10 Dimensions Model for Quality MOOC Design

Yuki Ichimura
yici@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Doctoral Student
Graduate School ofInstructional Systems
Kumamoto University
Kumamoto, Japan

Hiroshi Nakano
nakano@cc.kumamotou.ac.jp
Professor
Graduate School ofInstructional Systems
Kumamoto University
Kumamoto, Japan

Katsuaki Suzuki
ksuzuki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Professor
Research Center for
Instructional Systems
Kumamoto University
Kumamoto, Japan

Abstract
Rapid growth of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) has called for
instructional design for quality learning experiences. Responding to the needs, Ichimura &Suzuki (2017) have suggested the 10 Dimensions Model from the review of MOOC related
literature, with a focus on critical elements of course design of MOOCs. This current study
includes verification of the Model, analyzed with the quality guidelines of MOOCs available
now. The quality criteria addressed in the guidelines are associated with each dimension.
Key words: Massive Open Online Courses(MOOCs), Instructional Design, 10 Dimensions
ModelINTRODUCTION
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) had rapid growth since right after it was launched. Thisphenomenon was often argued as disruption or hype (Shah, 2020). Since then, the quality and pedagogicaldesign of MOOCs have been discussed as the area to be improved, with no consensus yet been emerged(Margaryan et al., 2014). Under these situations, responding to this concern addressed by the previous
researchers, we sought a design framework for MOOCs and developed 10 Dimensions Model for MOOC
design (Ichimura & Suzuki, 2017). Recently, the contribution of empirical research on Massive Open
Online Courses (MOOCs) has been increased by instructors and designers around the world (Lu et al.,2021). In this current paper, we studied the available quality guidelines of MOOCs and verified our 10Dimensions Model (Ichimura & Suzuki, 2017) with them.

10 DIMENSIONS MODEL
10 Dimensions Model (Ichimura & Suzuki, 2017) summarized and synthesized four works ofliterature that addressed MOOC design: Conole (2013)’s Learning Design Framework, Taxonomy
addressed from Schneider (2013), Gover, et al. (2013)’s framework, and Mooc Canvas by Alario-Hoyos etal.(2014). When Ichimura & Suzuki (2017) developed this Model, we analyzed past systematic reviews of
the literature on MOOCs, covering between 2008 to 2015, and carried out a forward reference approach.
In addition, under the criteria, we conducted a database search. Peer-reviewed journal papers that covered
design of MOOCs concerning instructional quality were scarce at the point, and the even existing papers
did not fully explain the whole design components comprehensively, in particular, for the massive and open

online environment. The design elements addressed by the previous four models were identified, and acomprehensive model that covered all the underlying elements of the design of the various MOOCs wasconstructed in 10 Dimensions Model (Ichimura & Suzuki, 2017). In total, nine key elements were identified
from the past models, and “support” dimension was added as a critical dimension, attributed to otherliterature reviews. (Fournier and Kop, 2015)
The features and forms of MOOCs have not ever been stable even in the past less than 10 years anda variety of versions exists. The 10 Dimensions Model (Ichimura & Suzuki, 2017) targets the use of MOOC
design beginners, who are developing typical open and free access MOOCs in their institutions. Figure 1
illustrated the core 10 dimensions consists of MOOC design. The three elements on the bottom layer consistof “Basic Design Decisions”, including “Resources”, “General Structure” and “Vision”. Each dimension
includes multiple subcategories that were identified from the review.
Grover et al. (2013) proposed a MOOC design and evaluation framework, in which they suggested
the core elements of the learning environment in MOOCs as Interactive Learning Environment (ILE). Theirframework illustrated the mutual interaction of the elements. Above the seven elements, “LearningAnalytics” that supports evidence-based improvement, “Pedagogy” that are core learning and instructional
dimension, “Communication”, “Supports”, “Technologies”, “Learner Background” and “Assessment” areinteractive and act reciprocally (Ichimura & Suzuki, 2017).
Our studies after the first publication of the 10 Dimensions Model have been underway with the aimthat enriching the framework of the Models. We have attempted to fill 10 dimensions with contents ofdesign descriptions. We have conducted empirical studies related to pedagogy, assessment, vision, andsupport dimensions, thus far. The prescriptive analysis on the instructional structure of existing MOOCs
examined sequential analysis, learning contents and assessment activities associated with cognitive levels(Ichimura, Noda, Suzuki & Nakano, 2020). The study on learning experiences of first MOOC learners
examined the learning supports from the learners’ needs (Ichimura, Nakano & Suzuki, 2020).

