Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the communication preferences of MOOC learners and the value of preference-based groups: Is grouping enough?

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 08 August 2016

Abstract

Approximately 10 % of learners complete Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs); the absence of peer and professor support contributes to retention issues. MOOC leaders often form groups to supplement in-course forums and Q&A sessions, and students participating in groups find them valuable. Instructors want to assist in the formation of groups, creating multi-national collaborations, an asset possible in MOOCs that is generally sacrificed when students form their own groups. Little is known about how people from various cultures prefer to communicate with each other, or about the value of groups formed by MOOC leaders. To understand MOOC leaners’ grouping preferences, we administered a pre-course online survey to volunteers registered in the “Creativity, Innovation, and Change” MOOC offered by Penn State University via Coursera and assigned volunteers to groups based on their preferences. We also examined whether assigning learners to groups based on their preferences enhanced their performance or completion of the course. This paper reports MOOC learners’ preferences for different modes of online communication with group members (asynchronous text posts, synchronous text chats, or synchronous video and audio). Statistically significant relationships were found between learners’ preferred communication modes and their level of English proficiency, gender, level of education, and age. Although placing learners in groups based on their preferences and introducing them to each other did not improve course performance or completion, our findings on preferred communication modes, combined with more formal instruction of how to function as group members may prove to enhance learning and engagement in MOOCs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Delgado-Kloos, C., Muñoz-Organero, M., & Rodríguez-de-las-Heras, A. (2013). Analysing the impact of built-in and external social tools in a MOOC on educational technologies. In D. Hernandez-Leo, T. Ley, R. Klamma, & A. Harrer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 5–18). Berlin: Springer.

  • Berge, Z. L., & Huang, Y. P. (2004). A model for sustainable student retention: A holistic perspective on the student dropout problem with special attention to e-Learning. Deosnews, 13(5), Retrieved from http://learningdesign.psu.edu/deos/deosnews13_5.pdf.

  • Duggan, M. (2013) [FactTank post]. It’s a woman’s (social media) world. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/12/its-a-womans-social-media-world/.

  • Fallows, D. (2005). How women and men use the internet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2005/12/28/how-women-and-men-use-the-internet/.

  • Friedman, L. W. & Friedman, H. H. (2013). Using social media technologies to enhance online learning. Journal of Educators Online, 10(1), 1–21. Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume10Number1/Friedman.pdf.

  • Gütl, C., Rizzardini, R. H., Chang, V., & Morales, M. (2014). Attrition in MOOC: Lessons learned from drop-out students. In L. Uden, J. Sinclair, Y.-H. Tao, & D. Liberano (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Learning Technology for Education in Cloud (pp. 37–48). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

  • Hashizume, A., Kurosu, M., & Kaneko, T. (2008). The choice of communication media and the use of mobile phone among senior users and young users. In S. Lee, H. Choo, S. Ha, & In C. Shin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Human Interaction (pp. 427–436). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Hristova, A., & Bayeck, R. (2015). Exploring the relation between women’s socio-economic status and their preferences to work in MOOC groups. Paper presented at the Annual Comparative and International Education Society Conference, Washington, DC.

  • Jablokow, K., Matson, J., & Velegol, D. (2014). A multidisciplinary MOOC on creativity, innovation, and change: Encouraging experimentation and experiential learning on a grand scale. Paper presented at the 121 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://www.asee.org.

  • Jensen, K. B., & Helles, R. (2011). The Internet as a cultural forum: Implications for research. New Media & Society, 13(4), 517–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamel Boulos, M. N., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbrough, A. M., Guadagno, R. E., Muscanell, N. L., & Dill, J. (2013). Gender differences in mediated communication: Women connect more than do men. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 896–900. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraaykamp, G., & van Eijck, K. (2005). Personality, media preferences, and cultural participation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1675–1688. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, A. (2013). The potential of MOOCs to widen access to, and success in, higher education study. In Proceedings of The Open and Flexible Higher Education Conference (pp. 189–203). Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk.

  • Lin, C. I., Tang, W., & Kuo, F.-Y. (2012). “Mommy wants to learn the computer”: How middle-aged and elderly women in Taiwan learn ICT through social support. Adult Education Quarterly, 62(1), 73–90. doi: 10.1177/0741713610392760 and 0741713610392760v1.

  • McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In Proceedings of the 2007 Ascilite ICT Conference: Providing Choices for Learners and Learning (pp. 664–675). Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au.

  • McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M.J.W. (2008). Mapping the digital terrain: New media and social software as catalysts for pedagogical change. In Proceedings of the 2008 Ascilite Conference: Hello! Where are you in the Landscape of Educational Technology (pp. 641–652). Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au.

  • McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M.J.W. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28–43. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au.

  • Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., Brett, C., & Hewitt, J. (2013). Exploring asynchronous and synchronous tool use in online courses. Computers & Education, 60(1), 87–94. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R. F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Seher, A., & Evans, C. (2014). Moving through MOOCs: Understanding the progression of users in massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 421–432. doi:10.3102/0013189X14562423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education (Journal of Distance Education), 14(2), 50–71. Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca.

  • Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Instructional Technology and Distance Education, 2(1), 3–10. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org.

  • Slagter van Tryon, P. J., & Bishop, M. J. (2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education, 30(3), 291–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, B. (2010). Social media literacies and perceptions of value in open online courses. Retrieved from http://portfolio.cribchronicles.com.

  • Tomai, M., Mebane, M. E., Rosa, V., & Benedetti, M. (2014). Can computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) promote counter-stereotypical gender communication styles in male and female university students? Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4384–4392. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.952. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814009690.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213–238. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083430.

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, D., Sinha, T., Adamson, D., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). Turn on, tune in, drop out: Anticipating student dropouts in massive open online courses. Paper presented at the 2013 NIPS Data-Driven Education Workshop, Stateline, NV. Retrieved from http://lytics.stanford.edu.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Penn State University, 747 Southgate Dr., State College, PA, 16801, USA

    Qing Zhang

  2. Penn State University, 310E Keller Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Kyle L. Peck

  3. Penn State University, 213 Canterbury Dr., State College, PA, 16803, USA

    Adelina Hristova

  4. Penn State University, 30 E. Swedesford Rd., Malvern, PA, 19355, USA

    Kathryn W. Jablokow

  5. Penn State University, 4B Shields Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Vicki Hoffman

  6. Penn State University, 1400 Martin St, State College, PA, 16803, USA

    Eunsung Park

  7. Penn State University, 436 Business Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Rebecca Yvonne Bayeck

Authors
  1. Qing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kyle L. Peck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adelina Hristova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kathryn W. Jablokow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vicki Hoffman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eunsung Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rebecca Yvonne Bayeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyle L. Peck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Q., Peck, K.L., Hristova, A. et al. Exploring the communication preferences of MOOC learners and the value of preference-based groups: Is grouping enough?. Education Tech Research Dev 64, 809–837 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9439-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9439-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation