MOOCs, An Opportunity for Equality?

Introduction

In the modern day, schooling transcends national borders. Massive Open Online Courses known as MOOCs were launched just over a decade ago. Then, in 2011, several academics in the US uploaded a few instructional videos that became widespread around the globe, ultimately transforming into MOOCs (Ossiannilsson, 2022). Additionally, Rulinawaty et al., (2024) stated that this way of learning has emerged as an appealing answer to educational inequity because of its remote accessibility, and relatively inexpensive price. Nevertheless, Garrido et al., (2016) argued that MOOCs primarily help wealthy people, as disadvantaged individuals face challenges including accessibility to the internet, equipment availability, the required expertise, and prices. However, numerous individuals throughout the globe have taken advantage of this educational platform to further develop their skill sets according to their requirements (Bordoloi et al., 2020; Garrido et al., 2016; Ichou, 2018).

Tang and Carr-Chellman (2016) carried out an in-depth investigation into the viewpoints of numerous Chinese learners on their utilization of MOOCs. The study discovered that MOOCs have a modest impact on eliminating educational inequalities. Despite the obstacles that Chinese MOOC students faced, they maintained that MOOCs provide independence in acquiring knowledge, enabling them to take courses on their preferred schedule and comfort. Furthermore, Garrido et al. (2016) reported that MOOC students in Colombia, the Philippines, and South Africa possess much greater achievement and qualification percentages than users in countries with greater economic growth. The investigation further demonstrated the possible uses of MOOCs for teaching new work competencies and equipping people with additional studies. Finally, Bordoloi et al., (2020) discovered through their descriptive study that although MOOCs have the potential to substantially diminish inequalities in education by making learning more available and high-quality, the results achieved in dealing with imbalances depend eventually on variables including facilities, consciousness, and the capacity to effectively reach marginalized populations.

Current State of Education in Indonesia

Widodo et al. (2021) did a systematic review study that found an upward trend within the development of educational media and education management infrastructures in Indonesia between 2017 and 2020. Prior research has concentrated on the establishment of technological options that meet the expectations of Indonesian educational institutions, notably within both the educational and administrative domains. Moreover, as cited in Widodo et al., (2021) study, for example, several studies conducted by Udjaja and Sari (2017), Kurniawan et al., (2018), Rabiha and Sasmoko, (2019), and Kardipah and Wibawa, (2020), have concentrated on the production of instructional materials, human resources administration, library resources, individuals' perceptions of technological consumption, managing databases, and organizational website administration. However, there exists a shortage of studies on the evaluation and educational quality assurance areas, suggesting a promising field for further investigations to examine the effect of technological advances on strengthening access to learning using quality assurance and evaluation procedures in Indonesia (Widodo et al., 2021; see also Jayanti & Sarja, 2019; Yulherniwati & Ikhsan, 2020).

The Indonesian government has adopted several kinds of programs to improve opportunities for learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Sarnoto et al. (2022), in their study, discussed that this country has prioritized transferring learning duties from schools to homes, leveraging technologies as a virtual classroom platform. Nevertheless, various problems occurred throughout this transformation, including an imbalance of technological expertise between instructors and learners, inadequate infrastructure and supplies, and internet issues (Supriadi et al., 2020). The government's initiatives to enhance accessibility to learning using technology have encountered challenges. Further, Sarnoto et al. (2022) stated that most learners and educators have difficulty understanding technology, which reduces the efficacy of the educational experience. Moreover, the researchers explained that inadequate infrastructure and resources, combined with insufficient teacher welfare, make it difficult to deliver essential devices to students. Insufficient availability of internet connection in distant places makes it more difficult for learners to make use of online learning tools. Considering these limitations, government efforts highlight that it is significant to harness technology to provide continuous accessibility to learning amid emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the recently altered curriculum, Kurikulum Merdeka Belajar, represents a significant shift, particularly regarding its focus on the integration of technological devices in schooling (Aulia et al., 2024).

