Instructional Strategies that Respond to Global Learners’ Needs in Massive Open Online Courses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i2.1160Keywords:
Moocs, online learning, internationalAbstract
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are one of the most innovative forms of online instruction delivered to learners of different language, cultural and educational backgrounds around the world. These multicultural learners have diverse communication styles, learning behaviors and needs that are manifested and demonstrated differently in such a large scale online learning environment as MOOCs. There is little research on how aspects of MOOC learners’ diverse cultural backgrounds and learning behaviors are perceived, how these learners are characterized in terms of their learning needs, and how the MOOC instructors and instructional designers respond to these needs in the course design process. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe how MOOC learners’ diverse learning needs, stemming from their different language, cultural and educational backgrounds, were perceived and responded to during the course design and delivery. Participants were fifteen instructors and instructional designers in American higher educational institutions who were involved in designing and delivering a wide variety of MOOC subjects on the Coursera hosting platform. The insights of participants into specific instructional strategies that were designed especially for MOOC multicultural learners’ needs were categorized into three themes: language, content and engagement. These strategies aimed to provide support and engage learners with English language barriers, or those who did not have the necessary subject background to keep up with the course, or those who were not familiar with the American education culture. The study also investigated the pedagogical challenges and concerns that the participants faced during and after the delivery of the MOOCs. Typical challenges included confusions caused during the discussion triggered by the subject, the participants’ struggle with the efficiency of peer assessment, and the applicability of the content materials for the global audience.References
Bali, M. (2014). MOOC pedagogy: Gleaning good practice from existing MOOCs.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 44-56. Retrieved from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no1/bali_0314.pdf
Billington, P., & Fronmueller, M. (2013). MOOCs and the future of higher education.
Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 13(3/4), 36-43.
Bligh, J. (2002). The first year of doctoring: Still a survival exercise. Medical Education, 36, 2–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01129.x
Bruff, D., Fisher, D., McEwen, K., & Smith, B. (2013). Wrapping a MOOC: Student
perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 187-199. Retrieved from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/bruff_0613.htm
Engle, D., Mankoff, C., & Carbrey, J. (2015). Coursera’s introductory human physiology course: Factors that characterize successful completion of a MOOC. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2), 46-67. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2010/3317
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fine, E., & Handelsman, J. (2010). Benefits and challenges of diversity of academic settings. University of Wisconsin-Madison: Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute. Retrieved from http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/docs/Benefits_Challenges.pdf
Fischer, C. G., & Grant, G. E. (1983). Intellectual levels in college classrooms.
Lexington, MA: D.C: Heath.
Haavind, S., & Sistek-Chandler, C. (2015). The emergent role of the MOOC instructor: A qualitative study of trends toward improving future practice. International Journal on E-Learning, 14(3), 331-350.
Hollands, F., & Tirthali, D., (2014). MOOCs - expectations and reality. Retrieved from:
http://www.academicpartnerships.com/sites/default/files/MOOCs_Expectations_and_Reality.pdf
Jacoby, J. (2014). The disruptive potential of the Massive Open Online Course: A literature review. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 18(1), 73-85. Retrieved from http://www.jofdl.nz/index.php/JOFDL/article/view/214
Ke, F., Chávez, A. F., & Herrera, F. (2013). Web-based teaching and learning across culture and age. New York: Springer.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dream-keepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Liyanagunawardena, T., Adams, A., & Williams, S., (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study
of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202-227. Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1455/2531
Maringe, F., & Sing, N. (2014). Teaching large classes in an increasingly internationalising higher education environment: Pedagogical, quality and equity issues. Higher Education, 67(6), 761-782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9710-0
Martin, F. G. (2012). Will massive open online courses change how we teach?
Communications of the ACM, 55(8), 26-28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2240236.2240246
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Penner, J. G. (1984). Why many college teachers cannot lecture: How to avoid
communication breakdown in the classroom. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Phan, T., McNeil S., & Robin, B. (2016). Students’ patterns of engagement and course
performance in a massive open online course. Computers & Education, 95, 36-44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.015
Rensing, C., de Freitas, S., Ley, T., & Muñoz-Merino, P. J. (Eds.). (2014). Open Learning and Teaching in Educational Communities. Proceedings in the 9th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2014. Graz, Austria: Springer.
Rivard, R. (2013). Learning how to teach. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/05/moocs-prompt-some-faculty
members-refresh-teaching-styles
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Stewart, B. (2013). Massiveness + openness = new literacies of
participation? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 228–238. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/stewart_bonnie_0613.htm
Stones, E. (1970). Students’ attitudes toward the size of teaching groups. Educational
Review, 21(2), 98-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013191690210202
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Tomkin, J. H., & Charlevoix, D. (2014). Do professors matter? Using an a/b test to
evaluate the impact of instructor involvement on MOOC student outcomes. In
Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning@ scale Conference (pp.
-78). Atlanta, GA: Learning@ scale.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Zhang, Y. (2013). Benefiting from MOOC. In J. Herrington, A. Couros & V. Irvine
(Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and
Technology 2013 (pp. 1372-1377). Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE): Victoria, British Columbia.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
