Search

This paper conducted a survey to examine the use of social networking sites by the students of KLE's LIngaraj College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India using a random sampling technique. A total of 100 replies were received, 50 from men and 50 from women. The results revealed that both male and female students made extensive use of WhatsApp. The majority of students expected to receive notifications of library activities, OPAC, and newspaper services via online platforms. The findings also show that, while social media is still a relatively new phenomenon, it is becoming an increasingly significant tool for students to communicate and socialize with their classmates. Students are also concerned about security and privacy.

This article intends to investigate the consistency between a few popular generative AI robots in the evaluation of massive open online course (MOOC) platforms. The four robots experimented with in the study were Claude+, GPT-4, Sage, and Dragonfly, which were tasked with awarding rating scores to the eight major dimensions, namely (1) content/course quality, (2) pedagogical design, (3) learner support, (4) technology infrastructure, (5) social interaction, (6) learner engagement, (7) instructor support, and (8) cost-effectiveness, of the 31 currently very popular MOOC platforms. Only Claude+'s and Dragonfly's rating scores turned out to be amenable to statistical analysis. For each of the two robots, the minimum, the maximum, the range, and the standard deviation of the rating scores for each of the eight dimensions were computed across all the 31 MOOC platforms. The rating score difference for each of the eight dimensions between the two robots was calculated for each platform. The mean of the absolute value, the minimum, the maximum, the range, and the standard deviation of the differences for each dimension between the two robots were calculated across all platforms. A paired sample t-test was then applied to each dimension for the rating score difference between the two robots over all the platforms. Finally, a correlation coefficient of the rating scores was computed for each of the eight dimensions between the two robots across all the MOOC platforms. The computational results were to reveal whether the two robots awarded discrimination in evaluating each dimension across the platforms, whether any of the two robots systematically underrated or overrated any dimension with respect to the other robot, and whether there was consistency between the two robots in evaluating each dimension across the platforms. It was found that discrimination was prominent in the evaluation of all dimensions save Dragonfly's rating of the dimensions learner support, technology infrastructure, and instructor support, Claude+ systematically underrated all dimensions (p < 0.000 < 0.05) compared with Dragonfly except for the dimension cost-effectiveness, which Claude+ systematically overrated (p = 0.003 < 0.05), and the evaluation by the two robots was consistent only for the dimensions content/course quality, pedagogical design, and learner engagement with the correlation coefficients ranging from 0.445 to 0.632 (p from 0.000 to 0.012 < 0.05). Consistency implies at least the partial trustworthiness of the evaluation of these MOOC platforms by either of these two popular generative AI robots based on the analogous concept of convergent validity for an operationalized instrument to measure an abstract construct. [For the full proceedings, see ED636095.]

From the standpoint of a MOOC practitioner (i.e., a MOOC provider) instead of a rigorous comparative law researcher, this article attempts to analyze the potential legal issues and risks underlying instruction via MOOCs and compare these legal issues and risks between the small jurisdiction Macao and such major jurisdictions as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the European Union. These legal issues and risks so identified concern the three perspectives intellectual property, privacy, and accessibility. Supported by academic literature, statutes, acts, and court cases, this article elaborates on these three perspectives with respect to MOOC providers, quotes the key legal statutes and acts in these three perspectives in the context of MOOC providers, elucidates the statutes' and acts' emphases and the related remedies and penalties for breaches, and probably other details, and compares them across the aforesaid jurisdictions. Some prominent findings are that Macao, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the European Union appear to practice clearly defined and compendious laws to protect privacy whereas the United States' counterparts seem to be circumscribed by, for example, the ages of the individuals to protect. As such, for MOOC providers, the former four jurisdictions sound to be more critical than the latter jurisdiction in the perspective of privacy. As for accessibility, Macao's, the United States', the United Kingdom's, and Australia's laws focus on educational institutions. Nonetheless, whether the majority of MOOC providers can be regarded as such "education institutions" under such laws may likely be disputable. In contrast, the European Union more generically enacts a law on accessibility of digital products and services. Even so, to what extent and how MOOCs are supposed to conform to such a law may arguably still be contingent upon each particular scenario. [For the full proceedings, see ED636095.]