The Educational Landscape in the USA

Socioeconomic position has considerable effects on learning opportunities in the USA, including variations in the availability and standard of education. Ylimaki and Wilmers (2021) stated that learners from smaller socioeconomic origins frequently encounter barriers that include inadequate availability of resources such as qualified instructors, instructional resources, and extracurricular activities. These differences may result in achievement gaps where learners from families with lower incomes perform less efficiently than those from families with higher incomes. The history of the USA illustrates attempts to give equal access to education regardless of social challenges (Allen et al., 2005). Reformists in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries argued for free education to foster civic engagement and combat the problems in society such as criminal activity and destitution (Ylimaki & Wilmers, 2021; see also Allen et al., 2005; Carpentier, 2018). Mandatory schooling regulations were established to guarantee that everyone had access to a school. Despite constitutional progress, socioeconomic prejudicial views exist in the US schooling system. Attempts to remove prejudice and offer equal educational opportunities keep going, including the claims over structural concerns such as racism and racism prevention.

The US government addressed the obstacles caused by the COVID-19 epidemic by advocating the integration of technological devices in learning, especially in early childhood classrooms (Ford et al., 2021). Teachers struggled diligently to adjust to online instruction, despite higher job expectations and pressure because they handled various platforms on the internet and transformed conventional instructional approaches. The authorities acknowledged the significance of integrating technology in ensuring the continuation of learning throughout the pandemic. It signifies that effective methods are central to involving students in remote learning. Similarly, Lopres et al. (2023) also pointed out that although there are initiatives to promote the accessibility of schooling using technology, issues including insufficient support for technology, low involvement rates, and problems with student engagement and interaction with families continued throughout the pandemic.

MOOCs, Opportunities, and Challenges for Equality in Education

MOOCs emerged to give accessible academic materials and public access to academic materials, hence broadening possibilities for learning for everyone. MOOCs are non-discriminatory because of demographic attributes, fostering equitable access and inclusion for everyone (Bencivenga et al., 2022). These platforms provide inexpensive or free access to a wide range of educational materials, unrestricted engagement at the students' own speeds and settings, networking possibilities, and credentials from recognized institutions. Moreover, Iniesto et al. (2017) elaborated on this notion, stating that this platform offers an opportunity to alternate possibilities for learning for students who are unable to participate in conventional schooling, particularly due to their special needs. However, Laurillard and Kennedy (2017) argued that the present platforms may not always be accessible to everyone. Further, in one study on MOOCs for students with special needs, Park et al. (2019) stated that all attempts to enhance MOOC availability are recognizing student accessibility needs, complying with regulations, promoting effective keyboard directions, screen readers, and correcting mistakes options, and implementing rules to pedagogical characteristics.

MOOCs have been promoted as an affordable means to improve educational access by eliminating obstacles as opposed to conventional schooling. Turnbull et al. (2021), in their study of the USA context, explained that this platform was seen as a possibility for underprivileged populations to join and finish online classes, particularly during the COVID-19 epidemic, when physical learning was diminished. It offers possibilities for continuous education, allowing those with jobs to solve workplace problems, switch careers, or remain up-to-date within their companies (Goglio et al., 2023). It also provides learners with extra resources for challenging topics or previews of upcoming classes. Despite their potential, MOOCs perpetuate the identical tendencies in inequalities observed within conventional higher education. In this case, Garrido et al. (2016) reported that students from disadvantaged backgrounds take and finish these programs less often than those who are more advantaged students. Moreover, they emphasized that accomplishment rates in these categories remained inadequate, and the job market worth of MOOC graduates is unclear. MOOCs typically draw people who have attained a high degree of schooling, motivation, and finances. Due to this individual choice bias, MOOCs assist individuals who have become well-positioned instead of helping the underprivileged people for whom they were initially designed (Oudeweetering & Agirdag, 2018). MOOCs have had a limited impact on the government's educational system. As opposed to substituting conventional schooling, the platform mostly is utilized for professional development or as a supplemental tool for learning. They did not considerably alter the structure of established higher learning institutions.

