Preface

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are free online courses available to anyone who can sign up. MOOCs provide an affordable and flexible way to learn new skills, advance in careers, and provide quality educational experiences to a certain extent. Millions of people around the world use MOOCs for learning and their reasons are various, including career development, career change, college preparation, supplementary learning, lifelong learning, corporate e-Learning, training, and so on.

As MOOCs have been evolving over time, different platforms have been emerging simultaneously. There are mainly two different types of platforms. The first group, cMOOCs, allows the application of theoretical knowledge for understanding learning in the digital age (emphasizing how Internet technologies have contributed to new ways of learning). The second group, xMOOCs, resemble more traditional courses.

cMOOC platforms are based on connectivism principles that indicate that materials should be combined (rather than preselected), that different materials can be mixed and reused, and that their application reflects future potential developments (materials that are evolving should be focused on future teachings). cMOOC teaching design approaches (instruction) try to connect students with each other to answer questions or collaborate on joint projects.

xMOOC platforms have a structure that is made in a much more traditional way. Such courses have a specific goal in terms of completing the course and obtaining a specific certificate at the end of the course. They are usually presented with a clearly marked program of recorded lectures and self-test assignments. However, some providers require subscriptions as well as payment for storing materials and obtaining certificates. They use elements of the original MOOC, but, in a way, represent branded IT platforms that offer content distribution partnerships to institutions. The instructor or lecturer is a professional provider of knowledge and services, and the interaction with and among the participants is limited to seeking help and mutual counseling on difficult points.

This book is divided into two sections.

The first section, "MOOC and Education", consists of seven chapters. The themes of the first chapter are service science in education and MOOCs, education service innovation in MOOCs, education service system design for educational innovation in MOOCs, and quality management of MOOCs in the perspective of education service. The second chapter builds upon previous research that has used content analysis to assess the messages exchanged between participants enrolled in a MOOC. It focuses on uncovering the nature of the peer support that has been provided by participants and the social environment that they have established through their interactions. The third chapter is dedicated to the development of a Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit (CERPT) to help students improve their reading ability level. Chapter 4 investigates the acceptance of MOOCs and factors that might influence their use at public universities. Chapter 5 employs humanistic

learning theory (HLT) to present a variety of digital teaching and learning tools that enable assessment suitable for many students in the Open Distance e-Learning (ODeL) MOOCs. Humanistic learning theory emphasizes a shift towards considering students, their characteristics, and their influence on learning. In addressing the gap created by assessments that were not focused on specific human capabilities, including creativity, personal growth, and choice, this chapter presents principles of HLT linking them with the form of assessments in MOOCs. Chapter 6 explores and presents a conceptual module to improve web developers' capabilities and knowledge of accessible digital design. Chapter 7 focuses on teachers' readiness for e-learning during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The second section, "MOOC for Lifelong Learning, Equity and Inclusion", contains five chapters. Good-quality, accessible education is a human right based on social justice and liberation and a force for sustainable development and peace. The goal of accessible education is to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all as described in chapter 8. Chapter 9 is based on a systematic literature review. In this chapter, the focus is on global initiatives in education as a global common. The findings support that knowledge is a universal entity constructed by individuals that belong to anyone anywhere and at any time. Supported by a learner-centered instructional strategy, Chapter 10 explores the choices related to EDI-sensitive methods and strategies adopted to develop and implement an online education path. Theoretical and practical implications are also discussed. In Chapter 10, the authors examine articles focused on MOOCs implemented in sub-Saharan African (SSA) higher education that describe the different models of MOOCs enacted as an initiative to provide access and opportunity to acquire quality higher education across different disciplines within the sub-region. MOOCs are slowly gaining traction in education provisioning in SSA. Much of this is attributed to the governmental and institutional aim of providing quality and affordable universal education to all learners. Chapter 11 explores how MOOCs are affecting access to learning in SSA, with a particular bias to the urban education context. Chapter 12 is dedicated to a metacognitive model of learning assessment based on students' projects through the practice of blended learning. The integration of elements of metacognitive skills such as planning, monitoring, and evaluation with self–peer–teacher assessment can be a method to measure students' metacognitive thinking skills in Project-based Learning (PjBL), especially metacognitive assessment through blended learning practice MOOCs that are in accordance with the characteristics of vocational education and can be adopted by general education.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the authors and co-authors for their contributions. The successful completion of this book has been the result of the cooperation of many people. I would especially like to thank Publishing Process Manager Ms. Karmen Đaleta at IntechOpen for her support during the publishing process.

> **Dragan Cvetković** Singidunum University, Beograd, Serbia

Section 1 MOOC and Education

### **Chapter 1**

## What Brings about the Success of MOOCs in the Perspective of Education Service?

*Sung-Wan Kim*

### **Abstract**

MOOCs passed through 'inflated expectation stage of Garner's hype cycle in 2012 and has gone 'through of disillusionment' stage. For jumping to the slope of enlightenment, MOOCs should be considered as education service focusing on service dominant logic and co-creation of value. This chapter aims to suggest a new perspective, education service science, to cope with the crisis of MOOCs. It focuses mainly on this suggestion: the principles of education service science could be applied in order for learners with MOOCs to take optimal learning experience. Themes of this paper are service science in education and MOOCs, education service innovation in MOOCs, education service system design for educational innovation in MOOCs, and quality management of MOOCs in the perspective of education service.

**Keywords:** MOOCs, education service science, innovation, education service design

### **1. Introduction**

MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) have been popular with cost effectiveness and flexible option of online education and training opportunity. A low retention rate has been acknowledged as a tradeoff between the scalability and the effectiveness of MOOCs [1]. MOOCs passed through 'inflated expectation stage

**Figure 1.** *Gartner hype cycle diagram for keyword "Massive open online course".*

of Garner's hype cycle in 2012 when 100,000+ person enrollment [2] and has gone 'through of disillusionment' stage (**Figure 1**).

For jumping to the slope of enlightenment, new approach for the innovation of MOOCs is needed. MOOCs have been provided in the education provider's perspective rather than education demander's one. In the education process of MOOCs, instructor and learners form a relationship. But the dependency aspect in which they influence each other has not been sufficiently taken into account. In other words, co-creation of value between instructor and learners should be lit anew. In this aspect, the principles of education service science can help achieve educational innovation by solving the problems faced by MOOC through a systematic approach.

This paper presents a new perspective that MOOCs should be considered as education service focusing on service dominant logic and co-creation of value. This chapter aims to suggest a new perspective, education service science, to cope with the crisis of MOOCs. It focuses mainly on this: the principles of education service science could be applied in order for learners with MOOCs to take optimal learning experience.

### **2. Service science in education and MOOCs**

### **2.1 Why MOOC should be education service rather than education?**

MOOCs' the biggest weakness is that learners are not interested in completing the course [3]. This is because they do not have the inclination to do so. Only 15% or so of the enrolled students completed the course. If then, why does this happen? Absence of serious pedagogy, homogenization and depersonalization of education, and corporate influences on the academy can be mentioned and especially the issue of instructional design quality including learner motivation and support are considered very serious, which is the main reason of low rate of completion in courses [4]. Although learners in most of MOOCs do not pay money to course providers, it is believed that they are not satisfied with the MOOCs. Most of MOOC providers take a position of providing a kind of educational products. Instructors in MOOCs also focus on providing well-designed contents to learners.

Service focuses on users as well as providers and how deep and meaningful their experiences can be deployed. Accordingly, education service can focus on learners and their deep and meaningful experience. If we focus on 'education service' rather than the vague and abstract term of education, we will envision all kinds of methodologies to design learners' experiences in a meaningful way [5]. When MOOC is considered as education service rather than education, innovation of MOOC to the slope of enlightenment seems to be possible.

### **2.2 Why service science and education service science in MOOCs?**

Service science attempts a scientific approach to services. This has been developed while responding to the economic environment in which service innovation (service economy) creates more added value than product innovation (manufacturing economy). Service science has four primary principles: Service Dominant Logic (SDL), Co-creation of value, Service System, and Service Innovation [5].

Education service science intends to incorporate the core principles of existing service science into the field of education service. Service dominant logic is different from goods dominant logic. This focuses on the value in use realized through the learner's experience rather than the value in exchange. When service dominant logic is applied, students proactively build knowledge in the teaching and learning

### *What Brings about the Success of MOOCs in the Perspective of Education Service? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99053*

process and take value-creating experiences. Value can be created and realized when educational service providers do not realize value, but when a number of contextual relationships are supported. The value of learning is not achieved by simple explanation and communication by the instructor. It is important how learning is realized in the context of life by the learner.

Education service science is a new interdisciplinary field aimed at maximizing the learning experience of education service users or learners through the co-creation of value between education service providers and users. It is not an ideological point of view in approaching educational phenomena, but a methodology for innovating the education service system with a focus on future-oriented improvement.

Education service science places great importance on the innovation of education services to improve the existing education service system by devising measures for the active participation and learning commitment of learners. It focuses on how to reorganize the education service system to achieve the learner's optimal learning experience. In other words, it places importance on how to innovatively recreate the learning experience, considering education service system level (learning environment service, teaching & learning service, learner experience service) and service process (input/participation experience, process/learning experience, output/value experience). Education service science approaches education service with service dominant logic and rebuilds the current education service system, thereby deriving education service innovation and ultimately creating the value of learning experience.

Many service operations providers focus on service related resources, course management, outcome goal and financial goal at the inside-out. So, the education service operation manager sees education service users as the' input' factor to be managed, and focuses on ensuring that all processing 'processes' are performed well and 'output'.

If an education service user (education service consumer or education community) approaches education service from the perspective of outside-in, the user is first interested in the optimal learning experience and outcomes for the education service. Education service users want their own optimized learning experience rather than management of input resources, processes, and outputs, and are interested in good educational outcomes (e.g. positive sense of belonging, excellent job skills, positive willingness to participate in class). During the learning experience at this time, the education service customer invests time and effort to perform high-quality learning tasks with enthusiasm, learns with peers, and under the guidance of instructors. They actively participate in the organization's education system, such as using resources and support. Finally they experience intangible values that encompass both cognition and reaction such as memories, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors.

**Figure 2** shows how the perspectives of the provider and the user are different. It shows the contrast between the management-oriented supplier's perspective, which focuses on process efficiency, and the consumer-centered perspective, which aims to enhance experience. The effectiveness of the customer experience is focused rather than the viewpoint of resource efficiency.

Education service science aims to actively utilize 'technology' for change and innovation in educational services. For example, in order to realize customized and individualized education, the help of 'technology' is indispensable. Therefore, it can be said that MOOC has a close relationship with the direction of education service science.

### **2.3 Why service and education service in MOOCs?**

The service breaks the boundaries between the supplier and the consumer and places importance on the relationship between their interactions. Service means creating value through an action or work. Since many educational activities so far have been centered on the acquisition of the curriculum designed with the intention of the supplier, the consumer (learner) has been merely an object of education. This forced the learners to adapt and obey instructions rather than grow and develop. This is because there is no concept of service in educational activities in the educational practice of these past days. If service is an activity that creates intangible value for customers, educational service means all efforts to create intangible value for learners. Therefore, the concept of value for learners is very important in educational services. Values that can damage the learner's existence should be excluded in MOOCs [5].

### **3. Education service innovation in MOOCs**

A service is formless (intangible), may feel differently depending on the person providing it (heterogeneity), occurs through contact with customers (inseparability), and disappears at the same time as service delivery (perishability). In order to overcome the challenges of these characteristics, service innovation is required. For service innovation, visualization, systemic approach, contact management with users, and creation of experiences left in memory are required to respond to each challenge [7].

Educational service also has the same four characteristics (**Figure 3**). Since educational services are the result of some educational action, there is no physical entity (intangibility). It is intangible 'work done for others.' And the production of

**Figure 3.** *Four characteristics of service.*

### *What Brings about the Success of MOOCs in the Perspective of Education Service? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99053*

an educational service cannot be separated from its consumption (inseparability). Educational service is felt different according to each learner (heterogeneity). Since the mechanism for delivering services is human, educational services are bound to be variable. So not everyone perceives the same value from the same service. Educational service diminishes quickly (perishability). It is needed that education service provider must work harder to ensure the value experience because of their ethereal nature.

In this section, I would like to present a concrete plan to innovate the educational service called MOOC based on those four essential characteristics of the service (intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity, perishability) as mentioned above. For overcoming those four weaknesses, it is intended to present a one-on-one countermeasure corresponding to them.

### **3.1 How to cope with intangibility? Providing memorable experiences or value experiences**

As mentioned in **Figure 2**, throughout the input-process-output stage of educational services from the perspective of providers, a touchpoint for participation experience, learning experience, and value experience1 should be formed in the perspective of users. For MOOCs to overcome intangible service, they must be designed to enable learners to have memorable experiences. Learners must be able to experience value. For example, learners should be able to recognize that MOOCs are helping to improve their competency, or that classes are actually helpful. To this end, the 'experience of participation and learning' in MOOC educational activities should ultimately lead to 'value experience'. In addition, the class should provide an experience that exceeds the learner's expectations. And it is necessary to guide the learning to lead to problem- solving in life by having a sense of realism and having the experience of continuously connecting the knowledge with the actual situation.

### **3.2 How to cope with inseparability? Providing mutual exchange experience or user's touchpoint management**

Of course, there should be no discrimination from other learners, and it is necessary to increase student's participation experiences by actively reflecting learners' opinions in the design of educational activities in MOOCs. In addition, the learner should be notified in advance when a problem occurs in the MOOC system. Responses to student's questions must be provided promptly and in good faith. A lack of learner-instructor interaction in MOOCs may lead to dropouts [8]. Rich opportunities for learner interaction with course content and peers might offset the lack of learner-instructor interaction. The decrease in learner-instructor interaction in MOOCs can be substituted by prolific learner-learner and learner-content interactions without any decrease in the quality of learning experience in MOOCs, as Anderson reported [9].

### **3.3 How to cope with heterogeneity? Providing systematic approach**

In order to innovate the educational service of MOOC, the educational service system must be improved. According to the characteristics of education services, the quality of even the same service is not constant depending on who provides

<sup>1</sup> Participation experience refers to the quantity and quality of experience that is relatively more focused or more active in a task. Learning experience refers to the experience of certainty about current performance. And value experience refers to the experience of satisfying a need or value.

and uses the service when, where, and how. In order that everyone may perceive the same value from the same service, MOOC operators and designers should take a systematic and ecological approach. In order to ensure that the quality of educational services is consistently maintained, it is necessary to systematically understand how educational services create and deliver value and to intervene appropriately to solve problems. When designing MOOC services, it is necessary to consider integratively each system level (organizational environment, program, learner or instructor). For educational service design, a system design approach is required, in addition to the service design approach.

### **3.4 How to cope with perishability? Providing co-creation of value**

Education services disappear if not used and cannot be stored. Before it disappear, value should be created. The education service system is a value creation network that creates a network of relationships. In this respect, interactions with learners, interactions between learners and learners, and interactions between learners and learning materials should be carefully designed for co-creating value.

In education systems that encourage student agency2 , which is thus defined as the capacity to set a goal, reflect and act responsibly to effect change [10], learning involves not only instruction and evaluation but also co-construction or co-agency between instructor and learner. Co-agency happens when teachers and students become co-creators in the teaching-and learning process. The expanding concept of co-agency recognizes that students, teachers, parents and communities work together to help students progress toward their shared goals.

