Investigating Effective Teaching Standards for Mooc Academicians of Higher Education Institutions in Sindh, Pakistan: An Application of the UTAUT Model
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.15.01.11Keywords:
Academician, Teaching standards, MOOC, Distance education, Higher institutions, Sindh PakistanAbstract
The article describes the research investigating effective teaching standards for MOOC academicians in higher institutions in Sindh, Pakistan, that promote quality education and enhance the online learning landscape which can make it more inclusive for global learners. In this context, a total of 497 responses were collected from MOOC academicians through a survey questionnaire by developing the proposed UTAUT model. Our findings represent the constructs DL, DP, ATM, EE, and FC have a greater impact on the BI. However, the two constructs PE and SI did not show a significant impact on BI. The findings identifying the combination of digital literacy, pedagogical innovation, and positive attitude, were key indicators that influence academician intention regarding the effective use of MOOC platforms and its progress towards quality education in higher institutions in Sindh, Pakistan. The study implication leads to improved academicians teaching standards required and aligned for the teaching design of MOOC and a broad reach for quality education at national and international levels.
Downloads
References
Sabjan, A., Abd Wahab, A., Ahmad, A., Ahmad, R., Hassan, S., & Wahid, J. (2021). MOOC quality design criteria for programming and non-programming students. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(4), 61-70.
Tømte, C. E. (2019). MOOCs in teacher education: institutional and pedagogical change?. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 65-81.
Van Lange Paul, A. M., Liebrand, W. B., & AM, W. H. (2015). Introduction and literature review. Social dilemmas, 3-28.
Javed, Z. S., Nazeer, Z., & Umair, M. (2023). University Students’ Perception of MOOCs based on MOOC Instructional Design Elements. PJDOL, 9(1).
Khan, I. U., Hameed, Z., Yu, Y., Islam, T., Sheikh, Z., & Khan, S. U. (2018). Predicting the acceptance of MOOCs in a developing country: Application of task-technology fit model, social motivation, and self-determination theory. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 964-978.
Wang, Q., Khan, M. S., & Khan, M. K. (2021). Predicting user perceived satisfaction and reuse intentions toward massive open online courses (MOOCs) in the Covid-19 pandemic: An application of the UTAUT model and quality factors. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), 10(2), 1-11. [7] Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2014). MOOC pedagogy. In Massive open online courses (pp. 23-45). Routledge.
Marta-Lazo, C., Frau-Meigs, D., & Osuna-Acedo, S. (2019). A collaborative digital pedagogy experience in the tMOOC “Step by Step”. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 111-127.
Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2017). Open education as resistance: MOOCs and critical digital pedagogy. MOOCs and their afterlives: Experiments in scale and access in higher education, 177-197.
Qureshi, J. A. (2019). Advancement in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) to Revolutionize Disruptive Technology in Education: A Case of Pakistan. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 6(2), 219-234.
Soyemi, O., Ojo, A., & Abolarin, M. (2018). Digital literacy skills and MOOC participation among lecturers in a private university in Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2018, 1-18.
Balula, A. (2015). The promotion of digital inclusion through MOOC design and use: a literature review. Indagatio Didactica, 7(1), 145-164.
Srivastava, S., & Bhati, N. S. (2022, March). Determinants for Adoption of MOOCs from the Perspective of UTAUT. In 2022 8th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS) (Vol. 1, pp. 805-810). IEEE.
Altalhi, M. M. (2021). Towards understanding the students’ acceptance of MOOCs: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(2), 237-253.
Alotaibi, S. J. (2023). Towards a UTAUT model for acceptance of massive open online courses (MOOCs).
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
Oye, N. D., A. Iahad, N., & Ab. Rahim, N. (2014). The history of UTAUT model and its impact on ICT acceptance and usage by academicians. Education and Information Technologies, 19, 251-270.
AlQaidoom, H., & Shah, A. (2019, June). Digital Literacy and the Attitude of Educators Towards MOOC Platform in GCC Countries. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Innovative Research and Development (ICIRD) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Khalil, Aysha, and Naveed Sultana. "Reshaping Teachers'e-Training through MOOCs in Pakistan." NICE Research Journal (2017): 13-28.
Pasha, A. (2016). FIRST MASSIVE OPEN ONLINE COURSE (MOOC) FROM PAKISTAN. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, Volume 3, Issue, 205.
Irfan, H., Hina, S., & Khattak, N. R. (2021). Digital pedagogy, learning, and assessment amidst COVID-19: Perceptions, practices, and prospects. Corporum, 4(2), 39-58.
Abid, T., Zahid, G., Shahid, N., & Bukhari, M. (2021). Online teaching experience during the COVID-19 in Pakistan: Pedagogy–technology balance and student engagement. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 14, 367-391.
