Perception of MOOC Pedagogical Tools and Learners' Learning Styles in MOOC Blended Teaching: a Case Study
Pages 1 - 6
Abstract
Rapid development has been achieved since the emergence of MOOC in 2008, but there are still many defects in the popularization of MOOC. Developing blended teaching by utilizing is considered to be one of effective means to overcome these shortcomings. The existing studies on MOOC blended teaching focus on how to improve the teaching effect, but lack of in-depth studies on MOOC pedagogical tools and learners' learning styles in blended teaching. Through a case study of MOOC blended teaching, this study aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the learners' perception of MOOC pedagogical tools, and thoroughly understand the choice of learners' learning styles in this diverse learning environment. The results show that learning styles of learners can be divided into five categories in the MOOC blended teaching, and have different correlations with the perception of MOOC learning tools and curriculum satisfaction, but have no correlation with curriculum achievement. This indicates that learners will choose different learning styles according to their own characteristics and preferences, and will not affect their academic performance. The design of existing MOOC pedagogical tools cannot meet the needs of all learners. Although MOOC blended teaching can make up for some deficiencies in this area, further research is still needed to perfect it.
References
[1]
Fini, A. "The Technological Dimension of a Massive Open Online Course: The Case of the CCK08 Course Tools." International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 10.5(2009):26.
[2]
Kay, Judy, et al. "MOOCs: So Many Learners, So Much Potential ...." IEEE Intelligent Systems 28.3 (2013): 70--77.
[3]
Van Dijck, J., and Poell, T. "Higher Education in a Networked World: European Responses to U.S. MOOCs." International Journal of Communication 9(2015):2674--2692.
[4]
Skiba, D. J. "Disruption in higher education: massively open online courses (MOOCs)." Nursing Education Perspectives 33.6(2012):416--418.
[5]
Cooper, Steve, and M. Sahami. "Reflections on Stanford's MOOCs." Communications of the Acm 56.2(2013):28--30.
[6]
Parry, Marc. "5 Ways That edX Could Change Education." Chronicle of Higher Education (2012).
[7]
Szpunar, K. K., N. Y. Khan, and D. L. Schacter. "Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110.16(2013):6313--6317.
[8]
Yousef, Ahmed Mohamed Fahmy, et al. "A usability evaluation of a blended MOOC environment: An experimental case study." The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 16.2(2015).
[9]
Toven-Lindsey, Brit, R. A. Rhoads, and J. B. Lozano. "Virtually unlimited classrooms: Pedagogical practices in massive open online courses." The Internet and Higher Education 24(2015):1--12.
[10]
Emanuel, E. J. "Online education: MOOCs taken by educated few." Nature, 503(7476), 342(2013).
[11]
Zhao, Y., & Breslow, L. "Literature review on hybrid/blended learning." Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://tll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/library/Blended_Learning_Lit_Reveiw.pdf(2013).
[12]
Allison, Colin, et al. "The Web in education." Computer Networks 56.18(2012):3811--3824.
[13]
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., Jones, K. "Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. " Us Department of Education 115.3(2009):93.
[14]
Zawackirichter, O., and Naidu, S. "Mapping research trends from 35 years of publications in Distance Education." Distance Education 37.3 (2016): 245--269.
[15]
Joseph, Israel Maria. "Effectiveness of Integrating MOOCs in Traditional Classrooms for Undergraduate Students." The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 16.5(2015): 102--118.
[16]
Bogdan, R., Bicen, H., & Holotescu, C. "Current trends in blending university courses with MOOCs." In the 13th international scientific conference eLearning and software for education Bucharest, April 27--28, 2017. Bucharest
[17]
Bralic, Antonia, and Blaženka Divjak. "Integrating MOOCs in traditionally taught courses: achieving learning outcomes with blended learning." International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 15.1 (2018).
[18]
Soffer, Tal, and Anat Cohen. "Implementation of Tel Aviv University MOOCs in Academic Curriculum: A Pilot Study." The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 16.1 (2015): 80--97.
[19]
Anders, Abram D. "Theories and Applications of Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs): The Case for Hybrid Design." The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 16.6 (2015): 39--61.
[20]
Kent, Carmel, E. Laslo, and S. Rafaeli. "Interactivity in online discussions and learning outcomes." Computers & Education 97(2016):116--128.
[21]
Baturay, Meltem Huri. "An Overview of the World of MOOCs." Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (2015): 427--433.
[22]
Gillani, Nabeel, and Rebecca Eynon. "Communication patterns in massively open online courses." Internet and Higher Education (2014): 18--26.
[23]
Engle, Deborah L., Chris Mankoff, and Jennifer M. Carbrey. "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 (2015): 46--68.
[24]
Barak, Miri, A. Watted, and H. Haick. "Motivation to learn in massive open online courseComputers & Educations: Examining aspects of language and social engagement." 94(2016):49--60.
[25]
Szpunar, Karl K., Novall Y. Khan, and Daniel L. Schacter. "Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110.16 (2013): 6313--6317.
[26]
Alariohoyos, Carlos, et al. "Delving into Participants' Profiles and Use of Social Tools in MOOCs." IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 7.3 (2014): 260--266.
[27]
Wu, Bing, and Xiaohui Chen. "Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model." Computers in Human Behavior (2017): 221--232.
[28]
Alraimi, Khaled M., H. Zo, and A. P. Ciganek. "Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation." Computers & Education 80(2015):28--38.
[29]
Keller, J. M. Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. Springer Science & Business Media. (2009).
[30]
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, C. W., Babin, J. B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, L. R. "Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.)." New Jersey: Pearson (2006).
Index Terms
- Perception of MOOC Pedagogical Tools and Learners' Learning Styles in MOOC Blended Teaching: a Case Study
Recommendations
Self-Regulation for High School Learners in a MOOC Computer Science Course
SIGCSE '20: Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationCourses designed for Massive Open Online Courseware (MOOC)platforms provide learners worldwide with extensive learning opportunities. Previous research has explored learner motivation in MOOC courses using self-regulated learning (SRL) theory. How-ever; ...
Improving the MOOC learning outcomes throughout informal learning activities
TEEM '14: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing MulticulturalityThe Massive Open Online Courses (hereafter referred to as MOOC) were born as a space where the university could offer training outside of the boundaries of the classroom and based on informal and social learning. The characteristics of the MOOC: ...
Using MOOC technology and formative assessment in a conceptual modelling course: an experience report
MODELS '18: Proceedings of the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion ProceedingsOnline and blended learning are employed by educators in a wide variety of fields, from literature to computer science, from medicine to astronomy. However, online and, specifically, MOOC and SPOC technologies are still not widespread in the field of ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
August 2019
95 pages
ISBN:9781450372565
DOI:10.1145/3355166
Copyright © 2019 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 02 August 2019
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
ICEBT 2019
ICEBT 2019: 2019 The 3rd International Conference on E-Education, E-Business and E-Technology
August 2 - 4, 2019
Madrid, Spain
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 213Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)10
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 14 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in