MOOCs can greatly improve accessibility to learning, notably in countries with low enrollment university rates, including Indonesia. Berliyanto and Santoso (2018) stated that this platform is capable of reaching more learners, even those living in rural places, through the use of technology such as the Internet. The Indonesian government has expressed its encouragement for MOOCs through laws and regulations (Sulistiowati et al., 2021). This rule promotes distance learning and enables MOOCs to be acknowledged as learning credit, linking the traditional and online educational systems. Colleges may utilize MOOCs to attract learners. Furthermore, providing free or inexpensive courses allows schools to demonstrate their academic competence while also attracting prospective learners who might eventually participate in formal schools. The majority's insufficiency of digital literacy skills presents an urgent issue. Specifically, the majority of Indonesians utilize internet access mainly for social networks, indicating the need for awareness regarding how to effectively utilize online resources for learning (Berliyanto & Santoso, 2018). Many individuals in the country are unaware of MOOCs, and there is limited availability of efficient promotion and marketing techniques to draw in learners and inform them of the positive aspects of online education.

Farrell’s Theoretical Framework on MOOCs

Farrell's model examines systems of education comprehensively. It considers inequalities in availability, their sustenance, and results amongst students from varying social origins. The framework utilizes four equality dimensions, namely access, survival, output, and outcome differences to investigate educational differences according to social variables such as ethnic background, gender, race, and socioeconomic position (Farrell, 1999, as cited in Espinoza, 2007). Farrell's concept identifies differences in educational possibilities and achievements. It highlights the challenges students from different socioeconomic backgrounds experience in obtaining an excellent education and attaining favorable results. Furthermore, Farrell (1999, as cited in Espinoza, 2007) explained that the model is an evaluation tool for educational inequalities by looking at indicators including participation percentages, graduation rates, academic accomplishments, and higher education possibilities, and offers information about school system efficacy and balance. Recognizing the gaps highlighted by Farrell's model may assist policymakers choose actions that encourage equal and inclusive educational systems, eliminating the obstacles that prevent certain students from receiving excellent education and attaining their academic goals.

Furthermore, Farrell's framework is an instrument for analyzing a particular case (Mfum-Mensah, 2003). For example, MOOCs. As explained by Espinoza (2007), the first aspect of the framework is equal accessibility. This element describes the two contexts, namely The USA as a developed country and Indonesia as a developing country. It emphasizes how the availability of MOOCs, particularly in remote regions, can vary depending on the condition of the economic situation in that nation. Another element of this concept is equality of survival, which explains why certain social classes complete their schooling in both countries. Additionally, that part discusses whether MOOCs can assist extend equality in education, particularly for individuals who live in remote locations. Equal output is the third aspect of Farrell's model. This standard assesses the way MOOCs provide equality for academic results, especially for vulnerable people living in remote parts of both nations. Finally, another aspect is the equal distribution of result differences or products. This section examines the outcomes of MOOCs after learners finish their courses and receive specialty licenses, along with how both countries assess MOOC qualification credibility in comparison to traditional qualifications such as degree certificates. In simple terms, Lynch and Baker (2005) explained that this framework is appropriate for analyzing specific economic circumstances and in this case, the developing and developed countries on MOOCs.

Comparative Analysis of MOOCs between Indonesia and USA Context

Following a discussion of MOOC concepts and the differences in the educational landscapes of Indonesia and the USA, the writer examines these two contextual scenarios on MOOCs using Farrell's analytical framework. Additionally, the author compares the similarities and contrasts between the developed and developing nations.

1. Access

Both the USA and Indonesia made use of MOOCs to broaden the availability of education. The countries have utilized MOOC platforms such as Coursera, edX, and Udacity, which provide an extensive variety of classes from top universities (Goglio, 2022; Rulinawaty et al., 2024). In both scenarios, MOOCs provide courses that are readily accessible on the Internet, breaking down traditional challenges such as location and cost limits.

MOOCs in the USA are attempting to improve access to education by making top-notch classes accessible to an immense number of students. Nonetheless, they struggled to fully address the concerns of vulnerable populations, leaving an ongoing technological gap (Darmawaskita & McDaniel, 2021). Conversely, A study conducted by Firmansyah and Timmis (2016) found that Indonesia has participated in programs such as IDCourserians, which particularly attempt to increase participation by encouraging the utilization of Coursera and various other sites, possibly more efficiently targeting local needs. Besides, the USA has superior internet services and greater digital literacy percentages than Indonesia, which experiences issues including low access to the internet and various levels of technological proficiency amongst its citizens. It affects the availability and dissemination of MOOCs in various manners in both countries (Darmawaskita & McDaniel, 2021; Sarnoto et al., 2022).