### **4. Education service system Design for Educational Innovation in MOOCs3**

The education service system design reflects the system perspective within the education service design. In other words, the methodology of service design is used to solve problems occurring at various system levels such as national, regional, college, class, and individual learning. Education service design is an area in which service systems are designed to jointly create educational values with learners, who are consumers of education.

The education service system is an aggregate composed of various people, relationships, organizations, and technologies that organically exist in the network of value creation of learning experiences. It is intended to present education service design plans for each system level of learning environment service, teaching and learning service, and learner experience service for educational innovation.

<sup>2</sup> "In the context of the OECD Learning Compass 2030, student agency implies a sense of responsibility as students participate in society and aim to influence people, events and circumstances for the better. Agency requires the ability to frame a guiding purpose and identify actions to achieve a goal. It is about acting rather than being acted upon; shaping rather than being shaped; and making responsible decisions and choices rather than accepting those determined by others. Student agency is not a personality trait; it is something malleable and learnable. The term 'student agency' is often mistakenly used as a synonym for 'student autonomy', 'student voice' and 'student choice'; but it is much more than these concepts. Acting autonomously does not mean functioning in social isolation, nor does it mean acting solely in self-interest. Similarly, student agency does not mean that students can voice whatever they want or can choose whatever subjects they wish to learn." [10]

<sup>3</sup> This section is a translated and revised some of contents which are included in a book written by author [11].

### **4.1 Learning environment service system: Designing environment**

The learning environment service system in MOOCs, can be classified into four types, depending on the degree of technological innovation and participation in use; push-based, technology-affluent, human network-centered, and pull-based (**Figure 4**).

**'Push-based service system'** has a Fordism approach for mass production following mass consumption. It is a traditional pipeline system that has a fully centralized characteristic to realize economies of scale by providing curriculum to the mass market. It is a linear value chain in which value creation and movement are transferred from producer to consumer [12]. Producer designs education services and operates systems to provide the services. And the user just purchases the service. This system has a limitation that it goes toward delivery-type MOOC that is intensively produced for mass delivery. The curriculum in the provider-centered service system can be said to be mainly instructional design products based on behaviorism [13].

In order to overcome the limitations of the provider-oriented service system due to the rapid development of information and communication technology and the diverse demands of educational service users, **'technology-affluent service system'** appears. This system focuses on using technology to overcome the limitations of time and space for teaching and learning. Various information and communication devices are actively used so that individuals can choose the content and pace of learning. MOOCs on LMS (Learning Management System) belongs to technology-oriented services.

In the **'human-centered service system'**, the source of value creation focuses on the human's interaction, that is, the formation of a human network. In this type of system, instructional methods such as cooperative learning, discussion, field practice, and internships are utilized, focusing on the interaction and experiential learning between instructors and learners and between learners and learners.

**'Pull-based service system'** centered on co-creation of value focuses on providing an environment that creates value in the process of value in use of educational services by users. To this end, this system should be a platform to create value by creating a space (e.g. Living Lab), where educational service producers and consumers can gather and interact by using information and communication technology. Such a MOOC platform can increase user participation and provide great value to all who participate. This service has post-Fordism characteristics in that it is oriented toward a user-centered pull system that emphasizes the voluntary participation of educational service users. The curriculum, which is provided in the value co-creationoriented service system, can be said to be a product of instructional design based on constructivism in contrast to the provider-oriented service system [13]. It also provides educational services using the latest IT technologies, such as AR (Augmented Reality), VR (Virtual Reality), AI (Artificial Intelligence), and Big Data.

**Figure 4.** *Types of learning environment service system.*

### **4.2 Teaching-learning service system: Designing education**

According to the degree of two way communication orientation and program structure, the teaching-learning service system can be divided into four types: programmed, video/audio conferencing, computer-assisted, and adaptive (**Figure 5**).

**'Programmed service system'** focuses on the supplier-oriented and content delivery-oriented program operation. One-sided lectures using video contents are typical. There is little interaction between instructor-learners and learners-learners, comparing other systems. In addition, it has a program structure that makes it impossible for individual learners to select content, control learning speed, etc.

**'Video/audio conferencing service system'** has a structure that is difficult to control the needs of individual learners, and has the characteristic of providing an opportunity to interact between the instructor and the learner.

**'Computer-assisted service system'** supports some degree of autonomy for learners to select learning content and adjust learning speed, but it is difficult to provide opportunities for interaction between instructor and learners. Depending on the learner's response, it moves to a different text (a linear program) or a differently programmed text (a branched program) [13].

**'Adaptive service system'** has a high level of interaction between instructor and learners, and has the characteristics of providing educational services that meet the needs of individual learners. It is essential to support a system that provides the learning content that learners want immediately, and for this, the latest information and communication technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data must be utilized. For example, there may be an adaptive learning support program using an artificial intelligence-based chatbot. The learner also uses a very loose structure to present the structure, outcomes, and sequencing of learning activities. For example, a student taking the course 'Instructional Methods and Educational Technology' should organize and sequence each module and activity, and identify personal goals and activities to be achieved during the curriculum.

### **Figure 5.**

*Types of teaching-learning service system.*

### **4.3 Learner's experience service system: designing experience**

The learner's experience service system can be classified into four types, such as passive, active, problem solving, and value discovering, according to the level of reality and autonomy of learning (**Figure 6**).

Since **'Passive active service system'** focuses on the unilateral content delivery method of the instructor, the learner cannot actively participate in the teaching and learning process. Because the instructor systematically organizes the contents and

*What Brings about the Success of MOOCs in the Perspective of Education Service? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99053*

**Figure 6.**

*Types of learner experience service system.*

conveys the relationship between the contents, the cognitive process of the students is inevitably weak.

**'Active service system'** has high learning autonomy to participate in learning, so learner actively participates in the learning process. But there is a limitation that learning is far from the actual reality.

In **'problem-solving service system'**, the instructor presents real life problems to the learner, and the learner focuses on solving only the presented problems.

**'Value discovery service system'** focuses on finding practical problems by learners and then trying to solve them. MOOC class using creative problem-solving methodologies such as Design Thinking can be a representative example of value discovery. It is more important that learners create problems or activities proactively rather than pre-designed problems or activities.

### **5. Quality management of MOOCs in the perspective of education service**

For learner to have successful experiences with MOOCs, it is important to manage and keep the quality of MOOCs. The criteria which are included in evaluation of the quality of e-learning, can be also used for the quality management of MOOCs. However, there is the absence of specific educational assessment criteria adapted to the features of a MOOC. Yepes-Baldó [14] proposed quality dimension of MOOCs which is structured into two categories (course, platform). The course category includes 14 dimensions; methodology, content organization, teaching guide, content quality, teaching resources, motivation, technical quality, chronological aspects, language, interaction, user individualization, uniqueness, values, dissemination, promotion, price. The platform category includes visual and structural design, base language, compatibility, and communication resources. The details of course category's indicators are below.

Cha [15] suggested checklists for quality assurance of K-MOOC or Korean MOOC. The quality indicator consists of four dimensions (content, activity, evaluation, supports) and twenty evaluation items. Details of Items are as follows.

Zeithaml et al., [16, 17] suggested the e-SERVQUAL model consisting of E-S-QUAL (e.g. efficiency, system availability, fulfillment and privacy) and E-ReeS-QUAL (e.g. responsiveness, compensation, and contact), for measuring e-service quality. The revised conceptual framework of e-services quality which Zemblyte [18] suggested, is composed of website quality (e.g. access, easy of use, website design, structure & layout, linkage, information accuracy), core e-service quality (e.g. privacy & security, reliability, fulfillment, efficiency, individualized attention), and e-service quality recovery (e.g. responsiveness, compensation, contact).



### **Table 1.**

*Quality indicator for MOOCs in the perspective of education service.*

### *What Brings about the Success of MOOCs in the Perspective of Education Service? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99053*

Margryan and colleagues [19] proposed 10 dimensional design criteria to evaluate MOOCs quality, focusing highly on pedagogical aspect of a MOOC: Problemcentered, activation, demonstration, application, integration, collective knowledge, collaboration, differentiations, authentic resources, feedback.

To innovate the educational service called MOOC, let us consider MOOCs quality based on the essential characteristics of the service (intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity, perishability) as mentioned above. Corresponding to each service characteristics, I suggest four MOOC quality dimension (value experience, mutual interaction experience, system approach, value co-creation) as mentioned below (**Table 1**). First, 'value experience' is required to provide tangible experience to learners. This dimension is composed of reality, reliability, and value. 'Mutual interaction experience' dimension has two indicators (assurance, empathy) about user's touchpoint management for coping with service characteristic 'inseparability'. 'System approach' dimension consists of three indicators (organizational environment, program, learner support), which are related with service characteristic 'heterogeneity'. 'Value co-creation' dimension has two indicators (reactivity, collaborative co-agency). It treats with the limitation of education service's perishability.

### **Author details**

Sung-Wan Kim Korea Nazarene University, South Korea

\*Address all correspondence to: kimstar52@kornu.ac.kr

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*What Brings about the Success of MOOCs in the Perspective of Education Service? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99053*

### **References**

[1] Tang, H., Xing, W., & Pei, B. Exploring the temporal dimension of forum participation in MOOCs, Distance Education. 2018; 39(3): 353-372.

[2] Haber, J. *MOOCs.* Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: The MIT Press. [Internet]. 2014. Available from from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j. ctt9qfb6r. [Accessed: May 7, 2021]

[3] Mehta, N. What Is MOOC-Based Learning? [Internet]. 2020. Available from https:// elearningindustry.com/mooc-basedlearning-advantages-anddisadvantages/ [Accessed: May 9, 2021]

[4] Kim. S.W. MOOCs in Higher Education, In Dragan Cvetkovic (ed.). *Virtual Learning*, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/66137. [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://www. intechopen.com/books/virtuallearning/moocs-in-higher-education

[5] Jang. H., Baek. P., Kim. S., & Hong. J. A theoretical exploration for establishing the discipline of 'Education Service Science'. Journal of Corporate Education and Talent Research. 2018; 20(4): 125-147.

[6] Johnston, R., Clark, G., & Shulver, M. Service operations management (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson. 2012.

[7] Kim. J. *Service experience design: I meet Steve Jobs*. Gyeonggi Paju: Ahn graphics. 2017.

[8] Hone, K., & El Said, G. Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education. 2016; 98: 157~168.

[9] Anderson, T. Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in

Open and Distributed Learning. 2003; 4(2): 1-14.

[10] OECD (2019). *Student agency 2030*. Available from from http://oecd.org/ education/2030-project. [Accessed: March 9, 2021]

[11] Kim, S.W. *Design Thinking*. Seoul: Dongmoon-sa. 2021.

[12] Parker, G.G., Van Alstyne, M.W., & Choudary, S.P. Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. New York, NY: W.W.Norton & Company. 2016.

[13] Kim, S.W. *Distance Education*. Seoul: Sigmapress. 2008.

[14] Yepes-Baldó, M., Romeo, M., Martín, C., García, M.A., Monzó, G., & Besolí, A. Quality indicators: developing "MOOCs" in the European Higher Education Area, Educational Media International. 2016; 53(3); 184-197,

[15] Cha, H.J. A development study of checklists for quality assurance of K-MOOC. Journal of Lifelong Learning Society. 2018; 14(4): 137-166.

[16] Zeithaml, V. Parasuraman, A. & Malhotra, A. A conceptual framework for understanding e-service quality: Implications for future research and managerial practice. Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Report No. 2000.

[17] Zeithaml, V. Parasuraman, A. & Malhotra, A. Service Quality Delivery Through Web Sites: A Critical Review of Extant Knowledge. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2002; 30: 362-375. 10.1177/009207002236911.

[18] Zemblyte, J. The instrument for evaluating e-service quality*.*

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences*, 2015; 213*, 801-806.

[19] Margryan, A., Biabco, M., Littlejohn, A. Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education. 2015; 80; 77-83.

**Chapter 2**

## A Typology of Peer Support Behaviours in a MOOC

*Kwamena Appiah-Kubi and David Cobham*

### **Abstract**

This chapter builds upon a body of previous research that has used content analysis to assess the messages exchanged between participants enrolled on a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). In particular, it focuses on uncovering the nature of the peer support that the participants provide for each other, and the social environment that they establish through their interactions. The findings of this research have led to the construction of a Typology of Peer Support Behaviours which is presented here. It is proposed that this typology can be applied across a range of contexts to assess the nature of peer support behaviours enacted by participants in those MOOCs. It is proposed that the typology could help identify any unique differences in expression of behaviours among groups of students and it could be used to assess if there is a preference towards a particular approach to, or type of, peer support.

**Keywords:** MOOC, peer support, typology, teaching presence, social presence

### **1. Introduction**

MOOCs are another incarnation of the online learning paradigm. They differ from the traditional formal online learning approach which is generally closed off and only accessible to a few registered participants, and often requiring some prerequisites to be met prior to participation. Although a small proportion of MOOCs charge an enrolment fee [1], MOOCs are predominantly open and usually free to participate in; as a result they tend to attract a large number of participants. The MOOC format was conceived in 2008 by George Siemens and Stephen Downes when they developed and deployed their inaugural course Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CCK08) which attracted over 2000 participants [2, 3]. MOOCs have gained a stronghold and drawn much attention to learning analytics research and the open education resource movement. In their current and popular manifestation, conceived by Stanford professors Sebastian Thrun and Peter Norvig, MOOCs do not deviate far from the traditional online learning model, but through technological innovation have opened up access to educational content with a low barrier of entry [3, 4]. George Siemens categorises MOOCs into three distinct groups based on their approach in facilitating learning for their participants: *Connectivist*, *Instructivist* and *Open Learning Resources* [3].

• Connectivist MOOC (cMOOC): the initial conceptualisation of MOOCs as developed and deployed by George Siemens and Stephen Downes allows participants to network and collaborate among themselves to identify their individual learning needs, then create and follow their own learning path. Learning in this MOOC format is self-directed, the instructor does not define learning paths or outcomes but is available and involved in the process to facilitate the participants' learning. Using the interaction equivalency theorem, Miyazoe & Anderson benchmark cMOOCs as having low student-teacher interactions, medium student-content interaction but high student–student interactions highlighting the nature of the cMOOC variant as student–student interaction driven [5].


MOOCs attract a myriad of participants from various age groups and with varying levels of experience, interests and motivations [6, 7]. Though some prerequisites may be set, they are not used to bar any participant from entry if they are not met. As such it is not surprising that the major issue faced by providers of MOOCs is a high attrition rate, aptly conceptualised as "the funnel of participation" [8] where a MOOC course attracts several thousands of participants, but only a few follow through to completion, with conservative estimates pegging this figure at about 10%. Time constraints feature as a major driver of attrition especially when participants were faced with other priorities in their daily lives [9].

### **2. Interactions in MOOCs**

In an online learning environment, participants need an avenue to interact with fellow learners, to share ideas and seek assistance with challenges in the course. Discussion forums have been the dominant platform where these interactions take place [10]. They are usually built into the online learning platform, are usually textbased and asynchronous in nature. This allows participants the flexibility to freely share and attend to each other's inquiry at a time that is convenient.