Figure 1 Ten Dimensions Model ( Ichimura & Suzuki, 2017)

RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODSIn this current study, we verified 10 Dimensions Model (Ichimura & Suzuki, 2017) with four quality
guidelines of MOOCs available now. The purpose of this study is to see if the 10 Dimensions Model canbe confirmed and to reinforce the 10 Dimensions Model with the additional views of quality guidelines
utilized in the realm of MOOC practices. We examined and identified how each dimension is addressed inthe quality standards.
The following four quality guidelines and measures were analyzed: OpenupEd Quality Benchmarksfor MOOCs (Rosewell & Jansen, 2014), MOOC Scan Questionnaire (Margaryan, Bianco, & Littlejohn,2015), Guidelines for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of MOOCs (Commonwealth of Learning, 2016),
Quality Reference Framework (QRF) for MOOCs from the European Alliance for the Quality of Massive
Open Online Courses (Stracke, et al., 2018). The three guidelines, issued before our model was published,were not returned in the previous literature search criteria and our model was developed without inclusionof them. That was a limitation of our previous study, and the current paper investigated and reinforced the10 Dimensions Model with the quality guidelines.
OpenupEd Quality Benchmarks (Rosewell & Jansen, 2014) included 32 indicators with the two mainlevels: institutional level and course level. MOOC Scan Questionnaire (Margaryan, et.al., 2015) had three
sections that were 1) course details, 2)objectives and organizations, 3) instructional design, assessed with
Merrill's (2002) First Principles of Instruction. 37items in total were included. The guideline from theCommonwealth of Learning (2016) covers multiple levels of guidance, including quality dimensions
presented by presage, process, and product stages and checklist for accreditation. The checklist has eight
focus topics with 38 items. Quality Reference Framework (QRF) of the European Alliance for the Qualityof Massive Open Online Courses (MOOQ) (Stracle et al., 2018) provides the Key Quality Framework,Criteria, and the Quality Checklist. QRF was categorized by design phases: 1) analysis, 2)design,3)implementation, 4)realization, 5)evaluation, as well as perspectives including 1,) pedagogical 2,)
technological 3) strategic, and roles. The items and measures addressed in the four quality guidelines weremapped, using 10 Dimensions Model (Ichimura & Suzuki, 2017), and analyzed.

RESULTS
The analysis process is underway, and the initial report is presented in this paper. The common
criteria across the multiple guidelines were detected. The open nature of MOOCs was particularly addressedin the guidelines that are associated with the Resource dimension. MOOCs are open access, and thematerials and media in the course are a matter of copyright license. Attribution of copyright and intellectual
property rights was strictly required (Rosewell & Jansen, 2014: Stracle et al., 2018). In addition, the use ofmaterials licensed under Creative Commons and Open Educational Resources was highly recommended
by the guidelines (Rosewell & Jansen, 2014: Commonwealth of Learning, 2016).

Table 1 :Additional Elements Found in the Four Quality Guidelines
Dimensions

Excerpts from the 4 Quality Guidelines

1.Resources“Course components have an open license and are correctly attributed.” (Rosewell& Jansen, 2014)

2.General Structure“Clearly outline the course requirements.” (Margaryan, et.al., 2015) “Identify
possible certification for different levels of completion.” (Stracke, et al., 2018)

3.Vision“The purpose of the MOOC is stated clearly.” (Commonwealth of Learning, 2016)

4.Learner Background and

There are “self-report instruments that measure learners’ motivations and goals,

Intentionprior learning experiences, demographic information, contextual information,learning behaviors” (Commonwealth of Learning, 2016).

