Are MOOCs a new way of learning in engineering education in light of the literature? A systematic review and bibliometric analysis

IF 3.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Engineering Education Pub Date : 2024-01-12 DOI:10.1002/jee.20580
Zeynep Turan, R. Yilmaz
{"title":"Are MOOCs a new way of learning in engineering education in light of the literature? A systematic review and bibliometric analysis","authors":"Zeynep Turan, R. Yilmaz","doi":"10.1002/jee.20580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have gained popularity as a form of distance education, highlighting the need for additional research. Various studies have systematically examined scholarly research on MOOCs. However, the reviewed academic publications on the use of MOOCs in engineering education are limited.This study aims to examine the implementation of MOOCs in engineering education using systematic review and bibliometric analysis methods.This study examines 68 studies from the Web of Science database that fall within the scope of the systematic review and 257 studies for bibliometric analysis.Since 2018, there has been a growing number of studies exploring the uses of MOOCs in engineering education. The quantitative research method is the most preferred, while the mixed method is the least preferred. The study found that using MOOCs in engineering education resulted in positive student perceptions and satisfaction. However, the lack of interactivity between learners and instructors or among learners was the most frequently reported problem. Moreover, the bibliometric analysis indicates that reviewed studies extensively explore learners' engagement, interactions, and feedback processes. Recently, academic research focused on sentiment analysis, deep learning, educational technology, machine learning, and text mining.There is a need for further investigation into utilizing MOOCs in engineering education. This study's evaluation of MOOCs' pros and cons yields essential insights for optimizing their use in engineering education. By leveraging the positive aspects outlined in the study, educators can enhance engineering students' satisfaction and participation in MOOCs. These findings offer a valuable resource for researchers exploring MOOC‐related topics in engineering education.","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20580","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have gained popularity as a form of distance education, highlighting the need for additional research. Various studies have systematically examined scholarly research on MOOCs. However, the reviewed academic publications on the use of MOOCs in engineering education are limited.This study aims to examine the implementation of MOOCs in engineering education using systematic review and bibliometric analysis methods.This study examines 68 studies from the Web of Science database that fall within the scope of the systematic review and 257 studies for bibliometric analysis.Since 2018, there has been a growing number of studies exploring the uses of MOOCs in engineering education. The quantitative research method is the most preferred, while the mixed method is the least preferred. The study found that using MOOCs in engineering education resulted in positive student perceptions and satisfaction. However, the lack of interactivity between learners and instructors or among learners was the most frequently reported problem. Moreover, the bibliometric analysis indicates that reviewed studies extensively explore learners' engagement, interactions, and feedback processes. Recently, academic research focused on sentiment analysis, deep learning, educational technology, machine learning, and text mining.There is a need for further investigation into utilizing MOOCs in engineering education. This study's evaluation of MOOCs' pros and cons yields essential insights for optimizing their use in engineering education. By leveraging the positive aspects outlined in the study, educators can enhance engineering students' satisfaction and participation in MOOCs. These findings offer a valuable resource for researchers exploring MOOC‐related topics in engineering education.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从文献来看,MOOCs 是工程教育的一种新学习方式吗?系统回顾与文献计量分析
作为远程教育的一种形式,大规模开放式在线课程(MOOCs)越来越受欢迎,这凸显了开展更多研究的必要性。各种研究系统地考察了有关 MOOCs 的学术研究。本研究旨在采用系统综述和文献计量分析方法,考察MOOCs在工程教育中的实施情况。本研究考察了科学网数据库中属于系统综述范围的68项研究和257项文献计量分析研究。2018年以来,探讨MOOCs在工程教育中应用的研究越来越多。其中,定量研究方法最受青睐,混合研究方法最不受欢迎。研究发现,在工程教育中使用MOOCs会带来积极的学生感知和满意度。然而,学习者与教师之间或学习者之间缺乏互动性是最常报告的问题。此外,文献计量分析表明,所审查的研究广泛探讨了学习者的参与、互动和反馈过程。最近,学术研究的重点是情感分析、深度学习、教育技术、机器学习和文本挖掘。本研究对 MOOCs 的利弊进行了评估,为优化其在工程教育中的应用提供了重要启示。通过利用研究中概述的积极方面,教育者可以提高工科学生对 MOOCs 的满意度和参与度。这些发现为探索工程教育中 MOOC 相关主题的研究人员提供了宝贵的资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Engineering Education
Journal of Engineering Education 工程技术-工程:综合
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) serves to cultivate, disseminate, and archive scholarly research in engineering education.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Celebrating outstanding publications and reviewers from the 2023 volume Professorial intentions of engineering PhDs from historically excluded groups: The influence of graduate school experiences Through their eyes: Understanding institutional factors that impact the transfer processes of Black engineering students An exploration of psychological safety and conflict in first-year engineering student teams
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1