International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)

Vol. 13, No. 6, December 2024, pp. 3732~3740

ISSN: 2252-8822, DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v13i6.28161  3732

Implementing an online course in the MOOC environment with

a focus on science and mathematics education

Julia Kazakova1, Elena Shastina2, Ilzira Gibadulina3

1
Department of English Philology and Cross-Cultural Communications, Kazan Federal University, Yelabuga, Russia
2
Department of German Philology, Kazan Federal University, Yelabuga, Russia
3
Department of Biology and Chemistry, Kazan Federal University, Yelabuga, Russia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: The study focused on the development and evaluation of an online course in
the massive open online courses (MOOC) environment, specifically
Received Jul 27, 2023 targeting science and mathematics education. The goal was to utilize
Revised Apr 11, 2024 pedagogical design principles, particularly those derived from the analysis,
Accepted May 9, 2024 design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE) model, to
create an effective learning experience for students in different years of
study. The online course was hosted on the edX platform, which is a popular
Keywords: platform for MOOCs. The assessment of the online course covered various
criteria: interface, interaction, and design. The criteria of interface,
ADDIE model interaction, and design received high marks from students of the two groups.
EdX The study found that the participants were highly engaged during the
Massive open online courses training, which is a positive outcome. The analysis of interest in online
Science and math education learning among first- and fourth-year students shows that first-year students
Self-study had an average level of interest in online learning of 4.50 with a standard
deviation of 0.32. Fourth-year students had an average level of interest of
4.45 with a slightly larger standard deviation of 0.41. Student engagement is
an important factor in effective learning, as it reflects their active
involvement and motivation in the learning process.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Julia Kazakova
Department of English Philology and Cross-Cultural Communications, Kazan Federal University
Kazanskaya Str., 89, Yelabuga 423600, Russia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Initially, massive open online courses (MOOCs) provided open access to all participants; this was
their core concept [1]. Although the advantages of these benefits are extensively expounded, an increasing
volume of criticism has emerged, primarily centered around the aspects of providing feedback and assessing
students [2]. MOOCs have indeed gained significant attention as a learning approach in higher education,
leveraging new technologies to make education more accessible. One of the key advantages of MOOCs is
their availability through the internet, allowing learners to access a wide range of courses conveniently. The
fact that most MOOCs are offered for free further enhances their accessibility and removes financial barriers
that may limit participation. To enroll in a MOOC, learners typically only need access to the internet and an
email address to register for the course [3]. Platforms such as Udacity, edX, and Coursera have gained
significant popularity as leading providers of MOOCs. One of the primary reasons why MOOCs have
become a popular choice among students is the low cost associated with these courses. Unlike traditional
educational programs, MOOCs often offer free registration and participation, allowing learners to access
high-quality educational content without the financial burden of tuition fees [4].

Journal homepage: http://ijere.iaescore.com

Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3733

Numerous studies have indeed focused on the challenges students face in learning science and
mathematics disciplines. One study highlighted the persistent issue of students’ low ability to solve problems
effectively, specifically in terms of translating and interpreting abstract concepts into tangible forms such as
language, tables, graphs, and mathematical symbols accompanied by numerical representations. This finding
suggests that students encounter difficulties when it comes to applying their mathematical skills to practical
problem-solving scenarios [5]. Managing students' learning environments involves shifting the focus from
traditional teaching styles to understanding and addressing students’ learning behaviors. Recognizing the
importance of this shift, instructors are encouraged to adopt new methods and approaches that foster active
engagement and promote higher-level thinking skills among students. MOOCs have emerged as a promising
tool in this regard. Aparicio et al. [6] highlights the potential of MOOCs in promoting higher-level thinking
skills among students. The problems with MOOCs are high dropout rates (approximately 95%), difficulty in
conducting student assessments, and the provision of feedback by an instructor [7]. The study of the quality
of educational service delivery in MOOCs requires proper attention. When developing and implementing
MOOCs, certain criteria need to be taken into account. Effective MOOCs are characterized by quality
learning analytics and an independent evaluation procedure for participants [8].