5.Pedagogy“Provide activity options for participants with various learning needs.”(Margaryan, et.al., 2015)“Aid students to construct their own learning, and to share and communicate itwith others” (Rosewell & Jansen, 2014).
“Define learning pace, personalization and monitoring progress .”(Stracke, et al.,2018)

6.Communication

Give learners of “peer-interaction groups specific directions for interaction.”(Margaryan, et.al., 2015)“Design interaction via blogs, forums & social media platforms to foster sociallearning” (Stracke, et al., 2018)

7.Assessment“Assessmentandevaluation

areintegratedthroughout

thecourse.”(Commonwealth of Learning, 2016)“The course provides learners with regular feedback through self-assessment
activities, tests or peer feedback.” (Rosewell & Jansen, 2014)
8.Technologies“The tools used in the course are readily available to students.” (Commonwealthof learning, 2016).
Integrate technological tools “to foster interaction, communication and experiencesharing”. (Stracke, et al., 2018)

9.Learning Analytics Data

“Provide documentation of findings , reviews, and analysis from learning
analytics, other form of data obtained in the course of the MOOC” (Stracke, et al.,2018).

10.Support“Provide community teaching assistants to render feedback and support tolearners” (Stracke, et al., 2018) .
“Students have clear routes to academic, technical and administrative support”(Roswell, & Jansen, 2014).

Clear definition, outline and direction were highlighted across the multiple dimensions. Clear course
description, prerequisite knowledge and skills, course requirements, the purpose of the MOOCs, learning
outcomes, were basic information suggested in the guidelines. The guidelines also suggested clear
definitions and statements of direction for MOOC learning, including, learning and assessment processes,
learning materials, locations and navigations in the courses, the requirements for communication, thepurpose of the technological tools, and support (Rosewell & Jansen, 2014: Commonwealth of Learning,
2016: Stracle et al., 2018). Clarity was emphasized across the dimensions and design stages from definition
to presentation. It might be seen obvious, however, for diverse MOOC learners who have diverse online
learning experiences, it is crucial to maintain explicit presentation.
The guidelines commonly encouraged diverse learner’s self-regulated learning. To encourage selfregulated learning, high quality materials and support were addressed to be designed. As a tool, a self-reportsurvey asking motivations and goals for participating in the MOOCs was introduced(Commonwealth ofLearning, 2016).
Although the basic progress is self-study that is participants’ independent learning in MOOCs, theguidelines encouraged learners’ mutual interaction and communication of their gained knowledge.
Communication and collaboration encourage the active engagement of the participants. Due to the massiveclass size, to enable interaction between participants in MOOCs, making use of online affordance,mobile apps and social media are necessary. Even synchronous interaction was encouraged in the guidelines.
For catering to a big population of learners, technology and learners’ community functions for learning
support. This way promoted community building and social learning, supporting the concept of communityof learners.
Criteria addressed in the four quality guidelines were associated with 10 dimensions. The volume ofitems associated with each dimension was varied. Among 10, a great number of items were associated withthe pedagogy dimension. On the other hand, “learning analytic data” had fewer items. Some excerpts fromthe quality guidelines associated with the 10 dimensions are as shown in Table 1.