Unlike in traditional online learning platforms with comparatively fewer students, the large number of participants taking part in a MOOC can generate voluminous amounts of communication which can lead to data overload for the participants [11, 12]. There has been increasing interest in research focusing on this phenomenon and how it may impact the learning process and learning outcomes of participants in a MOOC.

MOOC students interact with the discussion forum in various degrees and levels. The interaction pattern that occurs in the discussion forums can be used to categorise participants as: *active participants*, *lurkers* and *passive participants* [13, 14]. Studies have highlighted that the majority (about eighty per cent) of participants are lurkers who do not participate in "visible" forum activities such as publishing posts or commenting [13, 15, 16]. They usually do not follow the course actively but engage with the content at a slower pace, and search through or peruse content on the forum created by the other participants. Lurking may result from personal commitments that may hamper frequent participation in the course. However, some lurkers do so by choosing to consume and reflect rather than actively participate and benefit from ongoing discussions that ensue in the forum [13, 17]. Compared to lurkers, who will only follow a discussion and do not usually initiate one, passive participants follow and contribute to ongoing discussions or start their own, albeit their participation is less frequent and irregular. Active participants, so-called "superposters" [18] or "wholly engaged" learners [16] exhibit above-average engagement patterns by starting, facilitating or contributing quality content to discussions. Though they comprise a small subset of the population, they contribute the majority of relevant discussions on the forum and provide helpful assistance to their fellow participants.

The interactions of the participants are also relevant for their socialisation process, which can facilitate the establishment of a community and thus create a conducive social climate that fosters free and open expression of thoughts and ideas. However studies that examine participant interactions indicate overall participation in forum discussion decreased over time, and noted participants came together and dispersed in a crowd-like pattern rather than as a cohesive community, and that a majority of the discussions were carried out by students who were high-performing [19]. This peer-led discussions in the forum have been observed to promote discussions and engagement as well as active learning [20].

Only a few of the total registered participants interacted in the discussion forum, leading the researchers to wonder how or why more participants were not drawn to interact in the forum and possible remediation strategies. Some have noted that by virtue of the minimal information participants have about each other, save for what is shared in the forum, "experts" who could be approached to act as mentors to foster deeper learning and collaboration are not identified [21].

### **3. The Community of Inquiry framework**

In late 1999 Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson and Walter Archer, three researchers focused on distance education, were confronted with a challenging issue: to make sense of interactions in a new online graduate program offered by their faculty. This had the effect of aligning their research to issues around the use of online text-based platforms to facilitate teaching, interaction and learning. Thus came to be the research team whose seminal work was the Community of Inquiry framework [22]. According to Garrison [23], the framework is predominantly based on the collaborative and constructivist ideas of John Dewey [24] in that meaning or knowledge is constructed and shared through interactions. The framework has been developed over the years and is much favoured by online learning researchers for its holistic approach to online learning research [22, 25]. It comprises three overlapping components that Garrison et al. postulate as needful in an online learning environment, with the intersection of the components posited as producing a meaningful learning experience. These three components - Teaching presence, Social presence and Cognitive presence - encapsulate the modalities of interactions in an online learning environment.

Social Presence captures the development of social interactions to create a productive social environment. In a mediated environment where participants are unable to infer nonverbal cues of other participants in an interaction, participants convey their sense of self through the thoughts and ideas they share. By projecting their personal identities through their interactions, participants are able to identify with each other and the community thus establishing a trusting environment that allows participants to interact freely. This can allow inter-personal relationships to develop which fosters group cohesion. The development of group cohesion is ideal if participants are to interact productively and meaningfully to facilitate their learning [26].

Teaching presence captures the facilitation and organisation of the course and actions of the instructor for the advancement of the learning process. Teaching presence serves a mediating role of balancing (and fostering) the social presence of participants (needed for free and open discourse) and guiding their cognitive presence towards achieving their learning goals. Teaching presence is predominantly enacted by the instructor and occurs not only in the online learning environment but offline as well, such as during the instruction design and preparation of the course syllabus and specification of learning outcomes [25]. The teaching presence role however is not limited to the instructor but can be carried out by participants through their interactions hence the reference to this component as "teaching" rather than "teacher" presence [27, 28]. Through their interactions, learners may assist each other to navigate the course content, providing helpful guidance and direction [27]. This may be institutionalised through the appointment of student moderators or teaching assistants from the cohort. This peer support is needful in an online learning environment where instructors may not be able to attend to each student individually and where learners can take the course in their own time. This

**Figure 1.** *Elements of the Community of Inquiry framework [29].*

### *A Typology of Peer Support Behaviours in a MOOC DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99039*

essentially necessitates an open environment where participants have the freedom to speak freely and express their opinions, to be able to provide assistance to other participants when required.

Cognitive presence captures the meaning-making process which the participants engage in to facilitate their learning. Cognitive presence highlights the development of critical thinking when students are able to engage successfully in inquiry-based learning [29]. Though the three presences all influence one another in various ways and degrees, cognitive presence has been observed to be heavily influenced by social presence and teaching presence.

The Community of Inquiry framework has evolved and has been adapted over the years from its beginnings as a tool to evaluate the effectiveness of online learning environments to a framework shedding light on learning patterns in online learning environments [30, 31] and recommending strategies to enhance the effectiveness of participants engaged in the learning process [32, 33]. The framework is described as a process model because it "embraces a constructivist orientation in which the emphasis is on how we construct knowledge" [34] and reflects the dynamism of the learning process that is to be encountered in an online learning environment as reflected by the interplay between the three components of the Community of Inquiry framework. A conducive learning environment that fosters free and open communication with other participants is the main function of the social presence element. Discourse is then able to ensue, allowing the participants to express cognitive presence. Via interaction with the course content and communication with fellow participants, teaching presence facilitates the other two elements in the framework to support the learning experience (**Figure 1**).

### **4. Findings from previous research**

Below we present the findings of a study carried out to gain an insight into interaction behaviours of MOOC participants towards enacting peer support and social presence. With limited course staff consisting of one facilitator and four teaching assistants, all of whom were based in the United States of America, providing adequate support for a large proportion of participants would be a difficult undertaking for the team hence participants relied on other learners in their cohort for support. Interaction logs of discussion forum usage were processed using statistical models to categorise participants interaction pattern. The Community of Inquiry framework was then utilised in a content analysis to assess the messages exchanged by participants in the discussion forum. Themes extracted are from this process are presented below.

### **4.1 Social presence served as a utility to facilitate learning rather than to foster interpersonal bonds for community development**

*Open Communication* was identified as the most frequent of social presence indicators exhibited, comprising 70% of the interactions coded in the dataset. This was followed by the *Group Cohesion* indicators (15%) that reflect self-identification with the group, which is an essential requirement for collaborative learning in MOOCs. In the Community of Inquiry framework, group cohesion is demonstrated by the use of vocatives, referring to the group using inclusive pronouns, phatic, salutations and greetings, course reflections and social sharing. Social sharing interactions where participants share portions of their personal lives (such as birthdays, vacations etc.) unrelated to the course content were absent in the dataset studied. This absence may be the result of a possible weak interpersonal bond among the

participants; nonetheless, the high presence of open communication does indicate participants freely expressed themselves.

*Affective* indicators were exhibited by the participants in this study. Indicators under the Affective category capture the use of unconventional expressions to reflect emotion and humour. Affective indicators also highlight the disclosure of personal information, such as personal experiences related to the course content and challenges they may be facing. In a text-based discussion forum that is devoid of visual and auditory cues such as body language and tone in voice, affective indicators serve to transmit a participant's moods, feelings and emotions. Indicators found within this component allow the learners to express their opinions, emotions and perceptions freely, thus promoting open communication and collaboration among them. Phatic expressions, greetings and salutations comprised over fifty per cent of group cohesion indicators identified. Coupled with low densities of course reflection and referencing the group using inclusive pronouns, it may indicate weak (or the absence of) interpersonal bonds as such interactions predominantly become polite or formal social exchanges, a situation highlighted in [35].

### **4.2 Distributed teaching: facilitating learning with clarifications and relevant external resources**

The teaching presence was enacted primarily through the facilitation and organisation of the course content and serves to promote knowledge sharing among the participants. Teaching presence is not limited to facilitators alone but "all participants assume teaching and learning roles and responsibilities to varying degrees" [23]. Indeed, with industry experts and some participants taking the course as a refresher, there were opportunities for knowledge sharing in the forum. *Direct Instruction* appeared to be the most expressed teaching presence indicator comprising 65% of all messages coded for teaching presence. This involves knowledge sharing on the subject matter by the participants. This involved interactions such as making explicit reference to outside material that the sharer found to be useful and relevant. This indicator was followed by giving information that clarifies issues with the course materials and offering useful illustrations that facilitate in the clarification exercise.

*Facilitating Discourse* expressions can be employed to steer interactions towards learning objectives by the instructor. In this study it was enacted by participants primarily as a way of encouraging, acknowledging and reinforcing contributions from other participants, and drawing in participants, promoting discussions. Participants expressing this indicator may only be focused on the current context of the message being replied to and may not have an overarching learning goal that a facilitator or instructor will hope to achieve.

*Assessment* indicators were lacking in this study. This was anticipated as students did not have provision to assess or evaluate other learners' test submissions or results. This is a critical concern in MOOC learning, where peer-grading could play a significant role in re-enforcing learning. Some MOOC platforms (such as Coursera) utilise peer assessment to this end, though their primary design was to surmount the technical challenge of grading value-based subjective coursework [19, 36].

### **4.3 Peer support: openness and willingness to explain and provide examples**

The demographic profile of participants in the study were predominantly young and well educated, some to Master's and PhD level. The presence of these participants, especially those with an economics background, could have been an avenue for support to other participants.

### *A Typology of Peer Support Behaviours in a MOOC DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99039*

One of the primary limitations of the dataset, and hence this study, was the lack of an identifying link between demographic information and messages in the forum. This could have been used to assess the contributions of participants by their academic level. This can highlight, for example, whether participants with higher degrees (or experience in the area) carry out more peer support. In this study, only a few participants actively contributed in the discussion forum. A majority of participants' interactions in the forum was focused on searching and reading with very few posting or replying to messages of other participants. With such a large number of participants, it may be that participants are able to find a query to have already been asked and answered hence lowering the need to post a message. This behaviour requires further investigation to assess the correlation (if any) between the number of participants in a course and volume of messages in the forum. This pattern of use may highlight the discussion forum as a utility to obtain support rather than to collaborate for community building.

Some of the participants, with or without intention, demonstrated teaching presence to the notice of other participants. This was captured in the below message of a student requesting assistance from another student via another student's thread:

*Hey [student's username], can you answer a question I posted in this thread: [web link to question in the forum].*

*Thanks.*

Anderson et al., part of the initial collaborators on the Community of Inquiry framework, highlighted this duality of students to act as teachers when developing the framework [27]. However, this dynamic role that a participant may play was not given much focus, granted at the inception of the framework online classes were not as large as MOOCs have become.

The teaching presence category consists of the following elements: *Instructional Design and Organisation*, *Facilitating Discourse*, *Direct Instruction*, and *Assessment*. The course facilitators are chiefly responsible for designing the course and organising the curriculum, resources and assessments hence it was anticipated (and was observed) that the teaching presence indicators that will be exhibited by participants would be concentrated within the Facilitating Discourse and Direct Instruction categories. A closer look revealed these expressions were concentrated within a few indicators.

More than 65% of messages coded for teaching presence were in the direct instruction category. This category comprises indicators such as providing valuable analogies, offering useful illustrations, supplying clarifying information and making explicit reference to outside material. These indicators classify messages that are intended to make the course material comprehensible or accessible to other participants. MOOC participants come from diverse backgrounds and experiences. In this study, a number of experienced professionals from various industries were observed to disclose their background and experience in an effort to clarify a point or share an experience in line with the course material; an example extract is produced below. This was in response to another student's submission to a discussion prompt:

*At 5:30 during the lecture 'Are the competitive markets efficient?', Professor Taylor refers to MRIs as 'magnetic research imaging scanners', but MRI actually stands for magnetic resonance imaging. I know this is rather pedantic, but my many years in radiology requires that I call your attention to this point. It is certainly true that there are far more MRI scanners in the US compared with either the UK* 

*or Canada, but this is primarily a function of our for-profit healthcare delivery system as well as insatiable patient demand in this country for the latest medical technologic advancement regardless of the cost (usually borne by a third party or received as an untaxed benefit from their employer).*

Participants sharing their experiences can help make the course content accessible to other participants by reformulating the course material or by providing relevant and relatable examples from their personal lives and work experience. Participants utilised social elements frequently in their enactment of peer support, highlighting social presence as a core component of teaching presence with a wider overlap in its role in facilitating discourse within the discussion forum [37].

Another interesting observation was the sharing of external resources mainly in the form of web links to articles, documents and videos which show a willingness of some participants to assist other students in the course with relevant material they had found useful. This was the most frequent activity carried out by participants in their peer-support efforts. Though the facilitator may be expected to provide extra resource materials, this may not satisfy the needs of all participants. Participants may most likely share external resources that may be localised to the specific need of the student requesting assistance. The following two extracts from the forum demonstrate participants sharing helpful resources to other participants:

*True. I think we will learn more about this later but here is the Gini coefficient for the US against time [link to an image of a graph]. The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality. You can see how the U.S. has changed towards more income inequality in the past 40–50 years.! Income Gini Ratio, U.S., Investormill.com: https://investormill.com/data/income-gini-ratio-households-by-race-of-householder/*

*I did some further online searching and found a good article at http://www. popcouncil.org/uploads/pdfs/frontiers/Capacity Bldg/WTP Manual.pdf on how Willingness to pay is actually collected. It does not deal with the case here of increasing numbers of bananas - but it [does] convince me that the data here is misleadingly displayed and that the Marginal Benefit = Willingness to Pay for additional item is the question that was actually asked and the data that was used to build the misleadingly labelled 'Willingness to Pay column'. If this is not the case then the argument given here for deriving the Demand curve is simply wrong.*

As has been observed so far, participants provided rich comments and responses to their peer's submissions, some of which can be seen in the use of illustrations and analogies to reformulate and explain concepts to fellow participants. With a large number of participants with varied experiences, there is the likelihood of a participant having the background and experience that can better explain a point, concept or idea from the course material. This characteristic is also manifested through demonstrations by example, the clarification of information, and the use of illustrations and analogies to simplify course material to assist other participants in the course. The dataset that was used in this research did not tag each participant to the messages they shared; this limits the ability of this study to identify and characterise at an individual level participant's peer-support behaviour however the overall impact can be observed. The following message extract shows a participant stepping in to help another student whose query had received no response for an extended period of time. The responder may have chanced upon the participant's query while searching for answers to their own query, and it may also be

the responder may have sought out forum posts that had received no responses, by using the filter and sort functionality available. Note that the course spanned an eight-week period, hence this intervention may have arrived at the tail end or after the course:

*I'm surprised that no one has responded to your request after 2 months. Marginal cost is what it costs to produce one more unit of a good or service. So if, say, one unit of a good costs a firm \$3 to produce and two units together costs \$7 to produce, then the marginal cost of producing the second good is the \$7 cost for producing two units minus \$3 for producing just one unit or \$7 - \$3 = \$4 for producing the second unit of the good.*

The majority of the teaching presence indicators were enacted in the direct instruction category. We observe that some participants actively reformulated the course content for those who needed assistance and frequently provided additional resources to supplement their feedback. The student's expectation of the teacher is to provide "content knowledge that is enhanced by the teacher's personal interest, excitement and in-depth understanding of the content" [27], qualities that may be exhibited by knowledgeable peers that participate in a MOOC out of interest or as a refresher as discussed in the literature review.