Wadmany, R., & Kliachko, S. (2014). The Significance of Digital Pedagogy: Teachers' Perceptions and the Factors Influencing Their Abilities as Digital Pedagogues. Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 22-33.
Nanjundaswamy, C., Baskaran, S., & Leela, M. H. (2021). Digital Pedagogy for Sustainable Learning. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9(3), 179-185.
Rodés, V., Porta, M., Garófalo, L., & Enríquez, C. R. (2021). Teacher Education in the Emergency: a MOOC-Inspired Teacher Professional Development Strategy Grounded in Critical Digital Pedagogy and Pedagogy of Care. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2021(1).
Bakogianni, E., Tsitouridou, M., & Kyridis, A. (2020). MOOCs in teachers’ professional development: examining teacher readiness. Academia, (18), 9-40. [29] Gururaja, C. S. "Teacher’s attitude towards online teaching." In National Virtual Conference New Education Policy: A Quality Enhancer for Inculcation of Human Values in Higher Education Institutions, pp. 397-405. 2021.
Ab Jalil, H., Ma'rof, A., & Omar, R. (2019). Attitude and behavioral intention to develop and use MOOCs among academics. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(24), 31-41.
Perveen, A. (2018). Role of MOOCs in Pakistani English Teachers’ Professional Development.Ginting, D., Fahmi, N. J. U., Purwahida, R., Barella, Y., & Khatimah, H. (2022).
Shah, M. H. A., Nazeer, M. I., & Shamsi, F. (2024). Inspirational Predictors Influencing the Learner's Intention toward MOOC Adoption and Usage in the Education Sector in Sindh, Pakistan: Extension of TAM Model. Journal of Development and Social Sciences, 5(1), 633-645.
Haron, Hafiza, Supyan Hussin, Ahmad Rizal Mohd Yusof, Hafiza Samad, and Hafidzan Yusof. "Implementation of the UTAUT model to understand the technology adoption of MOOC at public universities." In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 1062, no. 1, p. 012025. IOP Publishing, 2021.
Irianto, Jusuf, Isnaini Rodiyah, and Khatidjah Omar. "The Use of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and The Use of Technology (UTAUT) to Analyze the Implementation of the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) at the Indonesian Financial and Development Supervisory Agency." Jurnal Borneo Administrator 19, no. 2 (2023): 175-190.
Wan, Liyong, Shoumei Xie, and Ai Shu. "Toward an understanding of university students’ continued intention to use MOOCs: When UTAUT model meets TTF model." Sage Open 10, no. 3 (2020): 2158244020941858.
Li, Yalin, and Min Zhao. "A study on the influencing factors of continued intention to use MOOCs: UTAUT model and CCC moderating effect." Frontiers in psychology 12 (2021): 528259.
Chen, Lu, Jing Jia, and Chengzhen Wu. "Factors influencing the behavioral intention to use contactless financial services in the banking industry: An application and extension of UTAUT model." Frontiers in Psychology 14 (2023): 1096709.
Albelbisi, Nour Awni, Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan, and Akhmad Habibi. "Self-regulated learning and satisfaction: A key determinants of MOOC success." Education and Information Technologies 26, no. 3 (2021): 3459-3481.
Templ, M. (2023). Enhancing precision in large-scale data analysis: an innovative robust imputation algorithm for managing outliers and missing values. Mathematics, 11(12), 2729.
Sadriddinovich, J. T. (2023). Capabilities of SPSS Software in High Volume Data Processing Testing. American Journal of Public Diplomacy and International Studies (2993-2157), 1(9), 82-86.
Purwanto, A. (2021). Partial least squares structural squation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis for social and management research: a literature review. Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research.
Nakagawa, S., Yang, Y., Macartney, E. L., Spake, R., & Lagisz, M. (2023). Quantitative evidence synthesis: a practical guide on meta-analysis, meta-regression, and publication bias tests for environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 12(1), 8.
Alshahrani, H. A., & Walker, D. A. (2017). Validity, reliability, predictors, moderation: The UTAUT model revisited. General Linear Model Journal, 43(2), 23-34. Ramayah, T. J. F. H., Jacky Cheah, Francis Chuah, Hiram Ting, and Mumtaz Ali Memon, (2018). "Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using smartPLS 3.0." An updated guide and practical guide to statistical analysis.
Al-Mekhlafi, Al-Baraa Abdulrahman, Idris Othman, Ahmed Farouk Kineber, Ahmad A. Mousa, and Ahmad MA Zamil. (2022). "Modeling the impact of massive open online courses (MOOC) implementation factors on continuance intention of students: PLS-SEM approach." Sustainability 14, no. 9 5342.
Edeh, E., Lo, W. J., & Khojasteh, J. (2023). Review of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook: By Joseph F. Hair Jr., G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, Marko Sarstedt, Nicholas P. Danks, Soumya Ray. Cham, Switzerland: Springer,(2021). 197 pp. 0,OpenAccess; 59.99, Hardcover Book.