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Numerous researchers have explored the subject of MOOC development; however, a definitive
technological and pedagogical definition for designing a high-quality course environment remains elusive
[9]. There are two main approaches in online courses: the connectivist one is based on the principles of
innovative technologies in pedagogy within the framework of a social learning regimen with a
well-developed internet network and database. In turn, the institution-centric (xMOOC) focus is on the
organization of the learning process with social contacts, video lectures, and automated assessment [10]. This
classification is fixed in a binary system. This system offers a rather primitive shorthand for describing the
origins of MOOCs and pedagogy. The connectivist approach was originally introduced at the beginning of
the use of courses available to the masses. Its purpose is to examine the principles of “connectivism” and
provide an interpretation of the learning process in environments characterized by extensive networks [11].
The first connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs) were designed to stimulate unifying processes, forming and
exchanging information among groups that were divided and trained online. Courses like cMOOCs are
structured in such a way as to be able to provide central control, and also, to develop the capacity of
participants to contribute to digital technologies. Probably, the “mass character” of these areas is more related
to the possibility of quantitative connections, the organization of the content, and the activity of students in
these programs than to the number of participants [12].
The term xMOOC is a modern course classification framework offered on platforms such as edX and
Coursera [13]. The main advantage of using this approach is that it is scalable, and can meet the educational
needs of many people. For example, one MOOC had 226,652 students [14]. This possibility is important for
large MOOCs, whose main purpose is to provide global access to education. The cMOOC/xMOOC binary
concept provides a useful framework for understanding the different development trajectories and philosophies
behind two distinct types of MOOCs: cMOOCs and extended MOOCs (xMOOCs). The new literature is
increasingly moving away from a simplified version of categorization and is moving towards a discussion of
the practical use of online courses and empowerment for learners [15], [16]. Oversimplified categorization of
MOOCs can lead to distortions and limitations in understanding their dynamics and potential. MOOCs are
complex and multifaceted learning environments that can vary in terms of pedagogical approaches, learner
interactions, and the role of instructors. Watson et al. [17] highlight the potential drawbacks of
oversimplification in categorizing MOOCs. Rieber [18] points out the need for more research to explore the
institutional factors, opportunities, and challenges associated with MOOC implementation.
In MOOCs, the role traditionally attributed to a teacher is largely assumed by a set of automated
procedures encompassing diverse automatically evaluated assessments and message detection algorithms.
The notion of minimal participation in MOOCs refers to the limited opportunities for active engagement and
interaction within the learning environment [19]. This perspective is supported by cMOOC theorists, who
emphasize the importance of learner autonomy, self-directed learning, and networked connections in MOOCs
[20]. They argue that the pedagogy of MOOCs is not solely encapsulated in the platform itself but rather
emerges from the connections and interactions among learners, resources, and networks [20]. The Coursera
website presents detailed descriptions of the pedagogical foundations, often without presenting the
differences between course design and platform design. For example, Coursera's design often uses a variety
of interactive exercises [21]. Certain studies have raised critiques regarding the notion of minimal teacher
participation, arguing that the social presence of an instructor holds significance in attaining favorable
learning outcomes attributable to the intricacies of students' cognitive engagement [22].

Implementing an online course in the MOOC environment with a focus on science and … (Julia Kazakova)
3734  ISSN: 2252-8822