Anderson et al. defined facilitating discourse as the component "that stimulates social process with a direct goal of stimulating individual and group learning" and is a shared activity between teacher and students [27]. This definition aptly describes the overlap of the social presence and the teaching presence, which is described as providing intellectual and scholarly leadership towards the growth of knowledge of the students. The Community of Inquiry framework posits that the teacher ought to be not only a content deliverer but also an active member of the community engaging with the participants by commenting with supportive responses to facilitate their learning, a role that experienced and knowledgeable participants can be encouraged to fulfil.

Of the eight indicators that form the facilitating discourse component, only four were exhibited by the participants in the forum. The absence of these indicators was not surprising. These indicators*: Present follow up topics for discussion*, *Refocusing discussion on specific issues*, *Seeking to reach consensus* and *Setting climate for learning*, may require deliberate effort by a facilitator, enacted to steer participants towards attaining a learning outcome. A student providing peer support may not deliberately embark on enacting these indicators. Furthermore, the student providing peer support may lack requisite toolset and professional skills to carry out these indicators. Out of the four indicators that were expressed in facilitating discourse category, *Drawing in participants* and *Encouraging, acknowledging or reinforcing student contributions* were the most frequently expressed indicators. The discussion prompts which were employed as part of the pedagogy of the course provided an opportunity for students to share their thoughts, and while perusing the contributions of others could chime in an acknowledgement or contribution their own submission. The following is an extract from a contribution by a student who was adding to the responses by two others that had responded to a contribution submitted by another student:

*Thanks [Student 1] and [Student 2] for your insightful comments. If I recall correctly, Specialisation, Division of Labor and Comparative Advantage apply for 'better trade'. Does it apply also to the 'economy?' In the example that [Student 1] articulates here yes, the economy gains when income is freed up for other expenditures, …*

The results of the study highlight that very few participants were actively engaged in the discussion forum, a scenario that has been observed in previous studies [15, 16]. However, these few active participants account for only a few of the responses that participants received. The majority of messages and responses are submitted by the larger pool of participants that would have made a submission about once or twice for the duration of the course. Social presence expressed was superficial and primarily served to facilitate interaction and not utilised for community building. Further studies are required to develop a more complete picture of social presence enactment in MOOCs, especially studies that investigate the social presence of active and passive participants separately. Teaching presence also was distributed in that it was expressed by several participants with most participants enacting it once or twice. Though this is beneficial for the facilitators (by reducing load) and for the participants (by benefiting from other experienced participants) further research is required to investigate in more depth how this can be fully actualised and its impact in a MOOC.

### **5. A typology of peer support behaviours in a MOOC**

This section presents a typology that builds upon the findings highlighted earlier. Once developed, the typology then can be reused in other MOOC contexts and settings to assess the enactment and nature of peer support activities. The typology is influenced by the Community of Inquiry framework. Though the Community of Inquiry highlights that participants can carry out teaching presence the Community of Inquiry framework is focused on teaching presence carried out by the teacher or instructor. An opportunity, therefore, exists to address this gap in the framework to provide a means of assessing student–student interactions that are geared towards facilitating the learning of other participants. A typology capturing the behaviours of participants engaged in this type of activity is a step towards addressing this gap.

MOOCs exemplify the reduced capability of teachers and instructors to provide adequate support to learners via direct interaction with each student and the increasing role of learners to support each other through the learning process. This typology aims to focus on the peer support carried out by participants as opposed to the entire learning process which is the focus of the Community of Inquiry framework. The typology hence acts as an add-on or extension to the Community of Inquiry framework to capture peer support interactions. A reusable tool provides consistency in use across different environments and contexts useful for benchmarking and comparisons when utilised across different contexts.

Research into the nature of peer support in MOOCs is ongoing and evolving; as such there are a number of reasons that a typology will be useful for the ongoing research in peer support behaviours that are enacted by MOOC participants. First, a typology provides a simple way to organise and make sense of peer support behaviours to provide a coherent description of the behaviours enacted by participants. A typology can also facilitate communication between both researchers and practitioners who are exploring pedagogical strategies. A typology can also help identify interplays between the observed behaviours and by extension predict possible behaviours that could occur. The typology provides a framework for accessing peer support behaviours carried out by participants in a MOOC discussion forum. The typology has applications for future researchers in building upon the body of knowledge of participants interaction behaviours in a MOOC context. The typology is presented as a descriptive framework with no stipulated hierarchy nor does inclusion of a characteristic suggests importance. The typology is envisioned as a tool to compare peer support behaviours carried out by participants in different MOOC

contexts that can inform pedagogical strategies employed to facilitate achieving learning outcomes and objectives especially from the participants perspective.

### **5.1 Extracting peer support behaviours**

The constituents of the typology are derived from the coding of discussion forum interactions carried out by participants in the MOOC used in the study. This coding was carried out using the Community of Inquiry framework. To extract the typology the indicators are further summarised and organised into behaviours with respect to the learner providing peer support. These are behaviours exhibited by the participant while carrying out the task of facilitating the learning process for another learner. With a sample size of one MOOC (of one variety) this typology may not be exhaustive and will require review and refinement in future studies. The typology comprises three elements that interact with each other *Openness*, *Re-Contextualisation of Course Content* and *Transactional Exchanges*. The purpose of each element and relevance is discussed below.

Teaching presence is not enacted in isolation, but in concert with social presence hence social discourse forms an integral component in the enactment of teaching presence [37]. Participants utilised a range of social presence indicators to convey their thoughts and ideas. For example, when providing assistance participants sometimes drew from their personal experience of their work in industry or personal knowledge to provide the help required (self-disclosure, personal advice). The diversity of participants enriches the learning process for those requiring support as the responses can be localised to the asker with information that meets or suits their needs. The willingness of responders to share from their personal experience and knowledge demonstrates that participants felt comfortable sharing in the discussion forum. This behaviour, the co-occurrence of social presence with teaching presence, is collectively referred to as *Openness*.

*Openness* by responders providing peer support was also enacted through the encouragement they provided to other participants for example when they posted their response to discussion prompts. Discussion prompts serve to reinforce the learning of the course content while creating opportunities to further learn through discussion. The acknowledgement and encouragement offered by responders can provide a morale boost and recognition of the efforts of participants who may be undertaking the course in isolation.

Through *Openness*, the interactions of participants are less formal when they inject humour or express emotion in their response. These behaviours demonstrate an openness by participants to freely express themselves. This behaviour can be high in a MOOC where participants are able to comfortably express themselves, or low where participants show restraint or are formal with their interaction providing an opportunity for MOOC facilitators to further investigate if such behaviour was not an expected outcome. The richness of participants background was brought to bear in this MOOC through the support they provided. Diverse participants utilised knowledge from their personal experience to explain course content or answer questions asked by other participants. Participants stepped in to clarify course content which posters had flagged as challenging. They sometimes conducted demonstrations (for example through a worked example), and provided useful illustrations and analogies through which the course material was made accessible to learners requesting assistance.

Responders also frequently shared materials and links to external resources they found useful and relevant to address the query they were responding to. In carrying out these teaching presence indicators, participants were using the tools at their disposal (personal knowledge, industry experience, external content they had found useful) to address a message posted (such as a question or response to

discussion prompt) in a form that makes the course content accessible to their fellow learners. The indicators under direct instruction are collectively referred to as *Re-Contextualisation of Course Content* capturing the various approaches responders utilised to deliver responses to queries. Currently in the typology emphasis is not placed on the method used, rather choosing to identify any approach that can be utilised to make the course content accessible to other learners. This behaviour can be high: where participants are actively engaging with and supporting the learning process of fellow learners, or low: where few participants engage in providing assistance to other participants needing support.

Messages exchanged on the discussion forum appear to be of a transactional nature. The majority of participants provided responses only once or twice, with very few participants posting frequently (more than twice) indicating that participants were not engaged in back-and-forth discussions. They reply one time, or a second time, and may not reply again. The asynchronous nature of interactions on the forum means queries can be addressed at any time by anyone who is available and/or has the expertise to address the query. It may be that when a query receives a response there is little motivation to add on, that a discussion does not ensue, hence discussion threads consist primarily of queries and answers.

The frequent use of vocatives and expressions of appreciation could also indicate the orientation of interactions towards query and response. With the majority of participants submitting just about one query each, submission is thus being received from "new" participants each time. Though responses tend to be short, long-form exploratory answers were observed as well. Participants were not habitual posters on the discussion forum but only stepped in to provide support when seeking answers to their own questions through searching the discussion forum. Thus, this interaction behaviour of participants appears to be transactional in nature: providing support to others while seeking out answers to their own queries. From this the *Transactional Exchanges* behaviour of participants is derived. This highlights the engagement pattern that may be exhibited by participants providing peer support. This behaviour could be high: where exchanges are of one-time assistance, or low: where participants actively deliberate with each other. Where MOOC providers anticipate a level of engagement and interaction by participants, this behaviour in the typology can highlight if this outcome was achieved.

### **5.2 Typology of peer support behaviours**

**Table 1** below summarises the extracted behaviours earlier discussed. As an addon to the Community of Inquiry framework, this table serves to guide researchers on how to map their coding carried out using the Community of Inquiry framework into the peer support behaviours for this typology. In **Table 1** below each *Behaviour* (typology element) maps to a *Coding Categorisation*. The coding categorisation directs how the indicators from the Community of Inquiry framework are to be categorised to derive the behaviour. *Example of Enactment* in **Table 1** below provides an example at the indicator level of the social and teaching presence within the Community of Inquiry framework. The three behaviours are not enacted in isolation but can be acted with one or all of the other behaviours.

In the provision of peer support, each of the behaviours occurs at different levels, for example, where transactional exchange is high, *Openness* by participants may be low. **Figure 2** on the following page captures the interplay between each of the behaviours. At the centre of behaviours is the peer support carried out. The diagram can be read as.

*behaviour x influences level of behaviour y due to factors a, b, c etc.*

*A Typology of Peer Support Behaviours in a MOOC DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99039*


**Table 1.**

*Typology of peer support behaviours in a MOOC.*

### **Figure 2.**

*How peer support was enacted by participants in this study.*

For example, *Transactional Exchanges* influence *Re-Contextualisation of Course Content* due to the asynchronous messaging nature of discussion forum. **Figure 2** is not static but depends on the MOOC context where the typology is applied. It summarises the factors at play in the MOOC being studied. Researchers are encouraged to model the typology per their interaction with each other.

### *5.2.1 Openness*

Participants engaged in the discussion forum primarily respond to discussion prompts, and raise questions about challenges they encountered. In their provision of assistance, respondents utilised details from their personal life and experience. These respondents would most likely be professionals taking the course out of

interest. The platform provided a comfortable environment to share their personal experiences. *Openness* in their interaction also allowed respondents to express themselves freely, such as with humour to reformulate course content to "soften" what may have been a hard topic. The messages were informal but polite, usually initiated and concluded with a salutation and focused on the course content. This interplay between *Openness* and Re-contextualising Course Content is captured in **Figure 2** above.

Though participants were open in their interactions, not all types of messages were shared. The primary focus of the exchanges was on the course. Personal details and experiences shared to explain or make the course content accessible were limited to the context of the course. Messages about personal events, such as holiday trips or birthday announcements, were absent. Very few participants were frequent posters with the majority of participants sharing on average only once if at all hence interpersonal bonds that may develop are weak. This highlights the interplay between *Openness* and *Transactional Exchanges* by participants in the Principles of Economics MOOC as depicted in **Figure 2**. When *Transactional Exchanges* are high, social interactions may be limited to superficial and formal expressions, this may be an artefact of participants taking a moment to respond to a fellow learner while seeking out answers to their own questions rather than seeking to engage with other learners. *Openness* by participants is needful in MOOC discussion forums where individually participants share infrequently. Comfortably sharing their thoughts, encouraging other participants or drawing from their experience to support other learners is valuable even if this happens as a one-time activity for the learner.

### *5.2.2 Re-contextualisation of course content*

Participants showed a capacity to explain course materials to fellow learners sometimes utilising information from their personal life and informal social language to reformulate the course content in their responses. On limited occasions, participants provided detailed explanations consisting of several paragraphs drawing on examples from their life or experience in an effort to make a concept accessible to the question-asker reflecting the openness by responders captured by the interaction between *Openness* and Re-Contextualising Course Content represented in **Figure 2**. Responders can localise responses to the requester using references that make the explanation accessible to the recipient, for example, using alternative definitions of content highlighted in the course and worked examples of math-based problems.

The diversity of backgrounds and experiences of participants makes available a pool of knowledge to address a variety of needs that may arise in the discussion forum, they can bring the course to life with their industry experience. Participants voluntarily helping each other can alleviate the load on the course facilitators in providing assistance. Respondents providing assistance also made reference to materials (for example, books) and shared web links to external resources (such as web articles and videos) in their responses. These resources are specific to the query being addressed by providing extra content that precisely addresses the needs of the requester. The respondent may have personally utilised these resources or has assessed them to be relevant to the query.

External resources provided are hence specific and relevant to the needs of the requester. The interplay between *Transactional Exchanges* and *Re-Contextualisation of Course Content* may be influenced by the asynchronous nature of the discussion forum which allows responders to provide feedback when they are in the position to do so, hence responses are not instantaneous, and neither is the feedback if any from the learner receiving the assistance. Participants could have progressed

further with their learning by the time they receive a response at which point the desired period when the information may have been useful (for example undertaking a quiz) may have elapsed.

### *5.2.3 Transactional exchanges*

Exchanges in the discussion forum were not directed towards community building. An exchange was usually initiated by a submission for a discussion prompt or query then immediately concluded in the immediate reply when an answer to the query was provided. Messages in response to discussion prompts were usually followed by expressions of agreement that did not build on the initial post. Hence discussion threads were usually short comprising usually of a question and an answer or a comment. With participants progressing through the course at different rates, follow-ups if at all desired may be a challenge as new questions come through from the large number of participants. It may be that peer support happens sporadically while participants browse through the forum searching for answers to their own challenges.

The high attrition in MOOCs may not couple well with asynchronous messaging as participants drop out over time resulting in one or both participants involved in a discussion not being available to follow up. As discussed under *Openness* above, the enactment of *Transactional Exchanges* can influence the level of *Openness* participants exhibit with *Openness* being low if participants only interact if required rather than actively engaging with each other. The influence of *Transactional Exchanges* on *Re-contextualisation of Course Content* will be the subject of further investigation; it is anticipated that the level of *Transactional Exchanges* may influence the mode of re-contextualisation utilised by participants. For example, will use of analogies and illustrations be high when the level of *Transactional Exchanges* is low? Will participants in a high *Transactional Exchanges* environment utilise reference to outside materials more?