2. Survival

Both countries have significant rates of dropout in MOOCs, which at first is a prevalent issue worldwide. It also suggests that, while MOOCs improve accessibility, sustaining student participation and completion is problematic (Firmansyah & Timmis, 2016; Goglio, 2022). Moreover, in both cases, sustaining student motivation is essential for increasing student completion rates. Interactive material, group discussions, and periodic evaluations are all viable options to promote participation.

Firmansyah and Timmis (2016) further elaborated on their study, suggesting that in Indonesia, initiatives such as IDCourserians establish an integrated community assistance system that can enhance student outcomes. Contrary to what occurs in the United States, Goglio (2022) claimed that such support from the community tends to be less common, putting a greater emphasis on the development of courses and motivation among individuals. Furthermore, the USA's MOOCs do not possess adequately specific assistance available to communities with limited resources, which has led to decreased rates of persistence for these groups. Indonesia's community-centered strategy, which includes tailored information and support, attempts to solve local issues with greater efficiency.

3. Output

In these two countries, the major result of MOOCs is the expertise and abilities that students obtain by finishing classes (Goglio, 2022; Rulinawaty et al., 2024). This result serves as helpful for personal and career growth. Further, this platform enables international interaction along with knowledge sharing. Students from these nations can connect with others from around the globe, widening their viewpoints and improving their educational experiences.

In Indonesia, the MOOC program promotes localizing curricula to enhance the relevance and standard of learning outcomes. It may make knowledge more meaningful in the local context (Firmansyah & Timmis, 2016). In contrast, Darmawaskita & McDaniel (2021), in their study discovered that the United States has traditionally provided MOOCs with materials that are not always targeted to particular circumstances in the region, consequently restricting the practical application of knowledge obtained. Furthermore, the United States' failure to deal with the technological gap and the expectations of underprivileged groups has negatively affected the standard of academic outputs for these target groups (Darmawaskita & McDaniel, 2021). Meanwhile, the Indonesian approach strives to establish enhanced inclusive conditions, possibly generating better outcomes for an increased number of students (Firmansyah & Timmis, 2016; Rulinawaty et al., 2024).

4. Outcome Differences

Similarly, Goglio (2022) and Rulinawaty et al. (2024) built a common ground between the two nations. Outstanding MOOC learners may apply the information they have gained to better advance their professional and individual development. This platform promotes lifelong learning and skill growth. While there are difficulties, MOOCs in both countries seek to improve access to knowledge by offering good-quality educational materials available to more learners (Darmawaskita & McDaniel, 2021; Firmansyah & Timmis, 2016; Goglio, 2022; Rulinawaty et al., 2024). It may assist in reducing inequality in education, although the effect differs based on the circumstances in the area.

Specifically, in the case of the USA, a lack of participation and specific participation for underrepresented communities has resulted in increased inequality in education and less favorable results for these populations (Darmawaskita & McDaniel, 2021). It differs from Indonesia's context, in which projects such as IDCourserians attempt to generate more significant results by identifying the materials and establishing supportive groups, which might contribute to greater skill integration and implementation in the local setting (Firmansyah & Timmis, 2016). Further, in Indonesia, MOOC outcomes are linked to larger curricular goals, including increasing awareness of technology and developing a technologically competent population. While MOOCs in the USA strive for similar personal results, a lack of specific support for populations at risk implies that such wider societal consequences are less geographically realized.