The role of a teacher in MOOCs has received relatively little attention in comparison to the
extensive focus on learner perspectives and experiences [23], [24]. This challenge arises due to the diversity
of participants in each specific MOOC, who are actively involved in various activities. Thus, the present
practice must include nuance, strategy, and dynamics [25]. For educators of different institutions, and
scholars, this is a problem, as they are used to apply “ending” as a boundary of stability for the success of
educational offerings. It is misleading and inaccurate to rely solely on formal completion rates as a measure
of the quality of MOOCs or the experience of test takers. These rates are typically below 10% and do not
provide a comprehensive picture of engagement and learning outcomes.
In free courses, the selection barrier for participants is low, so a sufficient number of people enroll
and do not complete the course. For fee-paying institutions, this practice is quite unusual. Because the
behaviors and intentions of course participants are very different from one another, new measures of success
and quality of learning need to be applied [26], [27]. Discussion forums in MOOCs serve as an indicator to
assess the level of engagement and success within the courses. However, the use of forums can significantly
vary depending on the specific context of each MOOC. Such factors as course topic, instructor facilitation,
participant demographics, and cultural differences can influence the level of activity and effectiveness of
forums as a learning tool. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the specific context and characteristics of
each MOOC when interpreting the significance of participation in discussion forums as an indicator of
engagement and success. When MOOCs are supplementary materials for traditional classroom courses,
students may interact less frequently or completely refrain from participating in these discussion forums. This
could be attributed to the fact that their participation in the MOOC is not a requirement for their enrollment
in the face-to-face course. Davis et al. [28] highlights this phenomenon and suggests that the availability of
MOOCs as optional resources in face-to-face courses may impact students' motivation and engagement in
utilizing the forums.
Most MOOC platforms produce large amounts of data that denote complex models of participation
in MOOCs. It is imperative to conduct a comprehensive exploration, analysis, and discourse on these models
while also considering their visualization [29]. the field of learning analytics is still relatively new, and its
full potential and impact on teaching and learning are still being explored. Learning analytics involves the
collection, analysis, and interpretation of learner data to gain insights into learning processes and outcomes. It
aims to inform instructional decisions, improve educational practices, and enhance the learning experience.
These ideas are relevant in completely different learning contexts. Learning analytics is promising for
MOOC research and development because critical questions need to be asked [30].
The main purpose of this research is to develop and implement an online course in the MOOC
environment. In particular, the course should focus on natural science and mathematics education for first-
and fourth-year students. Thus, the research objectives of the study were: i) develop and implement an online
course in natural sciences and mathematics education; ii) evaluate the use of the online course by conducting
surveys among first- and fourth-year students; and iii) assess the activity level in studying the online module
by students of two different academic years.

3. METHOD
3.1. Study participants
For the study, a total of 60 students from Kazan Federal University were selected as participants.
Half of the students (30 people) studied in the first year; another 30 studied in the fourth. The participants had
an average age of 21 years, indicating that they were in the early stages of their higher education journey.
The online course developed as part of the study was conducted over a period of six months.

3.2. Research instruments

The utilization of the analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE)
model in research demonstrates a systematic approach to instructional design and development. The ADDIE
model is widely recognized as a systematic instructional design system that facilitates a structured process for
creating an effective learning experience. In this study, the ADDIE model was utilized as a framework,
comprising five distinct phases: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation.
During the analysis phase of the study, the necessary data was collected to understand the context,
goals, and objectives of the project. This information helps to shape the subsequent design phase. The design
phase encompassed several essential steps that determined the groundwork for developing module content.
These steps include the initial setup, checklist creation, defining deliverables (such as course objectives and
learning outcomes), storyboarding, determining content layout, and designing the module's appearance.
During the development phase of the study, the module content was created and prepared for
implementation. Thus, a total of seven videos were uploaded to the open learning platform, and each of the

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 6, December 2024: 3732-3740
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3735

videos corresponded to a specific chapter of the module and course. The videos were designed to present the
content in an engaging and visually appealing manner. In terms of visual design, different color schemes and
bright backgrounds were used to make the fonts and animations stand out. This choice of design elements
helps to capture the learners' attention and maintain their interest throughout the videos. The animated videos
for each chapter were kept relatively short, around 5 minutes in duration. This duration is often considered
effective for online learning as it allows for concise and focused content delivery, keeping the learners'
attention and preventing information overload. To enhance the learning experience, the videos were
accompanied by sound. The audio component adds an auditory dimension to the visual presentation, making
the content more dynamic and engaging. The development stage was followed by the innovative module that
implied placing the content on the edX platform as an online course. This platform provided a suitable
environment for delivering the course content and facilitating student participation.
During the implementation stage, the materials and resources created in the previous phases were
made accessible to the intended group of students. This allowed the developers to test the functionality,
validity, and reliability of the materials within the online course. To evaluate the effectiveness and user
experience of online courses, the study used a questionnaire filled out by 60 students. These students have
already completed the online course. The questionnaire covered five categories: interface, interaction, design,
benefit, and value of information. Each category aimed to gather feedback and insights from the students
regarding their experience with the course. A Likert-type scale was utilized in the questionnaire, which is a
commonly used survey rating scale. It allows respondents to indicate their level of agreement or
disagreement with a series of statements or criteria related to the different aspects of the course. By using this
scale, the developers could gather quantitative data and measure the students' perceptions and satisfaction
with the various elements of the online course.