### **5.3 Utilising the typology**

The following procedure is recommended for the application of the typology in future studies. The typology is derived from the Community of Inquiry framework hence utilises the Community of Inquiry coding scheme. Users are encouraged to utilise a whole message of a post for a more robust and consistent coding process. Multiple coding of the same message with different indicators is also encouraged given the expected overlap between social and teaching presences. The typology can be used to compare peer support behaviour across multiple MOOCs. An example of the outcome from the application of the typology is discussed at the end of this section.

To utilise the typology in a research study:


5.Tabulate results and summarise the behaviours of the typology as:

$$\text{Behaven}(\text{eg.Opennes}) = \frac{\text{count of messages cooled for behaviour}}{\text{number of messages coded}} \tag{1}$$


### **5.4 A typology use example**

An example use of the typology is applied to the theoretical interactions of students (and hence peer support) that may be carried by participants in a cMOOC and xMOOC. Referencing Miyazoe & Anderson's Interaction Equivalency [5] as a benchmarking guide for student–student interaction this example compares the enactment of each behaviour for peer support. Miyazoe & Anderson indicate cMOOCs experience high student–student interaction as learners connect with each other.

Students in cMOOCs are encouraged to contribute resources that are added to the collection shared with other learners. A cMOOC usually has medium studentcontent interactions because learning is focused on interaction with other students in the network. In the context of the peer support typology, this can be translated as high *Openness* by students in the cMOOCs environment as participants are


### **Table 2.**

*Mapping scores to behaviour level.*

**Figure 3.** *Example result: Comparing peers support behaviours in xMOOC and cMOOC.*

*A Typology of Peer Support Behaviours in a MOOC DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99039*

encouraged to actively network and interact with each other to facilitate their learning. As such, *Transactional Exchanges* will be low as students frequently interact with each other. *Re-Contextualisation of Course Content* is high in a cMOOC as learners are encouraged to contribute resources that everyone in the learning network can benefit from.

In contrast, xMOOCs have low-to-medium student–student interaction, as effective tools to support the large number of participants remains a challenge. Student-content interaction is high usually driven by the prestige and experience of the instructor whose lessons have been pre-recorded. From this we can expect that *Openness* by participants providing peer support in an xMOOC will be lowto-medium and *Transactional Exchanges* will be high. Nonetheless, this research study has shown participants providing peer support put in the effort to share extra resources they have found useful or provide answers to their peers asking questions, however, given that a large number of queries go unanswered, *Re-Contextualisation of Course Content* is pegged at medium for xMOOCs. **Figure 3** presents this information in graphical format.

### **Acknowledgements**

The content of this Chapter is based on research carried out by Kwamena Appiah-Kubi for the award of PhD. The original thesis can be found at reference [38] below. Both authors have contributed to the writing of the paper and have approved the final version.

### **Author details**

Kwamena Appiah-Kubi and David Cobham\* University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

\*Address all correspondence to: dcobham@lincoln.ac.uk

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Rhoads RA. MOOCs, High Technology, and Higher Learning. In Johns Hopkins University Press; 2015. p. 185.

[2] McAuley S, Stewart B, Siemens G, Cormier D. The MOOC model for digital practice. Massive Open Online Courses Digit ways knowing Learn. 2010;1-64.

[3] Siemens G. Massive open online courses : innovation in education? Massive open online courses Innov Educ. 2013;1833:5-16.

[4] Glance DG, Forsey M, Riley M. The pedagogical foundations of massive open online courses. First Monday. 2013 May 6;18(5).

[5] Miyazoe T, Anderson T. Interaction Equivalency in an OER, MOOCS and Informal Learning Era. J Interact Media Educ. 2013;2013(2):15.

[6] Pursel BK, Zhang L, Jablokow KW, Choi GW, Velegol D. Understanding MOOC students: motivations and behaviours indicative of MOOC completion. J Comput Assist Learn. 2016 Jun;32(3):202-217.

[7] Shapiro HB, Lee CH, Wyman Roth NE, Li K, Çetinkaya-Rundel M, Canelas DA. Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Comput Educ. 2017;110:35-50.

[8] Clow D. MOOCs and the funnel of participation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge - LAK '13 [Internet]. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press; 2013 [cited 2014 Dec 1]. p. 185-9. Available from: http:// dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2460296. 2460332

[9] Eriksson T, Adawi T, Stöhr C. "Time is the bottleneck": a qualitative study

exploring why learners drop out of MOOCs. J Comput High Educ. 2017;29(1):133-146.

[10] Salmon G. E-Moderating: The Key to Online Teaching and Learning. 3rd ed. E-Moderating. Routledge; 2012. 288 p.

[11] Gillani N, Yasseri T, Eynon R, Hjorth I. Structural limitations of learning in a crowd: Communication vulnerability and information diffusion in MOOCs. Sci Rep. 2014;4:1-7.

[12] Wise AF, Cui Y, Vytasek J. Bringing order to chaos in MOOC discussion forums with content-related thread identification. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge - LAK '16. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press; 2016. p. 188-197.

[13] Koutropoulos A, Hogue RJ. How to Succeed in a MOOC - Massive Online Open Course (Oct 12). 2012.

[14] Milligan C, Littlejohn A, Margaryan A. Patterns of Engagement in Connectivist MOOCs. MERLOT J Online Learn Teach. 2013;9(2):149-159.

[15] Breslow L, Pritchard DE, DeBoer J, Stump GS, Ho AD, Seaton DT. Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX's first MOOC. Res Pract Assess. 2013;8(March 2012):13-25.

[16] Deng R, Benckendorff P, Gannaway D. Linking learner factors, teaching context, and engagement patterns with MOOC learning outcomes. J Comput Assist Learn. 2020 Oct 29;36(5):688-708.

[17] Kop R. The Challenges to Connectivist Learning on Open Online Networks : Learning Experiences during a Massive Open Online Course. Int Rev Res Open Distance Learn. 2011;12(3):19-38.

*A Typology of Peer Support Behaviours in a MOOC DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99039*

[18] Huang J, Dasgupta A, Ghosh A, Manning J, Sanders M. Superposter behavior in MOOC forums. Proc first ACM Conf Learn @ scale Conf - L@S '14. 2014;117-126.

[19] Gillani N, Eynon R. Communication patterns in massively open online courses. Internet High Educ. 2014 Oct;23:18-26.

[20] Onah DFO, Sinclair JE, Boyatt R. Exploring the Use of MOOC Discussion Forums. Proc London Int Conf Educ. 2014;1-4.

[21] Kellogg S, Booth S, Oliver K. A social network perspective on peer supported learning in MOOCs for educators. Vol. 15, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2014.

[22] Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet High Educ. 2010 Jan;13(1-2):5-9.

[23] Garrison DR. E-Learning in the 21st Century. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2016.

[24] Dewey J. My Pedagogic Creed. J Educ [Internet]. 1925 Apr 10;101(18):490-490. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/ doi/10.1177/002205742510101803

[25] Arbaugh JB, Hwang A. Does "teaching presence" exist in online MBA courses? Internet High Educ. 2006 Jan;9(1):9-21.

[26] Garrison DR. Online Community of Inquiry Review : Social , Cognitive , and Teaching Presence Issues. J Asynchronous Learn Networks. 2007;11(1):61-72.

[27] Anderson T, Rourke L, Garrison DR, Archer W. Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. J

Asynchronous Learn Netw. 2001;5(2):1-17.

[28] Shea P, Pickett A, Pelz W. A Follow Up Investigation of "Teacher Presence" in the SUNY Learning Network. J Asynchronous Learn Networks. 2003;7(2):61-80.

[29] Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. Am J Distance Educ. 2001;15(1):7-23.

[30] Akyol Z, Garrison DR. The Development of a Community of Inquiry over Time in an Online Course: Understanding the Progression and Integration of Social, Cognitive and Teaching Presence. J Asynchronous Learn Networks. 2008;12(3-4):3-22.

[31] Armellini A, Rodriguez BCP. Are Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) pedagogically innovative? J Interact online Learn. 2016;14(1):17-28.

[32] Arbaugh JB, Cleveland-Innes M, Diaz SR, Garrison DR, Ice P, Richardson JC, et al. Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multiinstitutional sample. Internet High Educ. 2008 Jan;11(3-4):133-136.

[33] Lambert JL, Fisher JL. Community of inquiry framework: Establishing community in an online course. J Interact Online Learn. 2013;12(1):1-16.

[34] Akyol Z, Arbaugh JB, Cleveland-Innes M, Garrison DR, Richardson JC, Swan K. A Response to the Review of the Community of Inquiry Framework Learning Processes vs . Learning Outcomes. J Distance Educ. 2009;23(2):123-136.

[35] Rourke L, Anderson T, Garrison DR, Archer W. Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer

Conferencing. Int J E-Learning Distance Educ. 1999;14(2):50-71.

[36] Khalil H, Ebner M. MOOCs Completion Rates and Possible Methods to Improve Retention - A Literature Review. In: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications. 2014. p. 1305-1313.

[37] Armellini A, De Stefani M. Social presence in the 21st century: An adjustment to the Community of Inquiry framework. Br J Educ Technol. 2016;47(6):1202-1216.

[38] Appiah-Kubi K, Thesis for the award of PhD, Available on request from University of Lincoln library.

### **Chapter 3**

## Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit (CERPT): Enhance Learners' English Reading Proficiency

*Dr. Irene C. Culaste-Quimbo*

### **Abstract**

The Department of Education has introduced numerous intervention and remediation programs to address the reading needs of learners. Despite these, data showed that majority of the learners still have reading problems when they reach higher grade levels. Henceforth, the study experimented on the innovation – Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit (CERPT) to help the learners of Kibacania Elementary School improved their reading ability level. All the pupils were exposed to CERPT. A pre-experimental research design was employed in this study. Findings revealed that the learners' reading ability level enhanced from frustration to instructional. There was a significant difference in the learners' reading ability levels before and after exposure to CERPT. Thus, the study commends the use of CERPT to help in the improvement of the learners' reading ability level.

**Keywords:** contextualized, reading ability level, reading toolkit, frustration, instructional

### **1. Introduction**

Success in reading is critical to the success in school and reading problems will influence every facet of a child's academic achievement. Therefore, early reading is so important. Children who learn to read early go on to develop exceptional reading skills and achieve greater academic success in school. When kids fall behind in reading, they also lag in other subject areas, and will struggle with schoolwork. They become discouraged, lose motivation, fall further behind, and it becomes a vicious cycle downwards.

DepEd has presented programs to affect the reading needs of learners. It issued DepEd Order No. 45 s. 2002 or Every Child A Reader Program (ECARP) as a national program with a goal that every child will be a reader by the time, they finish grade three. Numerous intervention and remediation programs had been conducted by teachers to address the call of DepEd. However, data showed that most of the learners reaching grades four and above still have difficulties in their reading proficiency level.

In fact, the Philippine – Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) English Post-Test result in Kibacania Elementary School for the academic year 2018–2019 revealed that 24% of the grades four to six learners were frustrated readers, 31% were instructional readers, and 36% were independent readers. When examined closely

by the class advisers through the individual oral reading of graded passages, it was found out that the frustrated readers were having word recognition problems on words with consonant blends and consonant digraphs. It was also found out that both frustrated and instructional readers had problems with fluency, vocabulary and reading comprehension. This result emerges and replicates a depressing level of reading proficiency by the learners.

Krause et al. (2016) [1] conversed that the use of content contextualization is supported by three principles: prior knowledge, promoting conceptual change, and promoting metacognition. Firstly, contextualized content instruction activates the learners' prior knowledge and promote more effective problem solving. Student can retain information better if things can be related to their daily life. Secondly, an improvement in learning is evident when content contextualization activities are interactive and engaging that motivates students with a concept relevance. Thirdly, contextualization of content helps students reflect on their learning to link ideas from a recognizable tangible context of an abstract idea so they can distinguish their own personal association to these ideas.

Bonganciso, 2016 [2] conducted a study on the effects of Contextualized Teaching and Learning on the reading comprehension performance of the thirtythree Bachelor of Science in Information Technology students. Results revealed that there was a significant increase on the reading comprehension performance of the students from pretest to posttest. Hence, positive effects on the learners' reading comprehension performance are visible when reading tasks given were contextualized.

Subsequently, this gave light to the researcher to design a Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit (CERPT) to address the English reading needs of the learners. Reading resources shall be within the concern and within the context of the learners to foster higher performance in reading proficiency.

Particularly, the purpose of this study was to see if the use of CERPT greatly enhances the English reading proficiency level of grades one to six learners in Kibacania Elementary School for the academic year 2019–2020. Thereby making them independent readers.

### **2. Action research questions**

The study aims to help the grades one to six learners of Kibacania Elementary School in the academic year 2019–2020 enhance their English reading proficiency level through the Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit. Thereby making them independent readers.

The research questions providing focus for this study are:


### **3. Hypothesis of the study**

The hypothesis of this study was tested at 0.05 level of significance.

*Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit (CERPT): Enhance Learners'… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100041*

There is no significant increase in the English reading proficiency level of grades one to six learners in terms of word reading and comprehension after using the Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit.

### **4. Description of Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit (CERPT)**

The Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit (CERPT) is an English reading resource made by the researcher. This is an initiative to address the gap in English reading proficiency levels of the Kibacania Elementary School learners from grade one to grade six. It focuses on the development of phonemic awareness, beginning reading, word recognition, fluency, vocabulary and reading comprehension skills.

The CERPT consists of four workbooks: the phonemic awareness for workbook 1, beginning reading for workbook 2, word recognition and comprehension for workbook 3, and developing reading comprehension for workbook 4.

The first workbook which is the Phonemic Awareness was designed to help the struggling readers memorize all the consonant letter names and sounds. This workbook offers brilliant exercise with phonemic awareness skills for beginning and ending sounds. One of the most important Kindergarten skills is complete memorization of all consonant letter sounds since this is the backbone to reading success in first grade. It is also recommended that this toolkit be reviewed for the first month of first grade before any word reading takes place.

Phonemic Awareness denotes to being able to recognize where a certain sound occurs in the word: beginning, middle, or end. It is a critical skill for spelling unknown words and is helpful in deciphering new reading words. Children who do not have satisfactory phonemic awareness skills will not only suffer slower reading progress but will become severely frustrated when trying to spell words while writing sentences, paragraphs, or stories.

The second workbook is on the development of Beginning Reading. It was designed to help the grade one and struggling readers how to blend the sound of every letter to read the word or what we call decoding. It utilized the "stop at the vowel" strategy and consists of five parts. The pupils would learn how to read CVC words.

The third workbook is the Word Recognition and Comprehension Development. It includes short vowel words in CVC pattern, consonant blends, consonant digraphs, long vowel words ending in silent e, words with vowel digraphs, and words with vowel diphthongs. This workbook is designed for the grades two and three pupils as well as the struggling readers in grades four, five and six.

Finally, the fourth workbook is the Developing Reading Comprehension. It includes graded reading comprehension passages that addresses the literal, inferential and critical skills. This toolkit was designed to augment the English reading proficiency level of grades four, five and six learners as well as of the struggling readers.

### **5. Methodology**

A pre-experimental research design was employed in this study. All the participants in the study were exposed to the innovation which was the use of Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit. The Phil-IRI assessment tool pre-test and post-test result were utilized for data analysis.

Purposive sampling was employed in determining the participants of this study who were the grades one to six learners of Kibacania Elementary School for the academic year 2019–2020. **Table 1** shows the detailed breakdown of the participants of this study. The study was conducted on July 1, 2019 to December 12, 2019.

