IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v57y2016icp55-63.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A strategy for monitoring and evaluating massive open online courses

Author

Listed:
  • Chapman, S.A.
  • Goodman, S.
  • Jawitz, J.
  • Deacon, A.

Abstract

We argue that the complex, innovative and adaptive nature of Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) initiatives poses particular challenges to monitoring and evaluation, in that any evaluation strategy will need to follow a systems approach. This article aims to guide organizations implementing MOOCs through a series of steps to assist them in developing a strategy to monitor, improve, and judge the merit of their initiatives. We describe how we operationalise our strategy by first defining the different layers of interacting agents in a given MOOC system. We then tailor our approach to these different layers. Specifically, a two-pronged approach was developed, where we suggest that individual projects be assessed through performance monitoring; assessment criteria for which would be defined at the outset to include coverage, participation, quality and student achievement. In contrast, the success of an overall initiative should be considered within a more adaptive, emergent evaluation inquiry framework. We present the inquiry framework we developed for MOOC initiatives, and show how this framework might be used to develop evaluation questions and an assessment methodology. We also define the more fixed indicators and measures for project performance monitoring. Our strategy is described as it was developed to inform the evaluation of a MOOC initiative at the University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa.

Suggested Citation

  • Chapman, S.A. & Goodman, S. & Jawitz, J. & Deacon, A., 2016. "A strategy for monitoring and evaluating massive open online courses," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 55-63.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:57:y:2016:i:c:p:55-63
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.04.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718916300970
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.04.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Honadle, Beth Walter & Zapata, Marisa A. & Auffrey, Christopher & vom Hofe, Rainer & Looye, Johanna, 2014. "Developmental evaluation and the ‘Stronger Economies Together’ initiative in the United States," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 64-72.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gregori, Pablo & Martínez, Vicente & Moyano-Fernández, Julio José, 2018. "Basic actions to reduce dropout rates in distance learning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 48-52.
    2. Chesniak, Olivia M. & Drane, Denise & Young, Celine & Hokanson, Sarah Chobot & Goldberg, Bennett B, 2021. "Theory of change models deepen online learning evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Francisco Gómez Gómez & Pilar Munuera Gómez, 2021. "Use of MOOCs in Health Care Training: A Descriptive-Exploratory Case Study in the Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shea, Jennifer & Taylor, Tory, 2017. "Using developmental evaluation as a system of organizational learning: An example from San Francisco," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 84-93.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:57:y:2016:i:c:p:55-63. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.