By applying Farrell's Framework, it can be observed that although both the USA and Indonesia employ MOOCs to increase accessibility to education and provide possibilities for the development of skills, their procedures and outcomes differ greatly. The USA prioritizes wide democracy but is concerned with inclusiveness and participation of those who are marginalized, resulting in different standards and results. Indonesia, through some projects, prioritizes regional material and support from communities, which might contribute to increased participation along with more meaningful outcomes in the context of the region.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are multiple effects of MOOCs on equitable access to education, notably through the perspective of Farrell's model on educational equality. MOOCs provide a chance to revolutionize schooling by allowing individuals to utilize excellent educational materials and eliminate traditional challenges like geography and socioeconomic position. Nevertheless, the success rate of MOOCs in fostering equal access to education can be challenging and differs greatly across developed and developing countries. In the USA, regardless of the widespread availability of MOOCs, worries about inclusion and participation amongst marginalized communities continue to exist. It demonstrates an imbalance between affordability and involvement. In Indonesia, however, community-driven projects and localized materials have demonstrated potential in terms of increasing engagement and attaining more significant academic results. Both scenarios highlight that personalized assistance and technological resources in attaining MOOCs' maximum potential are central. As the international academic environment develops, the results imply that, although MOOCs may considerably help eliminate educational inequality, their effect is dependent on meeting the individual needs and struggles of different student groups.

References

Allen, L., Solomon, L., Storan, J., & Thomas, L. (2005). Higher education in the USA, student fees, financial aid and access. https://repository.uel.ac.uk/download/fb9338bb129dab019ca3437bfa9be8b5691c5f7a255a56dc489bfaa0b7470597/396272/Storan,%20J%20et%20al%20(2005).pdf

Aulia, A. F., Asbari, M., & Wulandari, S. A. (2024). Kurikukulum Merdeka: Problematik Guru dalam Implementasi Teknologi Informasi pada Proses Pembelajaran. 03(02).

Bencivenga, R., Leone, C., & Siri, A. (2022). Equality, Diversity and Inclusion – A MOOC for Academic Purposes. In D. Cvetković (Ed.), MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100314

Berliyanto, & Santoso, H. B. (2018). Indonesian Perspective on Massive Open Online Courses: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Educators Online, 15(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1168947

Bordoloi, R., Das, P., & Das, K. (2020). Lifelong learning opportunities through MOOCs in India. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 15(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-09-2019-0042

Carpentier, V. (2018). Expansion and differentiation in higher education: The historical trajectories of the UK, the USA and France. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10048099/

Darmawaskita, N., & McDaniel, T. (2021). Analysis of the Impact of Educational Technology on Social Inequity in the United States. In M. Antona & C. Stephanidis (Eds.), Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Access to Media, Learning and Assistive Environments (Vol. 12769, pp. 41–51). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78095-1_4

Espinoza, O. (2007). Solving the equity–equality conceptual dilemma: A new model for analysis of the educational process. Educational Research, 49(4), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880701717198

Farrell, J. P. (1999). Changing conceptions of equality of education: Forty years of comparative evidence. Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the Local, 149–177.

Firmansyah, M., & Timmis, S. (2016). Making MOOCs meaningful and locally relevant? Investigating IDCourserians—an independent, collaborative, community hub in Indonesia. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0032-6

Ford, T. G., Kwon, K.-A., & Tsotsoros, J. D. (2021). Early childhood distance learning in the U.S. during the COVID pandemic: Challenges and opportunities. Children and Youth Services Review, 131, 106297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106297

Garrido, M., Koepke, L., Andersen, S., & Mena, A. F. (2016). The Advancing MOOCs for Development Initiative. Final Report.

Goglio, V. (2022). The Diffusion and Social Implications of MOOCs: A Comparative Study of the USA and Europe (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003009757

Goglio, V., Bertolini, S., & Parigi, P. (2023). The perceived labour market value of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in Europe and the USA. Journal of Education and Work, 36(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2022.2162020

Ichou, R. P. (2018). Can MOOCs Reduce Global Inequality in Education? Australasian Marketing Journal, 26(2), 116–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2018.05.007

Iniesto, F., McAndrew, P., Minocha, S., & Coughlan, T. (2017). What are the Expectations of Disabled Learners when Participating in a MOOC? Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale, 225–228. https://doi.org/10.1145/3051457.3053991

Jayanti, N. K. D. A., & Sarja, N. L. A. K. Y. (2019). IT as a Tools: Quality Assurance System in Higher Education. 2019 1st International Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent System (ICORIS), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORIS.2019.8874890

Kardipah, S., & Wibawa, B. (2020). A Flipped-Blended Learning Model with Augmented Problem Based Learning to Enhance Students’ Computer Skills. TechTrends, 64(3), 507–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00506-3