The Phil-IRI Assessment Tool pretest and posttest adopted from DepEd Phil-IRI Manual 2018 for grades four to six were utilized as well as the Phil-IRI Manual 2011–2012 for grades one to three were used to determine the reading proficiency level of the participants in this study before and after the implementation of the innovation. The Phil-IRI reading test uses predetermined set of criteria in identifying the reading level of each student for each passage. These criteria include the percentage of word recognition accuracy and the percentage of correct answers to comprehension questions.

To calculate the word reading score in percentage, formula 1 below was used. Equation 1: Word reading score

$$\text{Words Reading Score} = \frac{(\text{total number of words in the passage} - \text{number of words misecesses})}{\text{total number of words in the passage}} \tag{1}$$

To compute the reading comprehension score in percentage, formula 2 was followed. Equation 2: Reading comprehension score

$$\text{Reading Comprehension Score} = \frac{number\text{ of correct answers}}{number\text{ of questions}} \text{ X 100} \tag{2}$$

To determine the proficiency level of learners in word reading as well as in reading comprehension, the percentage scores were analyzed following the rating scale shown in **Table 2** basing from Phil-IRI Manual, 2018.


### **Table 1.**

*Participants of the study.*


### **Table 2.**

*Criteria in determining the learners' proficiency level in word reading and reading comprehension.*

*Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit (CERPT): Enhance Learners'… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100041*


**Table 3.**

*Criteria in determining the learners' reading proficiency level.*

Afterwards, the learner's reading proficiency level in general was determined using the criteria presented in **Table 3** basing from Phil-IRI Manual, 2018 [3].

Further, descriptive statistics particularly mean was employed to answer question number one. While inferential statistics specifically paired t-test was utilized to treat question number two.

### **6. Results/findings of the study**

### **6.1 Reading proficiency level of learners before and after using CERPT**

The reading proficiency level of learners in general and in terms of word reading as well as in reading comprehension are presented in **Table 4**.

Legend:



As gleaned in **Table 4**, the reading proficiency level in general for grades two to six is frustration except in grade one which is non-reader before they used the Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit.

In terms of word reading, the proficiency level of grades two to six is frustration with mean values of 46.67, 41.79, 52.81, 57.96, and 64.85 respectively. While for


### **Table 4.**

*Reading proficiency level of learners before and after using CERPT.*

*Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit (CERPT): Enhance Learners'… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100041*

grade one level, their word reading proficiency level is non-reader with the mean value of 0.00.

In terms of reading comprehension, the proficiency level of grades two to six is also frustration as supported with its mean values of 27.72, 29.14, 36.25, 39.81, and 42.38 respectively. As to grade one, they were still non-reader as supported with its mean value of 0.00.

After the learners were exposed to the use of Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit, some developments were observed in general particularly in grades one, three, four, and six. The reading proficiency level in grade one improved to frustration from being non-reader, and the grades three, four, and six improved to instructional level from frustration level. For grades two and five, the reading proficiency level remains in the frustration level though an increase in the mean scores of both word reading and reading comprehension are visible.

In terms of word reading post-test result, the grade three (mean = 90.00), grade four (mean = 91.69), and grade six (mean = 91.08) learners' word reading proficiency level is instructional as strengthened with its corresponding mean values. There was also an alleviation in grade one (mean = 47.77) from non-reader to frustration as supported by its mean value. As to grades two (mean = 81.89) and five (mean = 81.30) levels, the word reading proficiency level remains frustration nonetheless the mean values increased compared to the pre-test mean values.

In terms of the learners' reading comprehension proficiency level in post-test, it progresses to instructional level particularly in grade two (mean = 61.56), grade three (mean = 60.29, grade four (mean = 61.88), and grade six (mean = 65.54). For grade one (mean = 31.23), the mean value has increased as well as its proficiency level to frustration from non-reader. As to grade five (mean = 55.04), the mean value also increased but the proficiency level remains frustration.

Results implies that the contextualization of reading materials helps the learners in the development of their word reading skills as well as their reading comprehension skills. The learners were able to make connections to what they were reading. The lesson or the reading text were related to the learners' interest and were familiar to them since they were able to somehow comprehend on it. As what Perin (2011) [4] suggests that lower-skilled schoolchildren benefit from contextualization, not because it helps them become flexible students but because it upsurges their mastery of basic skills as well as rises the probability of transmission of basic skills to content courses that is not happening in old-style, decontextualized learning situations.

### **6.2 Significant increase on learners' reading proficiency level after using CERPT**

The significant increase on learners' reading proficiency level after using the CERPT was determined using paired t-test. **Table 5** shows that there is indeed a significant increase in the reading proficiency level of grades one to six learners of Kibacania Elementary School in terms of word reading and reading comprehension. The word reading t-value is �8.588 with a significant value of 0.000, which means that it is highly significant at 0.05 level. The same is true in reading comprehension with t-value of �9.507 and significant value of 0.000. Hence, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant increase in the English reading proficiency level of grades one to six learners in terms of word reading and comprehension after using the Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit is rejected.

This result is in consonance to the study of Bonganciso (2016) [2]. Results of his study revealed that there was a significant increase of the reading performance of the students from pretest to posttest after using contextualized reading materials.


**Table 5.**

*Significant increase on learners' reading proficiency level in terms of word reading and reading comprehension after using CERPT.*

Henceforth, contextualizing the reading tasks of the learners had positive effects on their reading performance. Contextualized teaching and learning are recommended in helping learners improve their performance in reading.

### **7. Reflection**

I learned that teaching reading comprehension is difficult especially when the learner has difficulty in word recognition because the teacher needs to go back to the basics of teaching reading. As a result, the teacher and learner need to double time in order to cope up with the competencies that were not yet developed by the learner. If the teacher and the learner will not double time, the learner will be left behind of the competencies and skills that he/she is expected to learn in his/her present grade level.

I realized then that teachers in every grade level must do all means in order to materialize the competencies needed by the learner so he/she will be ready in the next grade level. By that, the learner will have more time mastering the competencies he/she needed.

The facilitative aspect of the action research that contributed much to its success was the cooperation of my colleagues and learners. The teachers were very much cooperative in every activity and instructions given to them were followed without any complain. The learners were looking forward for the reading time every Tuesday and Thursday, they keep reminding me to have our reading time every time I missed it.

It would have been better if the intervention was done for the whole school year so there will be an ample time to make up with those missed reading competencies by the learners in the previous grade level.

### **8. Conclusions**

Based on the findings delineated in the study, the following conclusions are drawn:

In terms of word reading, the learners' reading proficiency level before using the Contextualized English reading Proficiency Toolkit was non-reader for grade one, and frustration for grades two to six. After using the CERPT, the proficiency level improved to instructional for grade three, grade four, as well as in grade six. An improvement to frustration level was also observed for grade one. While it remained in the frustration level for grades two and five.

In terms of reading comprehension, the learners' reading proficiency level before using the CERPT was non-reader for grade one and frustration for grades two to six. After using the CERPT, the learners' proficiency level developed to instructional level for grades two, three, four, and six. A development was also

*Contextualized English Reading Proficiency Toolkit (CERPT): Enhance Learners'… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100041*

evident for grade one from non-reader to frustration level. However, for grade five, the proficiency level remains frustration.

There was a significant increase on the learners' reading proficiency level in terms of word reading as well as in reading comprehension after using the CERPT.

### **Acknowledgements**

This study is funded by Basic Education Research Fund.

### **Author details**

Dr. Irene C. Culaste-Quimbo Division of Bukidnon, Department of Education – Region 10, Philippines

\*Address all correspondence to: irene.quimbo@deped.gov.ph

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Krause, S. J., et al. (2016). Effect of Contextualization of Content and Concepts on Students' Course Relevance and Value in Introductory Materials Classes. American Society for Engineering Education 123rd Annual Conference & Exposition. New Orleans, LA. Paper ID # 14943. Available from Effect of Contextualization of Content and Concepts on Students' Course Relevance and Value in Introductory Materials Classes American Society for Engineering Education (asee.org)

[2] Bongancisco, R. (2016). Effects of contextualization on the reading comprehension performance of Filipino learners. ASIA Pacific Higher Education Research Journal. Volume 3, Issue No. 1. Available from https://www.researchgate. net/publication/310671685

[3] Phil-IRI Manual (2018). Available from www.deped.gov.ph/

[4] Perin, D. (2011). Facilitating Student Learning Through Contextualization. Community College Research Center. Teachers College, Columbia University. Working Paper No. 29. Available from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu.

### **Chapter 4**

## The Acceptance of MOOC in Teaching and Learning Process: A Case Study at Malaysian Public University

*Nor Hafiza Haron and Yusof Hafidzan*

### **Abstract**

The aim of these studies is to investigate the acceptance of MOOC and factors that might influence the use of MOOC at Public Universities. A quantitative technique which is a survey method was conducted at the selected public university where data were collected from 400 respondents. The analysis was then conducted by using Smart PLS software. Meanwhile, the Technology Acceptance Model was implemented as to obtain the findings of this study. The results showed that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating condition are factors influencing MOOC usage among students at the particular university. The findings also show that the acceptance level of MOOC learning at this particular university was substantial due to some factors might influence the usage and encouragement of these technologies. The result also shows that there is an area of improvement in term of MOOC learning at these universities in order to make the technologies useful and can be beneficial for long term sight and lifelong learning especially in the context of distance education.

**Keywords:** MOOC, technology acceptance, smart PLS, lifelong learning, distance education

### **1. Introduction**

Over the past decade, open educational resources or Open Educational Resources (OER) have brought innovation and technology in online-focused education. According to [1], OER is an open source of education by using material for teaching or learning is in the public domain or under a license that allows it to be used, modified or shared with others freely. As a result of this open source education initiative, MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) began to grow. Among the OER projects are such as portal sites, databases, MOOCs, Open Courseware (OCW), open textbooks (e-books) and tutorials. In the next chapter the word MOOCs will always be used in this thesis. MOOCs in Malay means courses Open in Massive. Massive or large-scale online Open Courses are an educational innovation in technology and didactic strategy [2].

Along with the development of global technology, education can be expanded by applying elements of lifelong learning that provide access to every individual widely. According to [3] in open, distance, flexible and online education, including e-Learning providers are also influential in initiating the movement of OERs and MOOCs for both its categories or models. MOOCs are opportunities and playgrounds that perceive such learning as interactions between different people and groups in new ways [4].

The term 'MOOCs' means access or access that is open, global, free and contains video-based instructional materials, has problem sets as well as online forums to a large number of participants who aim to pursue a course or education [5]. Most MOOCs can be accessed by anyone for free online. In addition, this global level of online learning also wants to be applied in education in our country to take advantage of the use of internet access to something more scientific. This approach also offers diverse learning according to the inclinations of each individual [6]. With the changes and evolution in various technologies and methods in online teaching and learning, public universities in Malaysia have kept pace with developments that have taken place specifically in e-Learning programs [7]. To date, almost all public and private universities have applied e-Learning in teaching and learning using various methods and platforms. Furthermore, blended learning method is one of the relatively popular methods in teaching and learning, especially in institutions of higher learning [7].

With blended learning methods, teaching can be done online such as using LMS systems, MOOCs and other appropriate methods. Malaysia was also among the first countries in the world to undertake a global strategy to integrate MOOCs with classes in public institutions later known as blended MOOCs or 'blended MOOCs' [8]. To coordinate the use of MOOCs between public universities, Australia-based OpenLearning has partnered with the IPTA e-Learning Coordinating Council (MEIPTA) to develop a portal of MOOCs in public universities [8]. Therefore, MOOCs are said to be a self -learning platform that is a trend because it is applied in various disciplines, especially at the tertiary level [9]. It is also one of the most ideal learning methods today. This is because of the easy way by simply accessing the learning materials online or online. Furthermore, MOOCs have been used by all groups of students of all ages across the country because of their benefits and having different learning experiences compared to traditional learning [10].

In general, MOOCs can be categorized into two types or models namely cMOOCs and xMOOCs. cMOOCs are a first generation model i.e. it started in 2008. Basically, cMOOCs are an earlier or older type or model, as developed by Siemens [11]. Its main purpose is to create and generate knowledge through interaction among participants or users. In cMOOCs, students take a greater role in shaping their learning experience than in traditional online courses, while facilitators focus on fostering space for learning connection to take place [12]. This is so because cMOOCs are the first models to be developed by previous researchers. According to [13], the term Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) describes an evolving ecosystem of open online learning environments, spanning the spectrum of course design ranging from distributed online resource networks (cMOOCs) to platform -centered structured learning pathways digital (xMOOCs). cMOOCs are platforms that focus on the generation of distributed knowledge while xMOOCs are centralized knowledge. Both these types and models of MOOCs have their respective advantages and disadvantages. According to [14], cMOOCs are based on network theory (connectivism) while xMOOCs are based on behaviorist theory. This statement is supported by [15], that the concept of MOOCs is based on two pedagogical foundations in education namely connectivism and behaviorism. In this model of cMOOCs, participants or users are encouraged to use a variety of technologies that can reflect their learning, following the principle of connectivism which considers intense interaction between participants as the basis for knowledge construction [16].

MOOCs are a learning system that adapts the structure of learning content to the desires of individual students because this system is said to model students [17]. *The Acceptance of MOOC in Teaching and Learning Process: A Case Study at Malaysian Public… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99764*

In addition, this approach is widely used as an information system and database system to manage, deliver content, interact or facilitate as well as conduct teaching and learning activities [18]. Thus, the purpose of this study is to investigate the factor that might influence the use of MOOC at Public Universities. A quantitative technique which is a survey method was conducted at the selected public university. The response from 400 respondents were analyzed. The analysis was then conducted by using Smart PLS 3.0 version of the software. For now, the Technology Acceptance Model was implemented as to obtain the findings of this study. The result indicated that factor in the UTAUT model act as an important tool to determine the uses of MOOC. The result also shows that there is an area of improvement in term of MOOC learning at these universities in order to make the technologies useful. Furthermore, it can be beneficial for long term sight and encourage lifelong learning especially in the context of distance education and online learning.

### **2. Technology acceptance**

Now days, theory of technology acceptance has been widely used to evaluate the acceptance of technology. It has been widely used to understand and make predictions about consumer acceptance of a new technology [19]. Acceptance of technology is closely related to how a person receives and uses the technology. User acceptance or better known as User Acceptance is an important factor that affects the success of the implementation of a technology [20].

This can show the effectiveness of a technology developed. It is also a general acceptance model for several types of technology such as describing the use of information technology, the use of microcomputers and the use of the internet [21]. Furthermore, technology acceptance theory is also often used in studies related to the application of technology in society [22]. Several theories and models have been designed and are popularly used by most researchers to understand the factors that affect the acceptance and use of technology [23]. Here are some popular technology acceptance theories:


The UTAUT model intentions to study technology acceptance is based on eight theories [24]. Historically, the theory and model such as the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Motivational Model, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), the model of Personal Computer Utilization, the Innovation Diffusion Theory and the Social Cognitive Theory were derived from the UTAUT [25]. Past studies show that many studies have applied the UTAUT model in various fields. Unfortunately, very limited research applying the UTAUT model especially in the sector of Education in Malaysia [26]. It is since the use of Information Communication and Technology (ICT) in the Malaysian education system is quite ambiguous [26].