Discussion
The initial phase of the results was presented. The results of the analysis on common criteria acrossthe four quality guidelines supported the interactivity of dimensions, constructing the learning environmentthat was suggested in the 10 Dimensions Model. The design of learning activities to accommodate diverse
learning needs and their self-regulated learning was encouraged. High-quality support design, pedagogy,learners’ background and intention were associated with the criteria. Communication, technology,pedagogy and support dimensions were illustrated as that they functioned for other dimensions in the unique
MOOC learning environment.
The association of criteria from the four quality guidelines enriched the 10 Dimensions Model. The
results suggested the views on the quality for each dimension, required from the different focuses. Overall,
10 Dimensions covered the items suggested in the four quality guidelines. We will continuously exploreadditional inputs for the contents of dimensions. The current 10 Dimensions Model was developed for
MOOC design beginners. For advanced designers who have more discretion in the institution, theimprovement for an advanced version of the Model might be needed.
The guidelines had a small number of statements about learning analytics. This dimension might be
an area to be explored. Among these, the use of analytic data for evaluation of the course was addressed inthe guideline (Stracke, et al., 2018). In the cycle of design, evaluation and improvement is the phase that is
considered evidence-based improvement, using learning analytic data (Grover et al., 2013) in the 10Dimensions Model.

Conclusion
10 Dimensions Model (Ichimura & Suzuki, 2017) was developed when the research on MOOC design
was still limited. The Model synthesized the elements that construct MOOCs, that would provide anunderstanding of the mechanism for quality design. The current paper introduced the analysis of the Modelusing four quality guidelines available now to verify the Model. The analysis is still underway, and some
important common attention on the design has emerged from the analysis. Those criteria were responding
to the characteristics of massiveness and open learning environment of MOOCs, and crucial forindependent learning of the participants who have diverse learning experiences and needs. In the guidelines,
interaction and knowledge sharing of learners were encouraged with the use of technology, despite the great
number of participants. Further analysis will investigate how each dimension is designed to meet the criteria
addressed in the guidelines.

REFERENCES
Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Cormier, D., & Kloos, C. D. (2014). Proposal for a Conceptual
Framework for Educators to Describe and Design MOOCs. Journal of Universal Computer Science,20, 1, 6-23.
Conole, G. (2013). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experienceand quality of MOOCs. Retrieved May 2016 fromhttps://core.ac.uk/download/files/418/11890896.pdf
Commonwealth of Learning (2016). Guidelines for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of MOOCs.
Grover, S., Franz, P., Schneider, E., & Pea, R. (2013). The MOOC as distributed intelligence: Dimensionsof a framework & evaluation of MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference
on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, WI: Madison.
Ichimura, Y., & Suzuki, K. (2017). Dimensions of MOOCs for quality design: Analysis and synthesis ofthe literature. International Journal of Educational Media and Technology, 11(1), 42-49.
Ichimura, Y., Noda, K., Nakano,H.,& Suzuki,K., Prescriptive Analysis on Instructional Structure ofMOOCs:Toward Attaining Learning Objectives for Diverse Learners, The Journal ofInformation and Systems in Education, 2020, 19, 1, 32-37.
Ichimura, Y.,Nakano, H.,& Suzuki, K.（2020）Support Design for Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)
Learners -Voices from the Freshman MOOC Learners-. In Proceedings of the ICoME
2020(International Conference for Media in Education). 384-390.

Lu, M., Cui, T., Huang, Z., Zhao, H., Li, T., & Wang, K. (2021). A Systematic Review of QuestionnaireBased Quantitative Research on MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open andDistributed Learning, 22(2), 285-313
Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). In-structional quality of massive open online courses(MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77-83.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational technology research and development,
50(3), 43-59.
Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs.
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2)Rosewell, J & Jansen, D (2014). The OpenupEd quality label: benchmarks for MOOCs. INNOQUAL: TheInternational Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3) pp. 88–100.Shah, D. (2020,February 4th). Capturing the Hype: Year of the MOOC Timeline Explained. The report by ClassCentral.
Scneider, E. (2013). Welcome to the moocspace: A proposed theory and taxonomy for massive open online
courses. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Massive Open Online Courses at the 16th Annual
Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Memphis, TNStracke, C. M., Tan, E., Texeira, A., Pinto, M., Vassiliadis, B., Kameas, A., Sgouropoulou, C., & Vidal,G.
(2018). Quality Reference Framework (QRF) for the Quality of Massive Open Online Courses(MOOCs). Retrieved from www.mooc-quality.eu/QRF