Recognition and Assessment of MOOC Ethical Features (Course & Massive)

Authors
Akbar Jadidi Mohammadabadi 1
Akbar Rezaei 2
1 Assistant Professor of Educational Sciences, Payame Noor University, p.0.box1935-4697, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Payame Noor University, p.o.box. 19395-4697, Tehran, Iran
10.52547/erj.7.41.4
Abstract
This study was designed as an embedded mixed model research to identify and evaluate the ethical features of MOOC (course & massive). For this purpose, both heuristic inquiry method and the questionnaire method were applied to obtain and analyze the data. At the primary stage. The research sample in the qualitative section of the electronic resources related to the topic and in the quantitative section 36 of the experts in planning distance education in virtual learning environments and virtual universities were selected voluntarily. To analyze the qualitative data, content analysis method and the content of the content ratio, weighted average and Friedman test were used to analyze the survey data. Content analysis results showed 4 dimensions and 15 criteria. The qualitative and qualitative outcomes of MOOC's ethics show that the impact of each dimension of the learner, the content, Teaching organization, and Educational environment of the MOOC are similar to face-to-face training, and does not require new moral features. In the quantitative outcomes, the course & massive features of MOOC should be of special interest in the dimensions of the teaching organization, the content and the Educational environment, because this type of training is carried out both by a wide range of the learners and at regular times, then the learner and the teaching organization are also important. These results suggest that special attention should be paid to the dimensions of the learner and the teaching organization of the learning in order to hold the massive features of the MOOC (widespread, pervasive and regular and time-consuming), and the national and international ethical standards should be considered and at the level of the supra Enormous to be addressed, Because the ethics of classroom attendance are carried out at the micro and native level, but in these classes, national and international ethics are applied and applied extensively.
Keywords
Recognition and Assessment of MOOC ethical features
course
massive
Bates T. (2016), Teaching in a digital age: guidelines for designing teaching and learning.
Blakester L, Hughes Ch, & Tate M. (2017), How to research? (J. Ebrahimzadeh, A. Farahani, & M. R. Sarmadi, Trans.): Payame Noor University.
Bonk C J, Lee M M, Reeves T C & Reynolds T H. (2015), MOOCs and Open Education Around the World: Routledge; 1 edition (June 12).
Brockett R G. (2004), Toward ethical practice. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co.
Chaney B H. (2006), History, theory, and quality indicators of distance education: A literature review.
Creswell J. (2012), Educational Research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Fourth indian edition. Delhi, India: phi learning private limited.
Díaz P. (2003), Usability of hypermedia educational e-books. D-Lib magazine; 9(3). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march03/diaz/03diaz.html.
Djuraskovic I, Arthur N. (2010), Heuristic inquiry: a personal journey of acculturation and identity reconstruction. In qualitative report; 15(6): 1569–1593.
Douglass B, Moustakas C. (2016), Heuristic inquiry. The internal search to know. In journal of humanistic psychology; 25 (3): 39–55. Doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022167885253004 Downes S. (2014), The MOOC of One.
Engle W. (2014), UBC Mooc pilot : design and delivery overview. UBC Community and Partner Publications. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0107914
Esposito A. (2012), Research Ethics in Emerging Forms of Online Learning: Issues Arising from a Hypothetical Study on a MOOC. Electronic Journal of e-Learning;10(3), 315-325.
Gearhart D. (2001), Ethics in distance education: Developing ethical policies. Online J Dis Learn Adm; 4(1).
Gordon W, & Sork T. J, (2001), Adult Education Quarterly. Ethical issues and codes of ethics: Views of adult education practitioners in Canada and the United States; 51(3), 202-218.
Gore H. (2014), Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and Their Impact on Academic Library Services: Exploring the Issues and Challenges. New Review of Academic Librarianship; 20(1), 4–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2013.851609.
Hasson F, Keeney S, Mckenna. H, (2000), Research guidelines for the delphi survey technique. In journal of advanced nursing; 32 (4): 1008–1015. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x.
Hiles D. (2007), Heuristic inquiry and transpersonal research. Annual meeting of the centre for counselling and psychotherapy education. Retrieved october. London.
Inouye D K, Merrill P F, & Swan R. H J, (2005), IDT Record. Help: toward a new ethics-centered paradigm for instructional design and technology. 1-27.
Jadidi Mohammadabadi A. Sarmadi M. Farajollahi M. Zare H. (2019), Identification and Evaluation of the Features of the Epistemology of the MOOC (Open and Online). Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences. March; 10(1). doi: 10.5812/ijvlms.83757.
Moore M G. (2013), Handbook of distance education: Routledge.
Rahmati H, Shahriari H. (2017), Moral Necessities of Content Filtering and Refinement in Cyberspace. Scientific Journal Management System; 7(1): p.145–70. [Persian]. Available from: URL: http://ethics.isramags.ir/article
Rastegarpour H, Movahedi F, Barkhordari Z. (2016), Ethical Responsibilities of Instructional Design and Technology Discipline. Human Information Interaction; 2(4): p.52–63.
Temli Y, Sen D, & Akar H. (2011), A Study on Primary Classroom and Social Studies Teachers' Perceptions of Moral Education and Their Development and Learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice; 11(4), 2061-2067.
Wilson D, Callaghan T, & Honore S. (2000), e-Learning the future of learning. Elearnity White Paper.