Kurniawan, M. H., Suharjito, Diana, & Witjaksono, G. (2018). Human Anatomy Learning Systems Using Augmented Reality on Mobile Application. Procedia Computer Science, 135, 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.152

Laurillard, D., & Kennedy, E. (2017). The potential of MOOCs for learning at scale in the Global South. Center for Global Higher Education, 13. https://www.researchcghe.org/wp-content/uploads/migrate/publications/wp31.pdf

Lopres, J. R., Niadas, G. Y., Minez, G. P., Lopres, G. M., Gutierrez, M. I., Quiap, A. M. Q., & Bangot, S. R. O. (2023). Divulging the Lived Experiences of Public School Teachers in the U.S.A. during COVID-19 Pandemic: Phenomenological Analysis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(5), 180–205. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.5.9

Lynch, K., & Baker, J. (2005). Equality in education: An equality of condition perspective. Theory and Research in Education, 3(2), 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878505053298

Mfum-Mensah, O. (2003). Computers in Ghanaian Secondary Schools: Where Does Equality Come in? Current Issues in Comparative Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.52214/cice.v6i1.11376

Ossiannilsson, E. (2022). MOOCS for Lifelong Learning, Equity, and Liberation. In D. Cvetković (Ed.), MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99659

Oudeweetering, K. van de, & Agirdag, O. (2018). MOOCS as Accelerators of Social Mobility? A Systematic Review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 1–11.

Park, K., So, H.-J., & Cha, H. (2019). Digital equity and accessible MOOCs: Accessibility evaluations of mobile MOOCs for learners with visual impairments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5521

Rabiha, S. G. & Sasmoko. (2019). Analysis of the Indicator’s Performance to Predict Indonesian Teacher Engagement Index (ITEI) using Artificial Neural Networks. Procedia Computer Science, 157, 266–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.08.166

Rulinawaty, Purwanto, A. J., Samboteng, L., Kasmad, M. R., & Basit, M. (2024). Global Trends and Policy Strategies and Their Implications for the Sustainable Development of MOOCs in Indonesia. In A. Rahman, S. Dwiputrianti, & M. N. Afandi (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Administrative Science (ICAS 2022) (Vol. 776, pp. 491–508). Atlantis Press SARL. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-104-3_47

Sarnoto, A. Z., Hayatina, L., Hikmah, N., Alhan, K., & Rahmawati, S. T. (2022). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the education sector in Indonesia. International Journal of Health Sciences, 167–174. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS2.4985

Sulistiowati, Saputeri, I., & Purwanti, E. (2021). MOOCs as a Means to Provide Education Equity in Indonesia: An Empirical Study at a Private University of Yogyakarta: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Sustainable Innovation 2020–Social, Humanity, and Education (ICoSIHESS 2020). Yogyakarta, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210120.166

Supriadi, Y., Nisa, A. A., & Wulandari, S. (2020). English teachers’ beliefs on technology enhanced language learning: A rush paradigmatic shift during Covid-19 pandemic. Pancaran Pendidikan, 9(2), 47–58.

Tang, H., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2016). Massive Open Online Courses and Educational Equality in China: A Qualitative Inquiry. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.0901.04

Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2021). Transitioning to E-Learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: How have Higher Education Institutions responded to the challenge? Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6401–6419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10633-w

Udjaja, Y., & Sari, A. C. (2017). A Gamification interactive typing for primary school visually impaired children in Indonesia. Procedia Computer Science, 116, 638–644.

Widodo, A. W., Solikhatun, I., Raharja, S., Abdun Salam, A., & Sri Wartini, F. (2021). A Utilization of Information Technology on Education in Indonesia (2017-2020): A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1779(1), 012024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1779/1/012024

Ylimaki, R. M., & Wilmers, A. (2021). Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges to education ( Bildung ) and citizenry in the modern nation state: Comparative perspectives on Germany and the USA. European Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211004659

Yulherniwati, Y., & Ikhsan, A. (2020). Assessment of Institution Readiness in Adopting Technology: A Study on Vocational Education Internal Quality Assurance System. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Multidisciplinary and Applications (WMA) 2018, 24-25 January 2018, Padang, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.24-1-2018.2292395