West, S. G., Wu, W., McNeish, D., & Savord, A. (2023). Model fit in structural equation modeling. Handbook of structural equation modeling, 2, 184-205.
Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2023). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1-39.
Ho, H. C., Poon, K. T., Chan, K. K. S., Cheung, S. K., Datu, J. A. D., & Tse, C. Y. A. (2023). Promoting preservice teachers’ psychological and pedagogical competencies for online learning and teaching: The TEACH program. Computers & Education, 195, 104725.
Goretzko, D., Siemund, K., & Sterner, P. (2024). Evaluating model fit of measurement models in confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 84(1), 123-144.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory.
Verhulst, B., & Neale, M. C. (2021). Best practices for binary and ordinal data analyses. Behavior Genetics, 51(3), 204-214. [51] Al-Saedi, K., Al-Emran, M., Ramayah, T., & Abusham, E. (2020). Developing a general extended UTAUT model for M-payment adoption. Technology in society, 62, 101293.
Sewandono, R. E., Thoyib, A., Hadiwidjojo, D., & Rofiq, A. (2023). Performance expectancy of E-learning on higher institutions of education under uncertain conditions: Indonesia context. Education and information technologies, 28(4), 4041-4068.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Pick, M., Liengaard, B. D., Radomir, L., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychology & Marketing, 39(5), 1035-1064.
Wong, K. K. K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing bulletin, 24(1), 1-32.
Ramayah, T. J. F. H., Cheah, J., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M. A. (2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using smartPLS 3.0. An updated guide and practical guide to statistical analysis.
Susanto, R., Rachmadtullah, R., & Rachbini, W. (2020). Technological and Pedagogical Models. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 7(2), 1-14.
Virani, S. R., Saini, J. R., & Sharma, S. (2023). Adoption of massive open online courses (MOOCs) for blended learning: The Indian educators’ perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 1060-1076.
Tseng, T. H., Lin, S., Wang, Y. S., & Liu, H. X. (2022). Investigating teachers’ adoption of MOOCs: the perspective of UTAUT2. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(4), 635-650.
Koukis, N., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2019). MOOCS for teacher professional development: exploring teachers’ perceptions and achievements. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(1), 74-91.
Khalid, B., Lis, M., Chaiyasoonthorn, W., & Chaveesuk, S. (2021). Factors influencing behavioural intention to use MOOCs. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 13(2), 83-95.
Alanoglu, M., Aslan, S., & Karabatak, S. (2022). Do teachers’ educational philosophies affect their digital literacy? The mediating effect of resistance to change. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3447-3466.
Mailizar, M., Umam, K., & Elisa, E. (2022). The impact of digital literacy and social presence on teachers’ acceptance of online professional development. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(4), ep384.
Bag, S., Aich, P., & Islam, M. A. (2022). Behavioral intention of “digital natives” toward adapting the online education system in higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 14(1), 16-40.
Šumak, B., Polancic, G., & Hericko, M. (2010, February). An empirical study of virtual learning environment adoption using UTAUT. In 2010 Second international conference on mobile, hybrid, and on-line learning (pp. 17-22). IEEE.
Castaño-Muñoz, J., Kalz, M., Kreijns, K., & Punie, Y. (2018). Who is taking MOOCs for teachers’ professional development on the use of ICT? A cross-sectional study from Spain. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(5), 607-624.
De Waard, I. (2015). MOOC factors influencing teachers in formal education. Revista Mexicana de Bachillerato a distancia, 7(13).
Muhamad Safiih, L., & Azreen, N. (2016). Confirmatory Factor Analysis Approach.
Tseng, T. H., Lin, S., Wang, Y. S., & Liu, H. X. (2022). Investigating teachers’ adoption of MOOCs: the perspective of UTAUT2. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(4), 635-650.
Akram, H., Aslam, S., Saleem, A., & Parveen, K. (2021). The challenges of online teaching in COVID-19 pandemic: A case study of public universities in Karachi, Pakistan. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 20, 263-282.
Sahito, Z., Shah, S. S., & Pelser, A. M. (2022, June). Online teaching during COVID-19: Exploration of challenges and their coping strategies faced by university teachers in Pakistan. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 7, p. 880335). Frontiers Media SA.
Shah, M. H. A., Dharejo, N., & Khoso, I. A. (2024). Integrated Significant Predictors Increasing the Overall Effectiveness and Usability of MOOC in Higher Education Institutions in Pakistan From Learners’ Perspectives: An Application of the UTAUT Model. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 8(2), 311-325.
Anthony Jnr, B. (2022). An exploratory study on academic staff perception towards blended learning in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3107-3133.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.