FSD | Frontiers in Sustainable Development
← Back to Volume 3, Issue 12

Research on Evaluation Index System of Teacher Satisfaction for Chinese Digital Educational Platforms

Yi Xu, Juncheng Li, Dingfeng Xie
Vol. 3, No. 12, pp. 55-62, 2023 DOI: 10.54691/0vq68181 December 22, 2023
Download PDF
Abstract.In recent years, China's digital educational platforms have experienced rapid growth, becoming crucial tools in teaching. However, their success doesn't solely rely on their technology and features; it crucially hinges on the level of acceptance and satisfaction among teachers. Despite significant attention in this field, in-depth research into teacher satisfaction with Chinese digital educational platforms remains insufficient. This study aims to comprehensively investigate and analyze the factors influencing teacher satisfaction towards these platforms, exploring teachers' attitudes, usage patterns, and experiential feedback across different platforms. The survey covers five key indicators: personalized support, resource quality, user experience, functionality, and teaching effectiveness. Through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and consistency checks, an evaluation system for teacher satisfaction with digital educational platforms was established, offering guidance and recommendations for platform optimization and improved teaching quality. Weight judgment for various indicators highlights the importance of resource practicality, user emotional experience, student engagement, and teaching quality as critical factors.
Keywords. Educational Informatization; Educational Digitalization; Digital Educational Platforms.
APA Citation Yi Xu, Juncheng Li, Dingfeng Xie (2023). Research on Evaluation Index System of Teacher Satisfaction for Chinese Digital Educational Platforms. Frontiers in Sustainable Development, 3(12), 55-62. https://doi.org/10.54691/0vq68181

References

  1. Aldowah H, Al-Samarraie H, Alzahrani A I, et al. Factors affecting student dropout in MOOCs: a cause and effect decision‐making model[J]. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 2020, 32: 429-454.
  2. Badali M, Hatami J, Banihashem S K, et al. The role of motivation in MOOCs’ retention rates: a systematic literature review[J]. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2022, 17(1): 1-20.
  3. Baturay M H. An overview of the world of MOOCs[J]. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, 174: 427-433.
  4. Borrella I, Caballero-Caballero S, Ponce-Cueto E. Taking action to reduce dropout in MOOCs: Tested interventions[J]. Computers & Education, 2022, 179: 104412.
  5. Castaño-Muñoz J, Rodrigues M. Open to moocs? Evidence of their impact on labour market outcomes[J]. Computers & Education, 2021, 173: 104289.
  6. de Moura V F, de Souza C A, Viana A B N. The use of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in blended learning courses and the functional value perceived by students[J]. Computers & Education, 2021, 161: 104077.
  7. Deng R, Benckendorff P, Gannaway D. Learner engagement in MOOCs: Scale development and validation[J]. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2020, 51(1): 245-262.
  8. Deng R, Benckendorff P, Gannaway D. Progress and new directions for teaching and learning in MOOCs[J]. Computers & Education, 2019, 129: 48-60.
  9. Despujol I, Castañeda L, Marín V I, et al. What do we want to know about MOOCs? Results from a machine learning approach to a systematic literature map** review[J]. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2022, 19(1): 1-22.
  10. Fox A. From moocs to spocs[J]. Communications of the ACM, 2013, 56(12): 38-40.
  11. Haber J. MOOCs[M]. MIT Press, 2014.
  12. Hew K F, Hu X, Qiao C, et al. What predicts student satisfaction with MOOCs: A gradient boosting trees supervised machine learning and sentiment analysis approach[J]. Computers & Education, 2020, 145: 103724.
  13. Julia K, Marco K. Educational scalability in MOOCs: Analysing instructional designs to find best practices[J]. Computers & Education, 2021, 161: 104054.
  14. Lambert S R. Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A systematic review 2014–18[J]. Computers & Education, 2020, 145: 103693.
  15. Liyanagunawardena T R, Adams A A, Williams S A. MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012[J]. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2013, 14(3): 202-227.
  16. Palacios Hidalgo F J, Huertas Abril C A, Gómez Parra M E. MOOCs: Origins, concept and didactic applications: A systematic review of the literature (2012–2019)[J]. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 2020, 25(4): 853-879.
  17. Stracke C M, Downes S, Conole G, et al. Are MOOCs Open Educational Resources? A Literature Review on History, Definitions and Typologies of OER and MOOCs[J]. Open Praxis, 2019, 11(4): 331-341.
  18. Stracke C M, Trisolini G. A systematic literature review on the quality of MOOCs[J]. Sustainability, 2021, 13(11): 5817.
  19. Wang W, Zhao Y, Wu Y J, et al. Factors of dropout from MOOCs: a bibliometric review[J]. Library Hi Tech, 2023, 41(2): 432-453.
  20. Yousef A M F, Chatti M A, Schroeder U, et al. MOOCs-A Review of the State-of-the-Art[C]// International Conference on Computer Supported Education. SCITEPRESS, 2014, 2: 9-20.
  21. Yu J, Luo G, **ao T, et al. MOOCCube: a large-scale data repository for NLP applications in MOOCs[C] //Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. 2020: 3135-3142.