پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 1,149 |
| تعداد مقالات | 10,518 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 45,415,424 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 11,291,212 |
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) Dropout Rate in the World: A Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | ||
| Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 13، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 49، شهریور 2022، صفحه 85-92 اصل مقاله (486.57 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Protocol | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/ijvlms.2022.94572.1138 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Manoosh Mehrabi* 1؛ Ali Reza Safarpour2؛ Abbas Keshtkar3 | ||
| 1Department of e-Learning in Medical Sciences, Virtual School, Center of Excellence for e-Learning in Medical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran | ||
| 2Gastroenterohepatology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. | ||
| 3Department of Health Sciences Education Development, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Introduction: Massive open online course (MOOC) is an online course that is open, meaning there are no barriers to entry, and entails no special educational costs or features. Recently, MOOCs have received increasing popularity throughout the world. Regardless of the subject taught and the university providing the course, the dropout rate of MOOCs is one of the most important challenges ahead. The objective of this systematic review is to estimate the global rate of MOOCs dropout and factors affecting this frequency. Methods: This systematic review will search MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), Embase (Embase.com), ASSIA, CINAHL, Education Research, BEI, and Eric databases systematically according to predefined criteria without language restrictions to retrieve prospective and retrospective observational studies conducted between the 1st of January 2000 and 30th of December 2021, evaluating the frequency of leaving MOOCs throughout the world. Discordances between the two different authors through the processes of screening, selection, quality assessment, and data extraction will be settled via discussion and if the issue cannot be resolved, a third expert advice will be requested. For all studies, forest plots will be shown to represent the separate and pooled frequency along with their 95% confidence intervals. To examine statistical heterogeneity, the Q-statistic test and the I2 statistic will be utilized. To investigate potential reporting bias and non-significant study effects, funnel plots will be employed. Tests, such as Begg’s and Egger’s will also be carried out. The time trends for MOOCs dropout rate will be calculated using a cumulative meta-analysis. Conclusion: As dropout rate is one of the most challenges that universities may encounter, this systematic review will help universities extend their view, save their resources, or maybe design their MOOCs differently. This protocol is registered in Open Science Framework (OSF), available at: https://osf.io/jgyqx/ | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| MOOCs؛ Dropout rate؛ Systematic Review Protocol | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Gregori EB, Zhang J, Galván-Fernández C, de Asís Fernández-Navarro F. Learner support in MOOCs: Identifying variables linked to completion. Computers & Education. 2018;122:153-68.
Tsai Y-h, Lin C-h, Hong J-c, Tai K-h. The effects of metacognition on online learning interest and continuance to learn with MOOCs. Computers & Education. 2018;121:18-29.
Jordan K. Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2014;15(1):133-60.
Xu B, Yang D. Study partners recommendation for xMOOCs learners. Computational intelligence and neuroscience. 2015;2015.
Eriksson T, Adawi T, Stöhr C. “Time is the bottleneck”: a qualitative study exploring why learners drop out of MOOCs. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2017;29(1):133-46.
Gomez-Zermeno MG, de La Garza LA. Research analysis on MOOC course dropout and retention rates. Turkish online journal of distance education. 2016;17(2).
Gregori P, Martínez V, Moyano-Fernández JJ. Basic actions to reduce dropout rates in distance learning. Evaluation and program planning. 2018;66:48-52.
BEZERRA LN, SILVA MT. A review of literature on the reasons that cause the high dropout rates in the MOOCS. Revista Espacios. 2017;38(05).
Joksimović S, Poquet O, Kovanović V, Dowell N, Mills C, Gašević D, et al. How do we model learning at scale? A systematic review of research on MOOCs. Review of Educational Research. 2018;88(1):43-86.
Goldberg LR, Bell E, King C, O’Mara C, McInerney F, Robinson A, et al. Relationship between participants’ level of education and engagement in their completion of the Understanding Dementia Massive Open Online Course. BMC medical education. 2015;15(1):1-7.
de Castro e Lima Baesse D, Grisolia AM, de Oliveira AEF. Pedagogical monitoring as a tool to reduce dropout in distance learning in family health. BMC Medical Education. 2016;16(1):1-8.
Aldowah H, Al-Samarraie H, Alzahrani AI, Alalwan N. Factors affecting student dropout in MOOCs: a cause and effect decision‐making model. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2020;32(2):429-54.
Paton RM, Fluck AE, Scanlan JD. Engagement and retention in VET MOOCs and online courses: A systematic review of literature from 2013 to 2017. Computers & Education. 2018;125:191-201.
Khalil H, Ebner M. MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention-A literature review. EdMedia+ innovate learning. 2014:1305-13.
Dissemination C. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. York: University of York NHS Centre for Reviews & Dissemination. 2009.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Jama. 2000;283(15):2008-12.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group* P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine. 2009;151(4):264-9.
Hoy D, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, March L, Bain C, et al. Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2012;65(9):934-9.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 361 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 903 |
||