MOOCs, An Opportunity for Equality?

Introduction

In the modern day, schooling transcends national borders. Just over a decade ago, the launch of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) took place. 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 regarding 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, several studies conducted by Udjaja and Sari (2017), Kurniawan et al. (2018), Rabiha and Sasmoko (2019), and Kardipah and Wibawa (2020), as cited in Widodo et al. (2021), have focused on the production of instructional materials, the administration of human resources, library resources, individuals' perceptions of technological consumption, the management of databases, and the administration of organizational websites. There aren't many studies on evaluation and educational quality assurance, though. This means that there is a good opportunity for more research into how technological advances affect improving access to learning in Indonesia using quality assurance and evaluation methods (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. In their study, Sarnoto et al. (2022) discussed how 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. The lack of internet connectivity in remote locations makes it more challenging for learners to utilize 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 status significantly influences learning opportunities in the USA, resulting in differences in the availability and quality of education. Ylimaki and Wilmers (2021) stated that learners from smaller socioeconomic origins frequently encounter barriers that include the 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 problems in society, such as criminal activity and destitution (Ylimaki & Wilmers, 2021; see also Allen et al., 2005; Carpentier, 2018).  The establishment of mandatory schooling regulations ensured universal access to education. Despite constitutional progress, socioeconomic prejudice persists in the US schooling system. Efforts are ongoing to eliminate prejudice and provide equal educational opportunities, which includes addressing structural issues such as racism and its 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 diligently struggled to adapt to online instruction, despite the increased job expectations and pressure, as they navigated various online platforms and transformed traditional 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) noted that despite initiatives to enhance the accessibility of education through technology, challenges such as inadequate support for technology, low involvement rates, and issues with student engagement and family interaction persisted throughout the pandemic.

MOOCs, Opportunities, and Challenges for Equality in Education

MOOCs emerged to provide accessible academic materials and public access to these materials, thereby expanding learning opportunities 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. Furthermore, Iniesto et al. (2017) expounded on this concept, asserting that this platform provides alternative learning opportunities for students who cannot participate in traditional schooling, especially those with special needs. However, Laurillard and Kennedy (2017) argued that the present platforms may not always be accessible to everyone. Furthermore, in a study on MOOCs for students with special needs, Park et al. (2019) stated that all attempts to enhance MOOC availability involve recognizing student accessibility needs, complying with regulations, promoting effective keyboard directions, screen readers, correcting mistakes, and implementing rules to enhance pedagogical characteristics.

 

Promoters have positioned MOOCs as an affordable alternative to conventional schooling, removing obstacles to improve educational access. In their study of the USA context, Turnbull et al. (2021) explained that underprivileged populations saw this platform as a chance to enroll in and complete online classes, especially during the COVID-19 epidemic, which reduced physical learning. 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. Instead of replacing traditional education, people primarily use the platform for professional development or as an additional learning tool. The platform has not significantly changed 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 fosters distance learning by acknowledging MOOCs as learning credits, thereby bridging the gap between 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 primarily use internet access for social networks, underscoring the need for awareness about 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, sustenance, and results among students of varying social origins.  The frameAccess, survival, output, and outcome differences are the four equality dimensions that the framework uses to look into educational differences based on social factors like race, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (Farrell, 1999, as cited in Espinoza, 2007).  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 offering information about school system efficacy and balance.  Recognizing the gaps highlighted by Farrell's model may assist policymakers in choosing 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 section explores the potential of MOOCs to enhance educational equality, especially for individuals residing in remote areas. 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 to consider is the equitable distribution of results 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' 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). On the other hand, Firmansyah and Timmis (2016) conducted a study that revealed Indonesia's involvement in programs like IDCourserians. These programs aim to boost participation by promoting the use of Coursera and other websites, potentially more effectively addressing 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 among its citizens. This influences the availability and dissemination of MOOCs in different ways in both countries (Darmawaskita & McDaniel, 2021; Sarnoto et al., 2022).

2. Survival

Both countries exhibit significant dropout rates in MOOCs, an issue that is prevalent 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 MOOCs in the USA lack sufficient specific assistance for communities with limited resources, resulting in lower persistence rates 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 outcome is beneficial for both personal and professional development. 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 standards of learning outcomes. It may make knowledge more meaningful in the local context (Firmansyah & Timmis, 2016). In contrast, Darmawaskita & McDaniel (2021) found in their study that the United States has historically provided MOOCs with materials not always tailored to specific regional circumstances, thereby limiting the practical application of acquired knowledge. 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 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.

In the USA, a lack of participation, particularly for underrepresented communities, has led to increased educational inequality and less favorable outcomes for these populations (Darmawaskita & McDaniel, 2021). This contrasts with the context in Indonesia, where initiatives like IDCourserians aim to produce more substantial outcomes by identifying relevant materials and forming supportive groups, potentially leading to increased skill integration and implementation in the local context (Firmansyah & Timmis, 2016). Furthermore, Indonesia links MOOC outcomes to larger curricular goals, such as enhancing technology awareness and cultivating a technologically competent population. While MOOCs in the USA aim to achieve similar personal outcomes, the absence of specific support for populations at risk suggests a lesser geographical realization of these wider societal consequences.

Applying Farrell's Framework reveals that while both the USA and Indonesia use MOOCs to enhance accessibility to education and offer opportunities for skill development, there are significant differences in their procedures and outcomes. While the USA prioritizes wide democracy, it also prioritizes the inclusivity and participation of marginalized individuals, leading to distinct standards and outcomes. Through certain projects, Indonesia prioritizes regional materials and community support, potentially leading to increased participation and more meaningful outcomes within the regional context.

Conclusion

In conclusion, MOOCs have multiple effects on equitable access to education, particularly when viewed through the lens 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 among marginalized communities still exist.  This illustrates 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