3.3. Statistical analysis

To ensure the reliability of the questionnaire used in the study, the researchers calculated the
Pearson correlation coefficient. The obtained value of 0.83 indicates a high level of correlation among the
questionnaire items, suggesting that the questionnaire is consistent and reliable for measuring the intended
constructs. The use of a statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) version 25.0 for data analysis adds
to the rigor and objectivity of the study.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the study. The relatively short duration of the study
may have restricted the depth and breadth of the findings, potentially limiting the understanding of the
long-term impact of the online course. Additionally, the low sample size might affect the generalizability of
the results to a larger population. Imperfections in the ADDIE model, which served as the basis for course
development, could have influenced the effectiveness of the online course. The researchers might consider
addressing these imperfections in future iterations of the course.

4. RESULTS
The evaluation of the online course involved the assessment of five categories: interface usability,
interactivity, design, usefulness, and information importance. These categories aimed to provide a
comprehensive understanding of the online course's effectiveness and user satisfaction. The specific
evaluation criteria and corresponding results are presented in Table 1 to Table 3: interface (Table 1),
interaction (Table 2), and design (Table 3).
In general, the participants positively assessed the course interface, which received high scores for
all features. Students especially appreciated the functionality of the options button, rating it as the highest
with a score of 4.35 (from first-year students) and 4.38 points (from fourth-year students). This indicates that
the option button was well-received and considered useful by the students. The positive feedback regarding
the course interface suggests that it was user-friendly, intuitive, and provided a satisfying user experience.
The high ratings reflect the successful design and implementation of the interface, meeting the expectations
and needs of the students.

Table 1. Evaluating interface usability

1st-year students (n=30) 4th-year students (n=30)
No. Item
Mean Mean
1 The content of the short notes and videos is easy to understand 4.20 4.18
2 Easier access to the module with the navigation menu 4.21 4.20
3 The options in the navigation menu are clear 4.24 4.26
4 Option button is functional 4.35 4.38
5 This application is easy to manage and access 4.33 4.31
Total 4.26 4.26

Implementing an online course in the MOOC environment with a focus on science and … (Julia Kazakova)
3736  ISSN: 2252-8822

Table 2. Evaluating interactivity

1st-year students (n=30) 4th-year students (n=30)
No. Item
Mean Mean
1 The app element is very interactive in terms of videos and notes 4.39 4.37
2 The online module created is interesting for you 4.18 4.15
3 The amount of multimedia in each topic is sufficient 4.34 4.32
4 Everyone can interact with each other on this module page, such as
4.44 4.40
sharing information and their point of view
5 A student can get an immediate result of a test paper or lesson 4.25 4.27
Total 4.32 4.30

Students of the two groups evaluated the online course as highly interactive, indicating its effective
engagement in their learning process. This suggests that the course incorporated interactive elements, such as
various color schemes and vibrant backgrounds to enhance font and animation visibility, as well as animated
video clips that contributed to student participation and involvement. The elevated rating in this category
reflects the positive perception among students regarding the course's interactivity and its ability to sustain
their engagement in the learning process.
Furthermore, the students expressed a high level of interest in the online module, rating it with a
score of 4.18 and 4.15. This indicates that the course content and activities captured their attention and
sparked their curiosity. The positive evaluations of interactivity and interest indicate that the online course
successfully employed interactive elements and engaging content, contributing to a positive learning
experience for the students.

Table 3. Design evaluation

1st-year students (n=30) 4th-year students (n=30)
No. Item
Mean Mean
1 The font size is easy to read 4.46 4.31
2 The image quality is clear 4.15 4.21
3 Sound quality is clear and audible 4.31 4.39
4 Each video can be conveniently accessed and viewed 4.02 4.00
5 Video animation is attractive 4.30 4.15
Total 4.25 4.21

The course design plays a crucial role in creating a visually appealing and user-friendly learning
environment. According to the feedback from the first-year students, they were particularly attracted to the
size of the font used in the online course, which received a high rating – 4.46. This suggests that the font size
was appropriately chosen and contributed to easy readability, enhancing the overall learning experience for the
students. For fourth-year students, the sound quality was important: they rated it with 4.39 points. However,
there were some issues reported regarding access to videos, resulting in a lower score for this aspect from both
groups of students (4.02 and 4.00, respectively). Difficulties in accessing videos can hinder the student's ability
to fully engage with the multimedia content and may have caused some frustration or inconvenience.
Table 4 demonstrates the interest in online learning among students in two different years of study.
The data show that first-year students had an average interest in online learning of 4.50 with a standard
deviation of 0.32. The average interest of fourth-year students was 4.45 with a slightly larger standard
deviation of 0.41. A value of p<0.05 indicates that differences in interest between first- and fourth-year
students are statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05. Thus, the results suggest a slight difference
in interest in online learning among first- and fourth-year students. Statistical differences between groups of
students were also confirmed.

