CAJ | 학술논문

近年来,MOOC 作为一种新兴的教育模式风靡全球,但低完成率及高辍学率使得MOOC的教育质量及评价问题日益突出。传统评价方法已不能满足对其教育质量的有效评价,特别是无法实现对学习者学习过程及成效的有效评估与认证。因此,MOOC评价指标体系的构建备受学界关注。相较于美国,欧洲MOOC发展进程不算快,但随着欧洲一体化进程的加快,欧洲学者就如何评价MOOC教育质量,特别是从哪些维度进行评价、如何设置评价指标、谁评价等问题进行了较频繁的学术探讨,不少研究者相继提出MOOC教育质量评价方法的构想。本文对欧洲新近三种MOOC教育质量评价方法进行了比较：一是欧洲远程教育大学联合会的开放教育质量标签,该评价方法适用于高校对其“机构层面”与“课程层面”的MOOC教育质量的自我评价,具有一定的研究与应用价值,但也存在一定局限性；二是西班牙的MOOC教育质量综合评价指标体系,这是一套建立在对在线学习质量评价标准ADECUR及UNE 66181：2012对比分析之上的MOOC教育质量评价标准,主要涉及对MOOC学习过程中“学习方法”“接纳性层级”“虚拟课堂环境”及MOOC学习成效“就业认可”等方面的教育质量评价,比较全面、客观地评价学习者接受MOOC教育的学习成效及学习条件,但忽视了对开设MOOC的高校机构管理层面的评价；三是德国MOOC 设计质量评价标准,着眼于评价MOOC的课程设计,能够提供一套较为完善的参照标准,但缺乏MOOC开展过程中的教学指导评价,也未涉及对学生学习效果评价。所获的启示是：按评价目的选择局部或整体性评价标准,评价方式突出教师与学习者的评价主体地位,评价环节强化质量控制。
근년래,MOOC 작위일충신흥적교육모식풍미전구,단저완성솔급고철학솔사득MOOC적교육질량급평개문제일익돌출。전통평개방법이불능만족대기교육질량적유효평개,특별시무법실현대학습자학습과정급성효적유효평고여인증。인차,MOOC평개지표체계적구건비수학계관주。상교우미국,구주MOOC발전진정불산쾌,단수착구주일체화진정적가쾌,구주학자취여하평개MOOC교육질량,특별시종나사유도진행평개、여하설치평개지표、수평개등문제진행료교빈번적학술탐토,불소연구자상계제출MOOC교육질량평개방법적구상。본문대구주신근삼충MOOC교육질량평개방법진행료비교：일시구주원정교육대학연합회적개방교육질량표첨,해평개방법괄용우고교대기“궤구층면”여“과정층면”적MOOC교육질량적자아평개,구유일정적연구여응용개치,단야존재일정국한성；이시서반아적MOOC교육질량종합평개지표체계,저시일투건립재대재선학습질량평개표준ADECUR급UNE 66181：2012대비분석지상적MOOC교육질량평개표준,주요섭급대MOOC학습과정중“학습방법”“접납성층급”“허의과당배경”급MOOC학습성효“취업인가”등방면적교육질량평개,비교전면、객관지평개학습자접수MOOC교육적학습성효급학습조건,단홀시료대개설MOOC적고교궤구관리층면적평개；삼시덕국MOOC 설계질량평개표준,착안우평개MOOC적과정설계,능구제공일투교위완선적삼조표준,단결핍MOOC개전과정중적교학지도평개,야미섭급대학생학습효과평개。소획적계시시：안평개목적선택국부혹정체성평개표준,평개방식돌출교사여학습자적평개주체지위,평개배절강화질량공제。
In recent years, Massive Open Online Courses ( MOOCs) have been developed rapidly around the world. MOOCs provide students with open access to higher education and are designed to offer students good quality learning experiences. However, considering the high drop-out rates and low completion rate of MOOC, it is still hard to claim that higher education institutions are delivering a quality education to these students. For this reason, developing an effective assessment tool to measure the quality of MOOCs has drawn a widespread attention. Some scholars concern whether the quality of MOOCs can be assessed in the same way as any defined university with traditional quality asses-sing processes. Others argue that since the aims and intentions of both students and institutions differ in the context of MOOC compared to formal education, the conventional quality assessment and quality enhancement methods do not fit in the quality measurement of MOOCs. In this paper, we believe that the convectional quality assessment tool are inap-propriate for assessing MOOCs and it is necessary to have a capable assessment tool. In order to develop an effective assessment tool for Chinese higher education, this paper conducted a comparison analysis of three assessment tools recently proposed by European scholars for measuring the quality of MOOCs. The first assessment tool is the EADTUˊs OpenupEd quality label, which refers to evaluating the MOOCs’ quality from in-stitutional level and course level. The second one was a comprehensive evaluation index system of MOOCs, which is based on the ADECUR assessment tool and Standard UNE 66181:2012. It evaluates four aspects of MOOCs’ quali-ty:learning methods, levels of accessibility, virtual classroom environment/climate and recognition of training for em-ployability. The last one is the Criteria to Assure Design Quality of MOOCs, which evaluates the designing quality of MOOCs. All three assessment tools refer to assessing the MOOCs learning experiences from different dimensions and each assessment tool has its advantages and limitations. Based on the analysis, the following implications are made for developing an effective assessment tool in China in the future. The first is designing an evaluation index with both flexibility and diversity. This requires using scientific methodologies to find out the most accurate and effective assessment index. The second implication is selecting multiple assessment participants in order to establish a systematic evaluation of instructional outcomes. The last one is adopting reasonable assessing processes to ensure the evaluation quality.