Online Course Quality Evaluation Based on BERT

Author(s):  
Ya Zhou ◽  
Meng Li
Author(s):  
Khe Foon Hew ◽  
Chen Qiao ◽  
Ying Tang

Although massive open online courses (MOOCs) have attracted much worldwide attention, scholars still understand little about the specific elements that students find engaging in these large open courses. This study offers a new original contribution by using a machine learning classifier to analyze 24,612 reflective sentences posted by 5,884 students, who participated in one or more of 18 highly rated MOOCs. Highly rated MOOCs were sampled because they exemplify good practices or teaching strategies. We selected highly rated MOOCs from Coursetalk, an open user-driven aggregator and discovery website that allows students to search and review various MOOCs. We defined a highly rated MOOC as a free online course that received an overall five-star course quality rating, and received at least 50 reviews from different learners within a specific subject area. We described six specific themes found across the entire data corpus: (a) structure and pace, (b) video, (c) instructor, (d) content and resources, (e) interaction and support, and (f) assignment and assessment. The findings of this study provide valuable insight into factors that students find engaging in large-scale open online courses.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Whitney Zimmerman ◽  
Barbara Altman ◽  
Bethany Simunich ◽  
Kay Shattuck ◽  
Barbra Burch

This study examined the relationship of intentional faculty professional development, intentional online course design, and informal course reviews to the results of official interinstitutional peer review within higher education institutions. Quality MattersTM (QM) provided the setting for this exploration of the relationship of three independent variables at the course level at institutions that have voluntarily implemented QM online learning quality assurance tools and processes. Data for this study were extracted from a larger statistical project conducted regularly by QM, which included the results of 5,436 online course reviews completed between September 2014 and May 2020 at 360 institutions. These courses were assessed for meeting quality standards in structured, interinstitutional, reviews, conducted by three faculty peer reviewers. QM provided the setting and data for this study; however, the study was not about QM. Instead, it was about exploring the relationships of variables within an institution’s control in the quest for benchmarking and improving online learning. Having and disseminating online course quality standards does not ensure implementation of those standards and quality assurance processes. This observational study provides a better understanding of how the implementation of those standards and quality assurance processes might impact outcomes.


Author(s):  
Marc R. Robinson

Student perceptions of online courses are likely influenced by two overarching aspects of quality: instructor quality and course design quality (Ortiz-Rodriguez, Telg, Irani, Roberts & Rhoades, 2005). Both of these forces in online education may be analyzed using a well-known model of instructional design - Gagnés instructional design and cognition theory, the centerpiece of which are the nine events of instruction (Gagné, Wager, Golas, & Keller, 2004). Multiple studies positively correlate learner attitudes and perceptions of the online course to instructor quality. Early studies evaluating instructor quality attempted to correlate instructor quality with the attitude and perception of the learner, but not directly to learner success or course design quality. Researchers of online courses, such as Palloff & Pratt (2003), discussed the role of the instructor in depth while neglecting the roles of the learner, the institution, and course design. The main focus remained instructor-centered, and highlighted key instructor tasks such as understanding the virtual learner in terms of roles the learner plays, fostering team roles for the learner, designing an effective course orientation, and identifying potential legal issues the instructor might face (Palloff & Pratt, 2002, p. 16). A distant secondary focus was on effective course design. This highlighted instructor tasks in building an effective online learning community without highlighting the roles effective communication tools would play.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document