Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences

Published by: Kowsar

Evaluating Instructional Design Quality of Iranian MOOCs Based on Merrill’s and Margaryan’s Principles

Mehdi Badali 1 , Javad Hatami 1 , * , Hashem Fardanesh 1 and Omid Noroozi 2
Authors Information
1 Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Faculty Member of Educational Technology, Wageningen University and Research, the Netherlands
Article information
  • Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences: 9 (4); e81623
  • Published Online: December 19, 2018
  • Article Type: Research Article
  • Received: July 2, 2018
  • Revised: November 21, 2018
  • Accepted: November 24, 2018
  • DOI: 10.5812/ijvlms.81623

To Cite: Badali M, Hatami J, Fardanesh H, Noroozi O. Evaluating Instructional Design Quality of Iranian MOOCs Based on Merrill’s and Margaryan’s Principles, Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci. Online ahead of Print ; 9(4):e81623. doi: 10.5812/ijvlms.81623.

Abstract
Copyright © 2018, Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Background
2. Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
Footnotes
References
  • 1. Tawfik AA, Reeves TD, Stich AE, Gill A, Hong C, McDade J, et al. Erratum to: The nature and level of learner–learner interaction in a chemistry massive open online course (MOOC). J Comp High Educ. 2017;29(3):432-3. doi: 10.1007/s12528-017-9144-2.
  • 2. de Freitas SI, Morgan J, Gibson D. Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. Brit J Educ Technol. 2015;46(3):455-71. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12268.
  • 3. Rieber LP. Participation patterns in a massive open online course (MOOC) about statistics. Brit J Educ Technol. 2017;48(6):1295-304. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12504.
  • 4. Yuan L, Powell S. MOOCs and disruptive innovation: Implications for higher education. Depth. 2013;33(2):1-7.
  • 5. Yousef AM, Chatti MA, Wosnitza M, Schroeder U. A cluster analysis of MOOCs stakeholder perspectives. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2015;12(1):74-90.
  • 6. Alharbi H, Jacobsen M. A proposed framework for designing MOOCs based on the learning sciences and the first principles of instruction. Thannual, 212. 2014;2(4):17-29.
  • 7. Shah N. Of heathens, perverts and stalkers: The imagined learner in MOOCs. The Europa world of learning. London: Routledge; 2015. p. 21-5.
  • 8. Rezaei E, Zaraii Zavaraki S, Hatami J, Ali Abadi K, Delavar A. [Development of MOOCs instructional design model based on connectivism learning theory]. J Med Educ Dev. 2017;12((1 and 2)):65-86. Persian.
  • 9. Garcia-Penalvo FJ, Fidalgo-Blanco A, Sein-Echaluce ML. An adaptive hybrid MOOC model: Disrupting the MOOC concept in higher education. Telemat Info. 2018;35(4):1018-30. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.012.
  • 10. Liyanagunawardena TR, Adams AA, Williams SA. MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. Int Rev Res Open Distribut Learn. 2013;14(3):202-27. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455.
  • 11. Fini A. The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08 course tools. Int Rev Res Open Distribut Learn. 2009;10(5). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v10i5.643.
  • 12. Kop R. The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. Int Rev Res Open Distribut Learn. 2011;12(3):19-38. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.882.
  • 13. Kop R, Fournier H, Mak JSF. A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. Int Rev Res Open Distribut Learn. 2011;12(7):74-93. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v12i7.1041.
  • 14. Salmon G, Pechenkina E, Chase AM, Ross B. Designing massive open online courses to take account of participant motivations and expectations. Brit J Educ Technol. 2017;48(6):1284-94. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12497.
  • 15. Margaryan A, Bianco M, Littlejohn A. Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Comp Educ. 2015;80:77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005.
  • 16. Gardner JL. Testing the efficacy of Merrill’s first principles of instruction in improving student performance in introductory biology courses. [dissertation]. Utah State University; 2011.
  • 17. Teimury A, Badali M, Zarei M, Zavarakim E. Investigating the efficacy of merrill's first principles of instruction on the students' learning and retention. New Educ Thought. 2013;9(4):57-75.
  • 18. de Melo BC, Falbo AR, Muijtjens AM, van der Vleuten CP, van Merrienboer JJ. The use of instructional design guidelines to increase effectiveness of postpartum hemorrhage simulation training. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;137(1):99-105. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12084. [PubMed: 28090643].
  • 19. Merrill MD. First principles of instruction. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2002;50(3):43-59. doi: 10.1007/BF02505024.
  • 20. Faradanesh H. Theoretical foundations of educational technology. Tehran: SAMT; 2014.
  • 21. Merrill MD. First principles of instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer; 2013. doi: 10.1057/kmrp.2013.58.
  • 22. Margaryan A, Boursinou E, Lukic D, Zwart H. Narrating Your Work: An approach to supporting knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Knowl Manag Res Pract. 2015;13(4):391-400. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.014.
  • 23. Johnson TE, Archibald TN, Tenenbaum G. Individual and team annotation effects on students’ reading comprehension, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive skills. Comp Hum Behav. 2010;26(6):1496-507. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n2p313.
  • 24. Jalilehvand M. Study the impact of Merrill’s first principles of instruction on students’ creativity. Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2016;7(2):313.
  • 25. Adelipoor Z, Karami M. Evaluating the quality of educational software for elementary school based Merrill's first instructional principles. Train Eval Educ Sci. 2015;8(32):91-79.
  • 26. Seyf A. Educational measuring and evaluation. Tehran: Doran; 2017.
  • 27. Marzano RJ, Pickering DJ. Special topic: The case for and against homework. Educ Leadership. 2007;64(6):74-9.
Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .

Search Relations:

Author(s):

Article(s):

Create Citiation Alert
via Google Reader

Readers' Comments