Therefore, the study on the adoption and acceptance use of information technology (IT) is one of the most established streams of information systems (IS) research [27]. In particular, the UTAUT draws on the combination of one or more popular theories such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Motivational Model, the model of Personal Computer Utilization, the Innovation Diffusion Theory and the Social Cognitive Theory [28]. The acronym of UTAUT is a Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. The UTAUT model as illustrated in **Figure 1** was developed by Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis in 2003 to address the limitations of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and other popular models used in the study of information systems adoption [28]. According to Venkatesh et al. [29] the discrepancy in intention to use described by the contributing models ranged from 17 to 53%. The UTAUT model was found to perform better in terms of variance in intention to use which is related to the technology compared to any of the other eight models. **Figure 1** illustrate the UTAUT Model.

Meanwhile, **Table 1** below refer to the main construct or variables used in this model.

The outcome of the previous studies shown that by using the UTAUT model the effects on behavioral intention were significant to almost for the four construct. The significance of the studies was related to the use of e-learning systems. So in this context, it would also have applied at MOOC. Thus, the study's assumption could be as follows:


In this study, Behavioral Intention refers to the pre-determined decision (*antecedent*). It means that the individual action to use the MOOC is determined by their intention. Behavioral intention is theorized to result in Use Behavior, which is MOOC. Furthermore, a few concepts and models have promoted a direct influence of behavioral Intention on Use Behavior; such as Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Theory Plan Behavior (TPB), UTAUT and UTAUT2.

*The Acceptance of MOOC in Teaching and Learning Process: A Case Study at Malaysian Public… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99764*

### **Figure 1.**

*The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT).*


### **Table 1.** *UTAUT construct.*

### **3. Methodology**

This study investigates the technology acceptance of MOOC among students. It implemented at Public Universities. The purpose is to recognize the factors that might affect the use of MOOC among student. Meanwhile, the framework of this research illustrated as in **Figure 2**.

The quantitative method was used as a methodology in this study. The total sample consists of 400 respondents of the survey. It took students as a sample and the survey being administered at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). A questionnaire was used in this survey, which consists a part of the item regarding technology acceptance as mentioned before. The Likert-Scale was used in the measurement of the item in the variables and construct used in the questionnaire.

### **4. Result**

In this part, the analysis of the result will be discussed. At the first, the software used for analyze data is Smart PLS version 3. This software has been selected because it's used second-generation statistical technique that enables researchers to examine causal relationships between latent variables [30]. As far as the concern, the results are reflected according to the UTAUT factors that has been discussed earlier. As general, two major methods were used in order to analyze the data which is a measurement and structural model of the statistical technique. **Figure 3** demonstrated the diagram of the construct in the model in the research framework which has been implemented. The implementation of the framework into the path model was done by using the above mentioned software.

The second step was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the construct in the model. These would also include the discriminant validity and convergent validity of the construct. For the meantime, the consistency of the constructs was assessed using Alpha Cronbach.

**Table 2** shown that the value of Alpha Cronbach is in the range of 0.7 to 0.9. Thus, the initial step which is the measurement model shows that the value of the construct was good and reflect the study being done.

The next picture displays the factor loading of the item used in the construct is shown in **Figure 4** below. It shows that the factor loading for all construct meet the requirement setting.

Henseler et al. [30] specify that the average variance extracted (AVE) value should be greater than 0.5. It should be reflected for each latent construct in the measurement of convergent validity. So that, **Table 3** shows the AVE values for all constructs were encountered. Then, the technique of Fornell-Larker was applied. This was to assess a discriminant validity of the construct. Again, the value of AVE

**Figure 3.** *Measurement model.*

*The Acceptance of MOOC in Teaching and Learning Process: A Case Study at Malaysian Public… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99764*


### **Table 2.**

*Construct reliability and consistency.*

### **Figure 4.**

*Factor loading for item in construct.*


### **Table 3.**

*Discriminant validity using Fornell-larker technique.*

should be greater than the highest formed correlations between any other construct [30]. It can also be seen from the table as well. From the result also, the measurement model implemented and assessed shows a good validity of the construct used in the study.

The second step which are structural model then was implemented. In this part, the purpose of structural model was to confirm the significance of path coefficients. The technique of bootstrapping was conducted. These was to determine the significance of each estimated path. The R squared or (R2 ) then was considered to estimate the model created. It is to administrate the detailed explanation of the research model. Thus, **Table 4** indicate the detailed results of hypothesis.


### **Table 4.**

*Hypothesis testing.*

### **5. Discussion**

The results of the study show that anticipates using the technology of MOOC depends and influenced by certain factors or variables involved in it. It also indicated that factor in the UTAUT model was important to determine the uses of MOOC especially in teaching learning process. For instance, the behavioral intention was essential in order for students use MOOC. The behavioral intention act as antecedent for MOOC usage in term of factors in the UTAUT model such as performance, effort, social influence and facilitating condition.

The social was determined to be an important factor in this study. This is due to student support and encourage each other in order they use MOOC. This would also the concept of online learning which required social interaction in the learning process. Furthermore, a relationship between facilitating conditions and behavioral intention means that the students were also supported by the infrastructure which is exists within their campus. Another important element is that a good internet resource and access to MOOC convenience has made a good reinforcement to a user's apply MOOC. The effort factor is also determined as good influence in the acceptance of MOOC technology as well as performance factor. The finding indicates that students managed to handle and operate the MOOC as well as they believe that the technology can help them perform better in learning.

### **6. Conclusion**

Technology acceptance is a concept of understanding the adoption of technology. As a technology used in this context where MOOC act as a system for e-learning purposes. Many factors that can be contributed in order to influence the user to use MOOC. In this study, the technology acceptance factors remain as per discussed. These factors are very important as they were significant to the MOOC usage. As for the conclusion, the instructor of MOOC especially lecturer who conduct a course online should be exposed more on how to manage the courses online.

To improve the research conducted it will suggest that the further study could be applied at another university in Malaysia. These could clearly understand the MOOC acceptance of online learning as far as the concern of continuance of the technology. Thus, it would have recommended that this method could be used for lifelong learning. Furthermore, this type of technology is very imperative in teaching and learning process due to many countries getting through the Covid-19

### *The Acceptance of MOOC in Teaching and Learning Process: A Case Study at Malaysian Public… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99764*

pandemic. The concept of teaching and learning online is very crucial especially in the Industrial Revolution 4.0 era and in the context of distance education. The last but not least, an institution or higher learning is the biggest influence in any e-learning project and indirectly gives an impact or effect on the implementation of e-learning. In the context of MOOCs, the institution actually has a role to ensure that elements of infrastructure requirements such as hardware, software, internet facilities on campus are available to encourage the use of MOOCs and cultivate the learning of MOOCs.

### **Author details**

Nor Hafiza Haron\* and Yusof Hafidzan Kolej Universiti Poly-Tech MARA, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

\*Address all correspondence to: afieza@kuptm.edu.my

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Butcher, N. & Moore, A. 2015. Understanding Open Educational Resources. Commonwealth of Learning.

[2] Lubis, A. H., Zulkarnain, S., Idrus, S. & Rashid, S. A. 2020. The Exposure Of MOOC Usage In Indonesia 9(02): 2716-2720.

[3] Ossiannilsson, E., Williams, K., Camilleri, A. & Brown, M. 2015. Quality Models in Online and Open Education around the Globe: State of the Art and Recommendations. Online Submission.

[4] Griesbaum, J. & Görtz, M. 2015. MOOCs as a tool to connect higher education and professional experience? Experiences from a student made MOOC on E-Learning (2006): 111-120. doi:10.4995/head15.2015.324

[5] Baturay, M. H. 2015. An Overview of the World of MOOCs. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174: 427-433. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.685

[6] Shah Rulbani, Mohd Isa & Khadijah. 2017. Penggunaan ICT dalam Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Pensyarah Pendidikan Islam di Politeknik Zon Selatan. Tinta Artikulasi Membina Ummah 3(1): 29-41.

[7] Zulkifli, N. Z., Mohamed Maidin, F. B., Abd Halim, A. H., Ali, U. H. & Ahmad Kuthi, H. A. 2019. Students' readiness in using MOOC for teaching and learning. Journal of Counseling and Educational Technology 2(2): 42. doi:10.32698/0281

[8] Habibah Ab Jalil, Alyani Ismail, Norasiken Bakar & N. A. Kasma Azizan K. A. Nasir. 2016. Evaluation of Malaysia Pilot MOOC (Final Report). CADe UPM Serdang.

[9] Fatin Nabilah, A. W., Rohani, A. A., Ruslina, I., Helmi, N. & Norazah, N. 2017. Kajian Tinjauan Sistematik Mooc

Bagi Kajian Terpilih Tahun 2013-2016 (September): 563-574.

[10] Al-Shami, S. A., Sedik, S., Rashid, N. & Hussin, H. 2018. An empirical analysis of MOOC adoption from the perspective of institutional theory. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems 10(6 Special Issue): 332-343.

[11] Kay, J., Reimann, P., Diebold, E. & Kummerfeld, B. 2013. MOOCs: So many learners, so much potential. IEEE Intelligent Systems 28(3): 70-77. doi:10.1109/MIS.2013.66.

[12] Aharony, N. & Bar-Ilan, J. 2016. Students' Perceptions on MOOCs: An Exploratory Study. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning 12: 145-162. doi:10.28945/3540.

[13] Veletsianos, G. & Shepherdson, P. 2015. Who studies MOOCs\_ Interdisciplinarity in MOOC research and its changes over time \_ Veletsianos \_ The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. doi: 1492-3831.

[14] Nordin, N., Norman, H. & Embi, M. A. 2016. Technology Acceptance of Massive Open Online Courses in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education 17(2): 1-16. doi:10.21315/ mjde2015.17.2.1.

[15] Abu-Shanab, E. A. & Musleh, S. 2018. The Adoption of Massive Open Online Courses. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies 13(4): 62-76. doi:10.4018/ ijwltt.2018100104

[16] Bozkurt, A. & Keefer, J. 2017. Participatory learning culture and community formation in connectivist MOOCs. Interactive Learning Environments 0(0): 1-13. doi:10.1080/10 494820.2017.1412988.

*The Acceptance of MOOC in Teaching and Learning Process: A Case Study at Malaysian Public… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99764*

[17] Alzaghoul, A. & Tovar, E. 2016. A proposed framework for an adaptive learning of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Proceedings of 2016 13th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation, REV 2016 (February): 127-132. doi:10.1109/REV.2016.7444452.

[18] Umbit, A. F. & Taat, M. S. 2016. Faktor-faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Penerimaan E-Pembelajaran Dalam Kalangan Pelajar Di Institut. Jurnal penyelidikan IPGK BL 1-14.

[19] Dulle, F. W. & Minishi-Majanja, M. K. 2011. The suitability of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (utaut) model in open access adoption studies. Information Development 27(1): 32-45. doi:10.1177/0266666910385375.

[20] Sedana, I. G. N. & Wijaya, S. W. 2012. Penerapan Model Utaut Untuk Memahami Penerimaan Dan Penggunaan Learning Management System Studi Kasus: Experential E-Learning of Sanata Dharma University. Jurnal Sistem Informasi 5(2): 114. doi:10.21609/jsi.v5i2.271.

[21] Raida, R. E. & Néji, B. 2013. The Adoption of the E-Banking: Validation of the Technology Acceptance Model. Technology and Investment 04(03): 197-203. doi:10.4236/ti.2013.43023.

[22] Ishak, M. S. 2014, December. Pemodelan Penerimagunaan Maklumat Berkaitan Islam Di Internet: Pengaplikasian Model Penerimaan Teknologi (TAM). Journal of Techno Social, V O L . 6 (N O . 2).

[23] Aslina Saad, E. D. 2016. Kepelbagaian Model Penerimaan Teknologi dan Sistem Maklumat. International Conference on ICT in Education.

[24] Khalid R, Raman A, Hussin F, Ghani M, Don Y and Omar M S 2014. Technology Acceptance on Smart Board among Teachers in Terengganu Using UTAUT Model. Asian Social Science 10(11): 71-85.

[25] Hamdan, A., Din, R., Manaf, S. Z. A., Salleh, N. S. M., & Kamsin, I. F. (2015). Pendidikan: Satu Ulasan Sistematik (UTAUT Applications in the field of Education: A Systematic Review). Journal of Advanced Review on Scientific Research, 5(1), 10-29.

[26] Mohamad M, Hamdan N A, Shaharuddin S and Khalid F 2015 Hypermedia reading strategies of TESL undergraduate students in Malaysia. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 2015: 301-310.

[27] Venkatesh V, Thong J Y L and Xu X 2016 Journal of the IS association for information systems Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 17(5): 328-376.

[28] Venkatesh V, Morris M G, Davis G B and Davis F D 2003 User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems 27(3): 425-478.

[29] Mohamad, M., & Rahim, M. K. I. A. (2018). Factors Affecting MOOCs Continuance Intention in Malaysia: A Proposed Conceptual Framework. Journal of Humanities, Language, Culture and Business, 2(7), 1268147.

[30] Henseler J, M R Cristian and Sarstedt M 2009 Partial Least Squares Equation Model.

### **Chapter 5**

## Innovative Tools to Assess a Large Number of Students in the Open Distance and e-Learning MOOCs

*Ramashego Shila Mphahlele*

### **Abstract**

The literature on students registered in the Open Distance and e-Learning (ODeL) institutions suggests many obstacles related to their summative-driven assessments, which give insufficient time for study, difficulties in access and use of innovative assessment tools, ineffective feedback, and lack of feedback of study materials. These challenges lead students to learn just enough to get grades without understanding the topics or acquiring knowledge and skills. On the other hand, massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) give students, who have to fulfil multiple roles and are affected by the barriers of distance, cost and time, an opportunity to pursue their studies online. This chapter employed humanistic learning theory (HLT) to present a variety of digital teaching and learning tools that enable assessment suitable for a large number of students in the ODeL MOOCs. Humanistic learning theory emphasises a shift towards considering students, their characteristics, and their influence on learning. In addressing the gap created by assessments that were not focused on the specific human capabilities, including creativity, personal growth, and choice, this chapter first presents principles of HLT linking them with the form of assessments in MOOCs. Secondly, the ways to assess a large number of students in ODeL MOOCs are outlined. Lastly, various digital tools that can assess a large number of students are discussed, considering students as sources of authority.

**Keywords:** Assessment tools, humanistic learning theory Massive Open Online Courses and Open Distance and e-Learning

### **1. Introduction**

Millions of higher education students are taking distance education courses from different institutions around the world. Qayyum and Zawacki-Richter (2019) [1] confirmed that 23 million students enrolled in distance education courses from institutions in the twelve countries. This increase in enrolment calls for a paradigm shift to meet the needs of assessments. It should be noted that assessment is no longer used for only grading and certification; instead, it has linked with the learning and skill development of the students (Chaudhary & Dey, 2013) [2]. This chapter employs the Humanistic Learning Theory (HLT) to explore the students' capabilities to set their learning standards and evaluate their work. HLT, often called Humanism, necessitates that the teaching and learning experience help students develop positive relations with their peers (Hare, 2019) [3]. Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasises the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively (Slakmon & Schwarz, 2018) [4]. Furthermore, HLT describes learning in terms of personal growth and the full development of each human's potential not on just an intellectual level but also on an emotional, psychological, creative, social, physical, and even spiritual level (Gould and Roffey-Barentsen) [5].