Table 4. The interest in online learning of students (first and fourth year of study)
Year of study The interest in online learning
М SD
1st year students (30 people) 4.50 0.32
4th year students (30 people) 4.45 0.41
Note: p<0.05

The lower rating for the video-related item could potentially be attributed to issues with the internet
connection at the university, as mentioned in the study. Unstable and limited internet connectivity could have
impacted students' ability to access and view the videos effectively, leading to lower satisfaction in this

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 6, December 2024: 3732-3740
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3737

aspect. The findings highlight the importance of addressing technical challenges, such as internet
connectivity, to enhance the overall learning experience of students in online courses. By improving the
stability and accessibility of resources, such as videos, universities can better support students' engagement
and comprehension of course materials.

5. DISCUSSION
The study by Hamid et al. [31] focused on investigating student perceptions of an electronic content
module developed using the ADDIE manual development model for a MOOC. The researchers administered
a questionnaire to 129 students to gather their feedback on the module's content, usability, design, and
effectiveness. The findings of Hamid et al. [31] align with the results of the present study, as both studies
reported high mean scores in the assessed dimensions. This indicates that students in both studies perceived
the module positively across various aspects. The similarity in results suggests that the design and
development approaches employed, such as utilizing the ADDIE model, were effective in creating online
course modules that resonated well with students. The authors propose to use this module of digital content in
the form of a MOOC as an informative online resource for all individuals involved in education. It applies to
natural sciences and mathematics within higher education institutions [32].
An evaluation of open online courses by English scientists in collaboration with the health iQ
scientific programs was carried out [33]. The article analyzes and studies the results of students' behavior
during the organizational learning process using open online courses. According to the studied findings, the
courses successfully attracted their intended audience, and students perceived their use and methods of
engagement to be effective. These findings align with the results of the present study. The study participants
gave their evaluation of the MOOC training: for them, it was useful, with further potential for use in their
work. Before and after using MOOCs, networking, as an education technology, needs to be improved and
developed in the future to modernize learning processes. The findings of this evaluation align with the
existing evidence that MOOCs have the potential to enhance skills-based learning and knowledge
acquisition. The positive outcomes observed in the study suggest that participants in the MOOC
demonstrated improvements in their learning outcomes and acquired new skills.
The study by Rehfeldt et al. [34] identified various factors that influence student engagement in
MOOCs. Understanding these factors is crucial for designing and implementing effective MOOCs that
promote student engagement and learning outcomes. Some of the key factors identified in the study are as:
these are access to videos, opportunities for self-assessment, and contact and communication between
students. Knowledge can be applied with the right organization and all the necessary resources for the
educational process. For ongoing professional development, MOOCs must consider work-related barriers.
The authors of this study did not identify such factors; however, they fully concur with the conclusions drawn
in this research, as effective support and communication among students are essential for organizing a
comfortable and productive learning environment.
The iMOOC model developed at the Portuguese University of Distance Education is an interesting
hybrid approach that combines elements from existing MOOCs with additional features to better integrate
into the institutional pedagogical culture. The integration of platforms like Moodle and Elgg suggests a
comprehensive approach to course delivery and learner engagement. The fact that more than a thousand
people registered for the pilot course indicates a significant level of interest and participation. While it is
encouraging that the technology solution was successful, it is important to note that the completion rate of
3.3% (with 50% of registered participants) suggests that a relatively small percentage of participants
completed the course.
A study conducted by Lee et al. [35] evaluated the reliability of digital content and digital score
control in MOOCs. The training course was developed on the OpenLearning platform following the ADDIE
model of designing instructions. In their study, Li [25] collected data on students' perceptions of the course
using a questionnaire. The overall mean scores for perceptions, elements of instructional design, acceptance,
and barriers to use were reported as 3.87, 3.91, 3.83, and 2.80, respectively. The mean scores present an
assessment of the degree of concurrence or contentment among students concerning various facets of the
course. Comparing the results of Lee et al. [35] with the present study, it is mentioned that the mean scores
obtained in both studies were not significantly different. This suggests that there is consistency in the
perceptions of students across the two studies, indicating similarities in the effectiveness of the online course
and the instructional design elements.
The study conducted by Kamarudin et al. [36] focused on the development of an e-assessment
module for MOOCs and the assessment of perceptions among 129 undergraduate science and math students.
The ADDIE model was utilized for the design and development of the e-assessment module. The mean value
of students' perception of the e-assessment module was 3.44, the standard deviation was 0.58. These results

