Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 131 (2014) 29 – 34

WCETR 2013

MOOCs Motivation and Communication in the Cyber Learning

Environment
Dagmar El-Hmoudova a *
a
University of Hradec Kralove, Rokitanského62, Hradec Kralove 500 03, Czech Republic

Abstract

Technological promises to change education have been around for years.. The latest incarnations of tech-as-game-changer are
Massive Open Online Courses, or MOOCs. The adoption of this course format by prestigious universities worldwide has
sparked discussion about the future of education, or at the minimum, the future of academia’s role in it. Data shows that while a
typical MOOC may attract thousands of participants, less than 10% will complete the course. A lot of education scientists have
been talking about “changing education paradigm” (Robinson, 2011) recently, pointing out that the power of technology has
caused fundamental changes in all aspects of our lives, including education process. This paper examines how learning styles
can affect motivation MOOC participants, and how individual learning styles can be included the design and implementation of
such courses.
© 2014
© 2014 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCETR 2013.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCETR 2013.

Keywords: Type your keywords here, separated by semicolons ;

1. Introduction

It is well accepted that when teachers are able to analyse their own teaching techniques and analyse the difference
and needs of their students, the educational process is likely to become optimised for both students and teachers
(Fairhurst & Fairhurst, 1995). A lot of education scientists have been talking about “changing education paradigm”
(Robinson, 2011) recently; pointing out that the power of technology has caused fundamental changes in all aspects
of our lives, including education process. We should know more about how students perceive and distribute
information, which is closely connected for instance with terms like divergent thinking or “active learning”

* Corresponding Author: Dagmar El-Hmoudova. Tel.: +420- 493- 332- 390

E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCETR 2013.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.074
30 Dagmar El-Hmoudova / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 131 (2014) 29 – 34

(Beránek and Remeš, 2012). To reflect the upcoming changes is important as the need to modify the standardised
one dimension type of learning and teaching has been growing. By all means, we are living in the most intensely
stimulating period.
Besides e-learning, which is inevitable part of present, distant, combined and lifelong learning, since 2011 a type of
course known as Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) has garnered much press, especially in Canadian and US
universities A MOOC is an online course with the option of free and open registration, a publicly shared curriculum,
and open-ended outcomes. MOOCs integrate social networking, accessible online resources, and are facilitated by
leading practitioners in the field of study. MOOCs not only integrate the connectivity of social networking, the
facilitation of an acknowledged expert in a field of study, and a collection of freely accessible online resources, but
most importantly, build on the active engagement of “students” who self-organize their participation according to
learning goals, prior knowledge and skills, and common interests. ( McAuley, A.,2010) This model of education is
championed by people who see it as the democratization of learning.

1.1. MOOCs Background and Structure

The term MOOC was first used in 2008 to describe a course offered in Canada in which the enrolment was
opened online to anyone, and more than 2000 people signed up for the course. The only difference was that the
online participants wouldn’t receive credit, whereas the university students would. A similar online course on
artificial intelligence offered by Stanford was opened in 2011 and close to a quarter million people signed up for it.
The notoriety of this and similar examples prompted a debate in the media and educational journals about the latest
future of education. Universities rushed to put as much of their courses online, for free. The results now range from
standard e learning courses which are opened to the public, to for profit corporations working in conjunction with
universities to create proprietary systems for delivering courses. The most basic characteristic of a MOOC is that it
is online, and it is free. A huge variety of courses now exist that begin with those parameters.
Two types of MOOCs are now commonly discussed. The first is based on the connectivism theory of learning,
which favours networks of learners evolving informally. These are known as cMOOCs. The type known as x
MOOCs are more traditional, content based, and more closely resemble traditional educational models. A content-
based, xMOOC is more likely to have one or several lecturers, usually delivering lectures via YouTube style videos,
with tasks and discussions taking place online via proprietary software. This organization allows the university to
incorporate the MOOC into the existing curricula. Deadlines for completing tasks, and an online form of continuous
assessment allow the course administrators to assign marks and credits. Online participants who are not interested in
obtaining credits can participate, or not as they wish.

1.2. Criticisms

The most common criticism of these online courses is the often cited figure of 90% of people who sign up for
these courses don’t complete them. If the motivation for a course participant is simply to gain some new
information, and they are not seeking a university credit, then the novelty of a new set of ideas wears off as the work
involved to complete the course begins to increase. Also, the nature of the media used to access the course may be a
distraction great enough to dissuade participants from finishing.
Another concern is quality. The loose structure of many of these courses makes quality assurance or even
measuring obtainable learning goals difficult, as is the case with much self-directed learning. Traditional academics
who distrust this format may be voicing legitimate concerns about standards and quality, or they may be expressing
the fears typical of any monopolist who is unexpectedly confronted with real competition.
On the larger scale, the sustainability of these courses has been called into question. One observer noted that the
meteoric rise of MOOCs parallels the history of many internet start-ups in Silicon Valley: they begin by building
very fast and worry about making money later. The lack of a clearly defined business model associated with
MOOCs, or at least those run for profit, could lead to their demise in the near future. This could be significant for
universities which view joining the MOOC party as a way of dealing with shrinking budgets and rising costs. The
dream is tempting: manage a stable of interactive, online courses, make money (somehow) for providing this
service, and reduce or eliminate the costly liabilities of teacher’s salaries, buildings and administration. The reality is
 Dagmar El-Hmoudova / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 131 (2014) 29 – 34 31

that, no matter how exciting the technology, good teaching will always have a place in the learning process, and
won’t be easily replaced.

