IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i20p11163-d652819.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Construction of the Quality Evaluation Index System of MOOC Platforms Based on the User Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Pei-Yao Su

    (Faculty of Education, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350117, China)

  • Jing-Hong Guo

    (College of Chinese Language and Literature, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350117, China)

  • Qi-Gan Shao

    (School of Economics & Management, Xiamen University of Technology, Xiamen 361024, China)

Abstract

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have become a mainstream form of online learning. At present, various countries are vigorously developing MOOC platforms, which provide a helpful platform for people to acquire knowledge and skills. However, the quality of each MOOC platform is different, which is a challenge for learners seeking excellent courses. Since the evaluation of MOOC quality is a multiple criteria decision-making issue, it is important to find the major dimensions and criteria that determine the quality of platforms. This paper determines the weight of each dimension and criterion by using the best worst method (BWM). The results indicate that content accuracy has the greatest impact on MOOC quality. This paper selected five well-known domestic MOOC websites as research objects and used the VIKOR analysis method to rank the platform quality of the five chosen websites. The results show that IMOOC and Xuedong are ranked as the top two websites. This research result helps learners deepen their understanding of MOOC platforms and can serve as a reference for MOOC platforms to improve their quality. Techniques to reduce the uncertainty of expert judgments (such as rough sets, fuzzy theory, grey correlation, etc.) and models that clarify the influence relationship between criteria (DEMATEL-ANP) can be applied in future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Pei-Yao Su & Jing-Hong Guo & Qi-Gan Shao, 2021. "Construction of the Quality Evaluation Index System of MOOC Platforms Based on the User Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11163-:d:652819
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11163/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11163/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nastaran Chitsaz & Mohammad Banihabib, 2015. "Comparison of Different Multi Criteria Decision-Making Models in Prioritizing Flood Management Alternatives," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2503-2525, June.
    2. Peipei You & Sen Guo & Haoran Zhao & Huiru Zhao, 2017. "Operation Performance Evaluation of Power Grid Enterprise Using a Hybrid BWM-TOPSIS Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Geerten Van de Kaa & Daniel Scholten & Jafar Rezaei & Christine Milchram, 2017. "The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, October.
    4. Shojaei, Payam & Seyed Haeri, Seyed Amin & Mohammadi, Sahar, 2018. "Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function, best-worst method and VIKOR technique," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 4-13.
    5. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    6. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    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. Talieh Abdolkhaninezhad & Masoud Monavari & Nematollah Khorasani & Maryam Robati & Forogh Farsad, 2022. "Analysis Indicators of Health-Safety in the Risk Assessment of Landfill with the Combined Method of Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making and Bow Tie Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-24, November.

    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. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    2. Mališa Žižović & Dragan Pamučar & Goran Ćirović & Miodrag M. Žižović & Boža D. Miljković, 2020. "A Model for Determining Weight Coefficients by Forming a Non-Decreasing Series at Criteria Significance Levels (NDSL)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    3. van de Kaa, G. & Fens, T. & Rezaei, J. & Kaynak, D. & Hatun, Z. & Tsilimeni-Archangelidi, A., 2019. "Realizing smart meter connectivity: Analyzing the competing technologies Power line communication, mobile telephony, and radio frequency using the best worst method," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 320-327.
    4. Mu-Hsin Chang & James J. H. Liou & Huai-Wei Lo, 2019. "A Hybrid MCDM Model for Evaluating Strategic Alliance Partners in the Green Biopharmaceutical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, July.
    5. Sen Guo & Wenyue Zhang & Xiao Gao, 2020. "Business Risk Evaluation of Electricity Retail Company in China Using a Hybrid MCDM Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Fumin Deng & Yanjie Li & Huirong Lin & Jinrui Miao & Xuedong Liang, 2020. "A BWM-TOPSIS Hazardous Waste Inventory Safety Risk Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-18, August.
    7. Haoran Zhao & Huiru Zhao & Sen Guo, 2018. "Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of Electricity Grid Corporations Employing a Novel MCDM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-23, June.
    8. Yan Tu & Kai Chen & Huayi Wang & Zongmin Li, 2020. "Regional Water Resources Security Evaluation Based on a Hybrid Fuzzy BWM-TOPSIS Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-24, July.
    9. Kheybari, Siamak & Kazemi, Mostafa & Rezaei, Jafar, 2019. "Bioethanol facility location selection using best-worst method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 612-623.
    10. Maghsoud Amiri & Mohammad Hashemi-Tabatabaei & Mohammad Ghahremanloo & Mehdi Keshavarz-Ghorabaee & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2021. "Evaluating Life Cycle of Buildings Using an Integrated Approach Based on Quantitative-Qualitative and Simplified Best-Worst Methods (QQM-SBWM)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-28, April.
    11. Shojaei, Payam & Seyed Haeri, Seyed Amin & Mohammadi, Sahar, 2018. "Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function, best-worst method and VIKOR technique," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 4-13.
    12. Dragan Pamučar & Fatih Ecer & Goran Cirovic & Melfi A. Arlasheedi, 2020. "Application of Improved Best Worst Method (BWM) in Real-World Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-19, August.
    13. Gholamreza Haseli & Reza Sheikh & Jianqiang Wang & Hana Tomaskova & Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, 2021. "A Novel Approach for Group Decision Making Based on the Best–Worst Method (G-BWM): Application to Supply Chain Management," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-20, August.
    14. van de Kaa, Geerten & van Ek, Martijn & Kamp, Linda M. & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Wind turbine technology battles: Gearbox versus direct drive - opening up the black box of technology characteristics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    15. Chand, Pushpendu & Thakkar, Jitesh J. & Ghosh, Kunal Kanti, 2020. "Analysis of supply chain performance metrics for Indian mining & earthmoving equipment manufacturing companies using hybrid MCDM model," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    16. James J. H. Liou & Perry C. Y. Liu & Huai-Wei Lo, 2020. "A Failure Mode Assessment Model Based on Neutrosophic Logic for Switched-Mode Power Supply Risk Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    17. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    18. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    19. Ravindra Singh Saluja & Varinder Singh, 2023. "Attribute-based characterization, coding, and selection of joining processes using a novel MADM approach," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(2), pages 616-655, June.
    20. Junli Zhang & Guoteng Wang & Zheng Xu & Zheren Zhang, 2022. "A Comprehensive Evaluation Method and Strengthening Measures for AC/DC Hybrid Power Grids," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-20, June.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11163-:d:652819. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.