Implementing an online course in the MOOC environment with a focus on science and … (Julia Kazakova)
3738  ISSN: 2252-8822

were slightly lower than the results of this experiment. The authors concluded that the course can allow
students to conduct online self-assessments, and improve self-organization and time management skills.
The study by Lee et al. [37] focused on the development of an online course using the ADDIE
model as the learning design model. The researchers also examined students’ perceptions of the course.
In contrast to the current study, Lee et al. [37] determined a course validity index and assessed the e-content
and e-assessment modules. According to the results of Lee et al. [37], both the e-content and e-assessment
modules received a validity index of 1.00, indicating high validity. This finding is consistent with the results
of other studies [32], [35], [36]. These studies also reported high validity indices for their respective modules
within the MOOC context.

6. CONCLUSION
Within the study, the authors created an online course and put it into practice. Students were actively
involved in the pilot phase of the course, where they had the opportunity to participate in and evaluate the
module. The evaluation questionnaire was analyzed using SPSS version 21, and the results indicated a high
percentage of positive feedback across all five criteria. This suggests that students strongly agreed that the
online module contributed to their understanding of the discipline. In general, the participants positively
assessed the course interface, which received high scores for all features. Students especially appreciated the
functionality of the options button, rating it as the highest with a score of 4.35 (from first-year students) and
4.38 points (from fourth-year students). According to the feedback from the first-year students, they were
particularly attracted to the size font used in the online course. This parameter received a high rating – 4.46.
This indicates that students found the course content easily readable and accessible. The design of the module
allowed students to watch animated videos at their convenience and free of charge. Additionally, they were
able to download sample problems and solutions that were provided for each chapter. The authors also
evaluated the interest in online learning among students of two study years. Thus, first-year students had an
average level of interest in online learning of 4.50 with a standard deviation of 0.32. The average level of
interest of fourth-year students was 4.45 with a slightly larger standard deviation of 0.41. Student
engagement is an important factor in effective learning, as it reflects their active participation and motivation
in the learning process.
The online module developed in this study holds the potential for assisting teachers in their
instructional practices. By utilizing the online module, teachers can reduce their reliance on theoretical
teaching and instead prioritize interactive learning and exercises within the classroom setting. This approach
can enhance student engagement and promote active learning. To expand our understanding, future research
could focus on exploring the attitudes and perceptions of teachers towards online courses in the MOOC
environment. Understanding how teachers perceive and utilize such resources can provide valuable insights
for improving instructional practices and incorporating online modules effectively.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper has been supported by the Kazan Federal University Strategic Academic Leadership
Program.

REFERENCES
[1] J. Reich and J. A. Ruipérez-Valiente, “The MOOC pivot,” Science, vol. 363, no. 6423, pp. 130–131, Jan. 2019, doi:
10.1126/science.aav7958.
[2] F. J. García-Peñalvo, Á. Fidalgo-Blanco, and M. L. Sein-Echaluce, “An adaptive hybrid MOOC model: disrupting the MOOC
concept in higher education,” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1018–1030, Jul. 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.012.
[3] M. Zhu, A. Sari, and M. M. Lee, “A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical MOOC literature (2014–
2016),” The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 37, pp. 31–39, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.002.
[4] H. M. Dai, T. Teo, N. A. Rappa, and F. Huang, “Explaining Chinese university students’ continuance learning intention in the
MOOC setting: A modified expectation confirmation model perspective,” Computers & Education, vol. 150, p. 103850, Jun.
2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103850.
[5] J. Littenberg-Tobias and J. Reich, “Evaluating access, quality, and equity in online learning: a case study of a MOOC-based
blended professional degree program,” The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 47, p. 100759, Oct. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100759.
[6] M. Aparicio, T. Oliveira, F. Bacao, and M. Painho, “Gamification: a key determinant of massive open online course (MOOC)
success,” Information & Management, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 39–54, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2018.06.003.
[7] C. Milligan and A. Littlejohn, “Why study on a MOOC? The motives of students and professionals,” The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 92–102, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i2.3033.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 6, December 2024: 3732-3740
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3739

[8] M. Pérez-Sanagustín, I. Hilliger, C. Alario-Hoyos, C. D. Kloos, and S. Rayyan, “H-MOOC framework: reusing MOOCs for
hybrid education,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 47–64, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s12528-017-
9133-5.
[9] F. Dalipi, A. S. Imran, and Z. Kastrati, “MOOC dropout prediction using machine learning techniques: review and research
challenges,” in 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Apr. 2018, pp. 1007–1014, doi:
10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363340.
[10] H. B. Shapiro, C. H. Lee, N. E. W. Roth, K. Li, M. Çetinkaya-Rundel, and D. A. Canelas, “Understanding the massive open
online course (MOOC) student experience: an examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers,” Computers & Education,
vol. 110, pp. 35–50, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003.
[11] A. Watted and M. Barak, “Motivating factors of MOOC completers: comparing between university-affiliated students and general
participants,” The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 37, pp. 11–20, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.12.001.
[12] F. C. Bonafini, C. Chae, E. Park, and K. W. Jablokow, “How much does student engagement with videos and forums in a MOOC
affect their achievement?” Online Learning, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 223–240, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i4.1270.
[13] R. Conijn, A. van den Beemt, and P. Cuijpers, “Predicting student performance in a blended MOOC,” Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 615–628, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12270.
[14] O. Korableva, T. Durand, O. Kalimullina, and I. Stepanova, “Studying user satisfaction with the MOOC platform interfaces using
the example of Coursera and open education platforms,” in Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Big Data and
Education, Mar. 2019, pp. 26–30, doi: 10.1145/3322134.3322139.
[15] E. Handoko, S. L. Gronseth, S. G. McNeil, C. J. Bonk, and B. R. Robin, “Goal setting and MOOC completion: a study on the role
of self-regulated learning in student performance in massive open online courses,” The International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 39–58, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v20i4.4270.
[16] K. Wang and C. Zhu, “MOOC-based flipped learning in higher education: students’ participation, experience and learning
performance,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 33, Dec. 2019, doi:
10.1186/s41239-019-0163-0.
[17] S. L. Watson, W. R. Watson, J. H. Yu, H. Alamri, and C. Mueller, “Learner profiles of attitudinal learning in a MOOC: an
explanatory sequential mixed methods study,” Computers & Education, vol. 114, pp. 274–285, Nov. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.005.
[18] L. P. Rieber, “Participation patterns in a massive open online course (MOOC) about statistics,” British Journal of Educational
Technology, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1295–1304, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1111/bjet.12504.
[19] L. Ma and C. S. Lee, “Investigating the adoption of MOOC s: a technology–user–environment perspective,” Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 89–98, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12314.
[20] J. A. Ruipérez-Valiente, S. Halawa, R. Slama, and J. Reich, “Using multi-platform learning analytics to compare regional and
global MOOC learning in the Arab world,” Computers & Education, vol. 146, p. 103776, Mar. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103776.
[21] R. M. Tawafak, S. I. Malik, and G. Alfarsi, “Development of framework from adapted TAM with MOOC platform for continuity
intention,” International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1681–1691, 2020.
[22] S. E. M. Meek, L. Blakemore, and L. Marks, “Is peer review an appropriate form of assessment in a MOOC? Student
participation and performance in formative peer review,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1000–
1013, Aug. 2017, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1221052.
[23] V. Rocio, J. Coelho, S. Caeiro, P. Nicolau, and A. Teixeira, “iMOOC on climate change: evaluation of a massive open online
learning pilot experience,” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 152–173,
Dec. 2015, doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2160.
[24] Y. Zhao, A. Wang, and Y. Sun, “Technological environment, virtual experience, and MOOC continuance: a stimulus–organism–
response perspective,” Computers & Education, vol. 144, p. 103721, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103721.
[25] K. Li, “MOOC learners’ demographics, self-regulated learning strategy, perceived learning and satisfaction: a structural equation
modeling approach,” Computers & Education, vol. 132, pp. 16–30, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.003.
[26] A. F. Wise and Y. Cui, “Learning communities in the crowd: characteristics of content related interactions and social
relationships in MOOC discussion forums,” Computers & Education, vol. 122, pp. 221–242, Jul. 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.021.
[27] A. F. Wise, Y. Cui, W. Jin, and J. Vytasek, “Mining for gold: identifying content-related MOOC discussion threads across
domains through linguistic modeling,” The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 32, pp. 11–28, Jan. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.08.001.
[28] D. Davis, I. Jivet, R. F. Kizilcec, G. Chen, C. Hauff, and G.-J. Houben, “Follow the successful crowd: raising MOOC completion
rates through social comparison at scale,” in Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge
Conference, Mar. 2017, pp. 454–463, doi: 10.1145/3027385.3027411.
[29] E. Jung, D. Kim, M. Yoon, S. Park, and B. Oakley, “The influence of instructional design on learner control, sense of
achievement, and perceived effectiveness in a supersize MOOC course,” Computers & Education, vol. 128, pp. 377–388, Jan.
2019, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.001.
[30] W. Zou, X. Hu, Z. Pan, C. Li, Y. Cai, and M. Liu, “Exploring the relationship between social presence and learners’ prestige in
MOOC discussion forums using automated content analysis and social network analysis,” Computers in Human Behavior,
vol. 115, p. 106582, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106582.
[31] S. N. M. Hamid, T. T. Lee, H. Taha, N. A. Rahim, and A. M. Sharif, “E-content module for chemistry massive open online course
(MOOC): development and students’ perceptions,” Journal of Technology and Science Education, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 67–92, Feb.
2021, doi: 10.3926/jotse.1074.
[32] A. A. Tawfik et al., “The nature and level of learner–learner interaction in a chemistry massive open online course (MOOC),”
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 411–431, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s12528-017-9135-3.
[33] A. Alturkistani, J. Car, A. Majeed, D. Brindley, G. Wells, and E. Meinert, “Determining the effectiveness of a massive open
online course in data science for health,” in 12th International Conference on e-Learning 2018, 2018, pp. 1–9.
[34] R. A. Rehfeldt, H. L. Jung, A. Aguirre, J. L. Nichols, and W. B. Root, “Beginning the dialogue on the e-transformation: behavior
analysis’ first massive open online course (MOOC),” Behavior Analysis in Practice, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 3–13, Mar. 2016, doi:
10.1007/s40617-015-0102-z.
[35] T. T. Lee, H. Taha, A. M. Sharif, and N. A. Rahim, “Chemistry massive open online course: validity, reliability and
undergraduate students’ perception,” Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1–18, Jun.
2021.