1.3. Implications

The implications of this teaching platform are manifold. For students in universities, or interested learners
anywhere with access to the internet, this platform offers a relatively quick and easy way to gain new knowledge. It
offers more choice and is delivered via technology that most of them use daily. The downside would be that the ease
of entry is more than matched by the ease of exit, as witnessed in the extremely high non-completion rates.
For educators, MOOCs represent another item in their toolbox. Due to the open nature of the format, it introduces
dynamics that are not present in e learning. And because we are still in the early stages of development, MOOCs
offer a way to experiment creatively with the technology, and hopefully improve both the teaching and learning
experience. They also provide the opportunity to offer an online environment where students can discuss and share
ideas informally, outside of the classroom. The downside would be that lazy teaching could simply be moved online,
reducing contact and involvement with the learner, which is arguably at the heart of the learning process.
For Universities, MOOCs offer the great potential for building and extending the university as a brand. Harvard
and MIT use their edX format to showcase their world-class offerings, and the networked nature of the platform
expands the reach of their courses to partners and students who might never otherwise have access. MOOCs which
feature partners in the private sector give participants the chance to share experiences of professionals who are not in
academia, a potentially useful thing for ambitious students, as well as for universities which can benefit from such
partnerships. As well as being a potential cost cutter, having a selection of MOOC courses could position a
university as a trusted access point for global learning. This could be very interesting for university administrators, if
and when a business model is developed that can keep the courses free to the user, but still generate revenue for the
partner institutions. The downside could be that the reputation of an institution can be quickly and severely damaged
if the course or service they offer is not of high quality. The internet can be a cruel thing, as any reader of YouTube
comments will know; the anonymity and easy access of online forums can create a place full of vicious vulgarity
and lighthearted silliness. To have a school’s reputation put at the mercy of such an environment may be a risk some
administrators won’t want to take.
For education policy makers, MOOCs offer the chance to both cut costs as well as offer universal education for
all. The trend towards open education means a deep rethinking about the goals, process and content of education.
Taken broadly, it could be argued that Universities are losing their monopoly position as the gatekeepers of
knowledge. If a talented and motivated programmer, for example, can take MOOC courses from MIT and CalTech,
and gain useful knowledge, then why should he/she bother sitting in a classroom for 3 to 5 years? The way in
which administrators and educational policy makers answer that question can have significant ramifications.

1.4. Recommendations

At the heart of any effective learning is a motivated learner. MOOCs have the potential, at least, to offer anyone
with an internet connection and the desire to learn with a positive learning experience. And as learning style is one
of the concepts that are postulated by researchers to depict learners’ differences and varied needs, we offer suggest
that a reasoned study of MOOC participants and their learning styles be conducted. The ways that people go about
collecting, interpreting and proceeding information can be surprisingly different. Worldwide research shows that
people do have different preferences sometimes referred to as learning styles and are used to describe and help us (
teachers) understand the ways in which different students learn.
Therefore, the present study aims first to depict learning style difference among a sample group of students of
Faculty of Informatics and Management and second to analyse the contemporary model of MOOCs courses with a
special view to the role of the LS preferences when designing massive open online courses.
Research questions:
1. How do English as foreign language students in the Faculty of Informatics and Management vary in their
preference for particular learning styles?
2. How can be the knowledge of students’ LS preferences used in relation to new development in MOOCs?
32 Dagmar El-Hmoudova / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 131 (2014) 29 – 34

2. Methodology

2.1. Learning style theory and definition of Felder-Silverman model of LS

The preferences, or as they are often called, "learning styles," are the result of a complex interaction of age,
educational experience, and cultural background. In order to facilitate academic success of our university students
which is influenced by emotional, biological, psychological, and cultural factors, it is important to provide learning
experiences that are accessible to all students with all learning preferences.
Learning style is one of the concepts that are postulated by researchers to depict learners’ differences and varied
needs. Richard M. Felder based his Individual learning style model on Dr. Silverman’s expertise in educational
psychology and his experience in technical (engineering) education. That is why we decided to use his model in our
university research. Felder defines individual learning styles as follows “The ways in which an individual
characteristically acquires, retains, and retrieves information are collectively termed the individual’s learning style”.
(Felder, 1995) Felder´s model describes five dichotomous learning style dimensions, which indicate the students´
preferences for certain poles of the dimensions, (see Fig. 1) namely Sensing or Intuitive , Visual or Verbal , Active
or Reflective, Global or Sequential, Inductive or Deductive. The last named dimension is not assessed in Index of
Learning Styles (ILS) because as Felder states it “…the "best" method of teaching is inductive, whether it be called
problem-based learning, discovery learning, inquiry learning, or some variation on the same theme.”(Felder, 2012)

