved from http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2013/MassiveOpenOnlineCourses.pdf.
Wen, M., Yang, D., & Rosé, C. P. (2014, May). Linguistic Reflections of Student Engagement in Massive Open Online Courses. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM-14) (pp. 525-534). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI).
Wiese, C., & Newton, G. (2013). Use of Lecture Capture in Undergraduate Biological Science Education. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 4.
Winerip, M. (2012). Facing a robo-grader? Just keep obfuscating mellifluously. New York Times. Retrieved on November 06, 2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/education/robo-readers-used-to-grade-test-essays.html?pagewanted=all.
Xu, X., & Gu, X. (2015). Recasting English for Environmental Science into a SPOC—A Pilot Study in Wenzhou University. In Pacific Rim Objective Measurement Symposium (PROMS) 2014 Conference Proceedings (pp. 271-286). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Yamada, T. (2015). New Component Technologies and Development Strategies of e-Learning in MOOC and Post-MOOC Eras. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computing (pp. 387-394). Springer International Publishing.
Young, J. R. (2012, August 21). Udacity cancels free online math course, citing low quality [Blog post]. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/udacity-cancels-free-online-math-course-citing-lack-of-quality/38998
Young, S. S. C., & Ku, H. H. (2008). Pioneering the Web Enhanced Learning between Taiwan and China (WELTaC) initiative in higher education: potential and issues. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(2), 193-203.
Yu, P. T., Wang, B. Y., & Su, M. H. (2015). Lecture capture with real‐time rearrangement of visual elements: impact on student performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12109
Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. Cetis White Paper. Retrieved from http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2013/667
Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2015). Partnership Model for Entrepreneurial Innovation in Open Online Learning. eLearning papers. Retrieved from http://openeducationeuropa.eu/en/article/Innovation-entrepreneurship-and-education-In-Depth-41-3?paper=169497
Yuan, L., Powell, S., & Olivier, B. (2014). Beyond MOOCs: Sustainable online learning in institutions. Cetis. White paper. Retrieved from http://publications. cetis. ac. uk/2014/898.
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information & Management, 43(1), 15-27.
Zhang, M., Zhu, J., Zou, Y., Yan, H., Hao, D., & Liu, C. (2015, March). Educational Evaluation in the PKU SPOC Course Data Structures and Algorithms. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 237-240). ACM.
Ziebarth, S., & Hoppe, H. U. (2014). Moodle4SPOC: A Resource-Intensive Blended Learning Course. In Open Learning and Teaching in Educational Communities (pp. 359-372). Springer International Publishing.
Zutshi, S., O'Hare, S. & Rodafinos, A. (2013). Experiences in MOOCs: The Perspective of Students. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 218-227.


Chinese

Lee, Y. Y. (2015). 国内慕课 (MOOC) 研究现状述评: 热点与趋势——基于 2009—2014 年 CNKI 所刊文献关键词的共词可视化分析 [A Commentary on the MOOC research in China - based on co-word visualization analysis of CNKI literature key-words from 2009-2014]. e-Education Research, 7, 009.

Lu, D. M. (2015). 慕课对中国高等教育影响的研究 [The study of MOOC impact on Chinese Higher Education]. Instructors’ Vision: Science Research, (6), 8-11.