Implementing an online course in the MOOC environment with a focus on science and … (Julia Kazakova)
3740  ISSN: 2252-8822

[36] N. Kamarudin, T. T. Lee, A. M. Sharif, H. Taha, and N. A. Rahim, “Development and perception of students on e-assessment
module for chemistry massive open online course (MOOC),” Journal of Science and Mathematics Letters, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 109–
121, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.37134/jsml.vol8.2.13.2020.
[37] T. T. Lee, K. T. Wong, N. Daud, I. Zainol, M. I. M. Damanhuri, and H. Hartono, “Chemistry laboratory management techniques
massive open online course: development and evaluation on students’ perception,” EDUCATUM Journal of Science, Mathematics
and Technology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 50–64, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.37134/ejsmt.vol7.2.6.2020.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Julia Kazakova holds Ph.D. degree. She is an Assistant Professor of the

Department of English Philology and Cross Cultural Communications of Kazan Federal
University in Yelabuga, Russia. Research interests: MOOC; science and math education;
self-study. She can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Elena Shastina holds Ph.D. degree. She is a Professor of the Department of

German Philology of Kazan Federal University in Yelabuga, Russia. Research interests:
MOOC; science and math education; self-study. She can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Ilzira Gibadulina holds Candidate of Biological Sciences degree. She is an

Associate Professor of the Department of Biology and Chemistry, Kazan Federal University,
Kazan, Russia. Research interests: MOOC; science and math education; self-study. She can be
contacted at email: [email protected].

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 13, No. 6, December 2024: 3732-3740