Fig. 1: Learning style dimensions

2.2. Index of Learning style (ILS)

The Index of Learning Styles (ILS) is a self-scoring web-based instrument that assesses preferences on the
Sensing/Intuiting, Visual/Verbal, Active/Reflective, and Sequential/Global dimensions. The forty-four multiple
choice questions in the questionnaire reflect the psychological and behavioural characteristics of four dichotomous
dimensions of learning styles mentioned above. Questions in this questionnaire are written in English and the two
choices in each question reflect the two dichotomous learning styles. Students indicate their preference to either of
these two answers depending on their normal practice. After submitting their answers, students are provided with
Learning Style Results, (see Fig. 2) where if their score on a scale is 1-3, they are considered fairly well balanced on
the two dimensions of that scale. If their score on a scale is 5-7, they have a moderate preference for one dimension
of the scale and will learn more easily in a teaching environment which favours that dimension and if their score on
a scale is 9-11, they have a very strong preference for one dimension of the scale and are classified as purely single
style learners, which may cause struggling and suffering when learning in an environment which does not support
their preference.
 Dagmar El-Hmoudova / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 131 (2014) 29 – 34 33

Fig. 2: Learning Styles Result

3. Results

The instrument used in this study to assess students’ learning style preference was the Index of Learning Styles
questionnaire devised by Felder and Soloman (Felder and Soloman, 2007). The participants in this study were 132
first-year university students of Faculty of Informatics and Management. The students majored in two disciplines
including Management of Tourism (n=82) and Applied Informatics (n=50). Among the participants, 53 were males
and 81 were females. The study was conducted during the first semester of their first academic year.
Students were asked to fill out the Index of Learning Styles questionnaire according to their usual practice. The
Index was installed in BB Professional English language on-line courses and it took an average of around 40
minutes to complete it. Figure 3 and Figure 4 indicate that the students do vary in their preference for particular
learning styles. A large number of students share preference to Sensing dimension of learning style (109 students –
83%) and Visual dimension of learning style (107 students – 81%), there are, however, considerably large groups of
students displaying preference to Active (78 students – 59%) and Sequential (77 students – 58%) dimensions of
learning style (LS).

  












  
 
  
 

   


    
  

Fig. 3: Overall preferences Fig. 4: Percentage overview of LS preference

4. Conclusion

To conclude, the assessment of learning style preferences in both groups of new first year students will continue
in winter semester 2013 to obtain wider view and better understanding for students’ preferences for different
learning styles. Based on recently collected data from Felder´s ILS, which was implemented into on-line
Professional English language courses in Blackboard, the author identified that students vary in their preference for
particular learning styles with a great variety of learning style preferences. A considerably large number of students
showed mild preference to Visual, Active and Sequential learning styles. The finding that some students showed
34 Dagmar El-Hmoudova / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 131 (2014) 29 – 34

strong preference to Sensing (83%) and Visual (81%) learning styles suggests that they would find it hard to fit into
a learning environment that does not reflex their preferences. We can conclude that variability and interactivity
which is inevitable part of the above mentioned MOOCs courses supported by new technology and by
corresponding teaching styles will consequently result in higher quality of learning. As Sir Ken Robinson states it
“human resources are like natural resources; they’re often buried deep. You have to go looking for them; they’re not
just lying around on the surface.”

References

Beránek, L., Remeš, R. (2012) ‘The course of e-commerce based on active learning’, 9th International Conference
on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education (ERIE 2012), pp. 36
Fairhurst, A. M., & Fairhurst, L. L. (1995). Effective teaching, effective learning. California: Davies-Black
Publishing.
Felder, R. (1995)‘Learning and Teaching Styles In Foreign and Second Language Education’, Foreign Language
Annals, 28, No. 1, 1995, pp. 21–31
Felder, R. M., Spurlin, J. E. (2005). ‘Application, reliability, and validity of the Index of Learning Styles’, Int. J.
Engr. Education, 21(1), pp. 103-112.
Felder,R.M.,Soloman,B.A.(2007)Indexof learning styles. +<http://www.ncsu.edu/felderpublic/ILSpage.html>,
accessed 12. November 2012
McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Cormier, D. & Siemens, G. (2010). In the Open: The MOOC model for digital practice.
SSHRC Application, Knowledge Synthesis for the Digital Economy.
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative, Capstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford/GB