The humanistic learning theory was developed by Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, and James F. T. Bugental in the early 1900s in response to the typical educational theories at the time, which were behaviourism and psychoanalysis. Maslow [6] emphasised that HLT encourages innovation and creativity while purporting that every student is responsible for their learning and the learning of those around them. Against this background, this chapter highlights the link between HLT and Open Distance and e-Learning (ODeL) assessment, where students need to engage in self and peer assessment activities. However, the following need to be considered:


### **2. The humanistic assessments in ODeL MOOCs**

The meaning of assessment has been consistent throughout the years. Nevertheless, the implementation of assessments varies depending on the teaching and learning environments. This chapter focuses on assessment as legitimate activities within the HLT, which emphasises growth, subjectivity, agency and student centredness (Friedman & MacDonald) [7]. Having humanistic assessments implies incorporating humanistic strategies and interactive activities in ODeL MOOC assessments, as highlighted by Davis, Chang, and McGlothlin [8], who further attest that humanistic assessments help demonstrate the utility of practical humanistic knowledge and skills. It should be noted that is HLT, as confirmed by Johnson [9], is concerned with personal growth and includes attention to students' affective dimensions such as self-concept, values, and emotions. Against this background, it is safe to conclude that humanistic assessments should include self-assessments for personal growth and self-concept. They should also include peer assessments because [9] maintain that students do not take away from the other; instead, they both serve to enhance the other. While implementing the self and peer assessments in the ODeL MOOCs, one should consider many student enrolments. The following section put forward the principles of HTL linked with the forms of assessments in ODeL MOOCs.

### **3. Principles of HLT linked with forms of assessments in MOOCs**

Several essential principles are involved in the HLT that the author found to connect with assessment forms in ODeL MOOCs. First, assessment in MOOCs does *Innovative Tools to Assess a Large Number of Students in the Open Distance and e-Learning… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99040*

not necessarily have to be about course completion. Instead, students can be assessed on time-on-task, student-course component interaction, and a certification of the specific skills and knowledge gained from a MOOC (Chauhan, 2014) **Table 1** [10]. presents the summary of the link between the principles of HLT and forms of assessments in ODeL MOOCs.

**Table 1** shows how the principles of HLT connects with the form of assessment described by [6]. The link is described in detail below.

### **3.1 Student choice**

According to Maslow [6], student choice is central to the HLT. Given the fact that humanistic learning is student-centred, students are encouraged to take control over their learning. Students can control their learning by using various online teaching, learning and assessment tools to develop their learning networks. The online tools will help students to make choices that can range from daily activities to future goals also to find motivation and engagement in their learning,

### **3.2 Fostering engagement**

The HLT relies on teachers to fosters engagement, encouraging them to find things they are passionate about so they are excited about learning to inspire students to become self-motivated to learn. When students are self-motivated to learn, it will be easier for them to use mobile technologies to access course content and assessment activities and knowledge creation and sharing within the network of their peers. Learning in a MOOC offers students various online media and interactive tools for student participation and engagement.

### **3.3 The importance of self-evaluation**

Maslow [6] For most humanistic teachers, grades do not matter. Self-evaluation is the most meaningful way to evaluate how learning is going. Grading students encourages students to work for the grade instead of doing things based on their satisfaction and excitement of learning. Routine testing and rote memorisation do not lead to meaningful learning in HLT and thus are not encouraged by humanistic teachers. Instead, humanistic teachers help students perform self-evaluations so they can see how students feel about their progress.

### **3.4 A safe learning environment**

Because humanistic learning focuses on the entire student, humanistic teachers understand that they need to create a safe environment to have as many students need to be met as possible. The adaptive assessments cater for diverse learners


**Table 1.**

*The link between the principles of HLT and forms of assessments in MOOCs.*

because they address different difficulty levels. Based on each assessment item's response, most adaptive assessments decrease or increase the difficulty level to match learner ability and potential.

There are some critics on the quality of assessment in MOOCs; for example, MOOCs automated grading tools for straightforward testing, such as multiplechoice, true/false, and short problem sets. Linking the principles of HLT with forms of assessment in this chapter aims to address some of these criticisms. The following section presents the current ways to assess a large number of MOOCs before focusing on the innovative tools to assess a large number of students in ODeL MOOCs.

### **4. Ways to assess a large number of students in ODeL MOOCs**

Given the large numbers of students in MOOCs, the following assessments, according to Admiraal, Huisman and Pilli [11], are implemented:


### **4.1 Self-assessment**

Some studies declare that the use of self-assessment in MOOCs is underestimated to some extent; Ventista [12] argue that it is the most suitable assessment method to correspond to the needs of these self-regulated students and a potential solution to the high attrition rates and the patriotic grading bias during peerassessment. Nevertheless, Admiraal, Huisman and van den Ven [13] corroborate the declaration of undervalued self-assessment in MOOCs because their study suggested a bias of self-assessments that led them to conclude that self-assessments might not be an excellent way to assess students' performance in MOOCs. As highlighted in the section of HLT principles, humanistic teachers believe that grades are irrelevant and that only self-assessment is meaningful.

### **4.2 Peer-assessment**

Perr assessment is a form of assessment where students receive marks from their peers (Habib & Sanzgiri) [14].

Furthermore, they mark their peers in returnVentista [12] notes that peer assessment does not appear to be implemented in the ideal conditions in the case of MOOCs. According to Comer and White, [15] peer assessment can be beneficial for the students when they reflect on and evaluate the work of their peers but could not be used as a summative indicator of students' achievement. Much of the current literature on MOOCs pays particular attention to limitations in giving students feedback in MOOCs due to the large enrolment. Piech, Huang, Chen, Do, Ng and Koller [16] recommend using peer assessment, which they refer to as a form of assessment historically used for logistical, pedagogical, metacognitive, and affective benefits. In MOOCs, peer assessment is viewed as a promising solution that can scale the grading of complex assignments for many students (Sadler & Goo [17]. Some students view peer assessment as a motivating element due to helpful feedback and fair grades (Luo & Robinson) [18].

*Innovative Tools to Assess a Large Number of Students in the Open Distance and e-Learning… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99040*

In terms of HLT principles presented in the previous section, peer assessment fosters students' engagement. Taken together, the note by [12] and recommendation by [15], it seems possible that peer assessment can develop more expert-like evaluative judgement (critique, analyse, provide feedback). This chapter also notes that with peer assessment, students can demonstrate expertise through the creation of non-automatically gradable materials (e.g., video presentations, essays, reports, reflections, designs).

### **4.3 Summative assessment**

The term summative assessment has come to be used to refer to assessments of learning, which record students' cumulative progress. Xiong and Sueng [19] differentiate between formative and summative assessments in MOOCs by emphasising that the stakes involved in the summative assessment are usually higher than those in a formative assessment because the former leads to course grade assignment. In general, summative assessment is defined as evaluating what students have achieved after a period of study relative to the learning aims and in accordance with a national qualification framework. Within MOOCs, summative assessments can employ either one or multiple assessment types. Combining multiple assessment types can help reduce the time and cost of marking per student and provide more chances for students to obtain helpful and meaningful feedback.

In MOOCs, summative assessment is viewed as cost-effective because it reduces the cost of marking per student and offers opportunities for instant feedback depending on the tasks. MCQ tests allow automatic evaluation of group and individual performance. The online media and interactive tools enable the humanistic approach in the assessment activities. In addition, some Learning Management Systems (LMS) used to host the MOOCs offer various assessment tools that enable integration of teaching, learning and assessments. The assessment tools are discussed in the section below.

### **5. What are innovative tools to assess a large number of students in ODeL MOOCs?**

Most MOOCs offer automated grading tools for straightforward testing, such as multiple-choice, true/false, and short problem sets. However, when assessments wade into more complex territory--such as student essays--the grading solutions take on the controversy. In this section, some tools that can be used to conduct the assessments presented in the previous section. **Table 2** summarises the link between the assessment tool, types of assessment and HLT principles.

**Table 2** illustrates how and when the innovative tool to assess a large number of students in ODeL MOOCs can be used. This chapter assessments for a large number of students in ODeL institutions should not be a nightmare but should encourage innovation, creativity and responsibility. As shown in **Table 2** that Blogs and discussion forums are not yet used as a summative assessment because summative assessments are almost always formally graded and often heavily weighted. The innovative assessment tools discussed below can be used either for formative or summative assessments. With the formative assessments, teachers can assign them either self or peer assessment, particularly for many students.

### **5.1 Quizzes**

Quizzes in Moodle are used to evaluate student understanding of the material. Chauhan and Goel [20] regard quizzes as some of the primary elements of MOOCs


### **Table 2.**

*Summary of innovative tools to assess a large number of students in ODeL MOOCs.*

for evaluating the students' knowledge. In addition, Gamage, Ayres, Behrend and Smith [21] attest that quizzes can be used to improve student engagement addition, Gamage et al. [21] attest that quizzes can be used to assess students' competencies during the various stages of a study period through automated marking and easily extractable statistics as well as improve student engagement. Chauhan and Goel [20] established that quizzes are used for two reasons; first is for evaluating students' performance, second for practice purpose to provide instant feedback to the students for self-evaluation, without worrying about the effect of their score on final score outcome. With a large ODeL MOOC class, the teacher can set up a computer-graded quiz with feedback for each question or only correct and incorrect question feedback. The students will receive feedback either immediately after each question or after submitting it for grading. That will depend on the teacher's settings. The same quiz can be used as a self-assessment activity where the students can use the feedback provided to perform personal, unguided reflection on performance to generate an individually derived summary of one's level of knowledge, skill, and understanding in a particular area (Andrade) [22].

### **5.2 Discussion forums**

MOOCs have focused on social interactions between students due to the physical distance and large enrolments and, most importantly, improving learning outcomes [21]. However, some researchers do not associate discussion forum with assessment. Lan, Spencer, Chen, Brinton and Chiang [23] posit that discussion forums are tools to facilitate social learning in MOOCs. Similarly, Onah, Sinclair, and Boyatt [24] view discussion forums as a primary means of interaction among students and teachers in MOOCs. The study conducted by [24] using data from a specific MOOC run by the University of Warwick revealed low discussion forums and inadequate peer support. Another concern about discussion forums in MOOCs raised by Lan et al. [23] is being structured instead ofo being generic. According to Brinton, Chiang, Jain, Lam, Liu, and Wong [25], discussion forums are mostly centred around course content, assignments, and course logistics. This chapter argues that discussion forums can also be used as an innovative assessment tool and peer or teacher graded. For a teacher to enter a grade and feedback for each student in a discussion forum assessment for a large number of students in ODeL MOOC can be

a monumental task. In keeping with their significance to MOOCs, where students are scattered across the globe, such as in ODeL institutions, teachers should create peer-graded discussion forums to empower the students to test out new concepts, galvanise ideas and reinforce new thinking (Sharif & Magril) [26].

### **5.3 Blog**

Much literature has been published on Blogs deeming them as communication and learning tools in MOOCs. Mak, Williams and Mackness [27] reflect on several definitions of a Blog from various sources and maintain that blogs are associated with creating personal space for personal learning, quiet reflection and developing personal relationships with bloggers and others. Depending on the LSM used for the MOOC, blogging for assessment can be effective to a certain extend. For example, in the ODeL environment, it might be ideal to use a blog for peer and self formative assessments. The blogging activity does not only encourage students to engage but also enhances their digital literacy skills.

It should be noted that the blogs that can be used for assessments are those embedded in the LSM; however, they should still allow self-motivated bloggers to freely and easily post ideas, individual experiences, and opinions. The teacher can ask the students to create a blog or respond to a blog that they created to be graded through peer or teacher grading. Some of the LMSs hosting the MOOCs incorporated a peer review system in their learning platform that guides students using grading rubrics to evaluate and provide feedback for each other's work. The teacher can set up a blog activity and ask each student to grade at least three other students or more blog posts. In this activity, students can be allowed to evaluate their blog post and allocate self-grading scores.

### **5.4 E-portfolio**

There is some evidence to suggest that e-portfolios in ODeL MOOCs are used mainly for summative assessments. Nevertheless, Cheng [28] validates that e-Portfolio-based formative assessment can record students' progress to offer teachers and students information about how students' proficiency improves and enhance students' autonomy in learning. In line with the first statement, Downes (2013) [29] explains e-portfolio in a MOOC can serve as a resource that a student has to present as proof of his or her learning. A portfolio can be graded with a peer or teacher grading. In the LMS like Moodle, a teacher can use a workshop tool for students to submit their portfolios to distribute among peers for assessment based on a specific grading scale or rubric.

### **5.5 Game-based assessment**

There are millions of learning games in the online learning environment. Although game-based assessment, according to Smith [30], is mainly Game-Based assessments, or GBAs, use gaming technology to help assist employer decisions during their recruitment processes. They form part of the puzzle as to how suitable a candidate is for the role and company.

The most commonly used game-based assessment tool in ODeL MOOCs is Kahoot. It is a game-based approach for learning and assessment. Students can even create their own "kahoots" to share with classmates, creating an interactive experience. In addition, the game-based assessments can be integrated with the quizzes.

### **6. Conclusions**

This chapter put forward the principles of HLT in related forms of assessments in ODeL MOOCs. The section touched on the criticism made by some researcher about the quality of assessments in MOOCs. In concluding this chapter, it addresses those criticisms by associating them with the reliability and validity of assessments. Luo, Robinson and Park [31] affirm that the joint efforts of multiple student graders can produce fairly consistent grading results using MOOCs' peer review systems. Their study of investigating the reliability and validity of peer grading found high levels of agreement between student-assigned scores and teacher-assigned scores measured by the correlation coefficients, which support the validity of peer grading in the MOOC context.

The ways of assessing a large number of students in ODeL MOOCs presented in this chapter are not new to the general teaching and learning environment. However, in this chapter, self, peer and summative assessments were linked with HLT principles and how they can be used in ODeL MOOCs. Lastly, the chapter depicted innovative tools to assess a large number of students in ODeL MOOCs. Some examples are given on how a large number of students can use the tools.

Since humanistic teachers are passionate about helping students meet as many of their needs as possible, using the innovative tools mentioned in this chapter may assist the students to adapt to learning and measure their performance.

### **Conflict of interest**

I declare no conflict of interest.

### **Author details**

Ramashego Shila Mphahlele University of South Africa, South Africa

\*Address all correspondence to: emphahrs@unisa.ac.za

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Innovative Tools to Assess a Large Number of Students in the Open Distance and e-Learning… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99040*

### **References**

[1] Qayyum A., Zawacki-Richter O. (2019) The State of Open and Distance Education. In: Zawacki-Richter O., Qayyum A. (eds) *Open and Distance Education in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. SpringerBriefs in Education*. Springer, Singapore.

[2] Chaudhary, S.V.S. & Dey, N. (2013). Assessment in Open and Distance Learning System (ODL): A Challenge. *Open Praxis*, 5(3), 207-216

[3] Hare, C. (2019). An Introduction to Humanistic Learning Theory. https:// medium.com/age-of-awareness/ an-introduction-to-humanisticlearning-theory-1489cdde6359

[4] Slakmon, B. & Schwarz, B.B. (2018). An Outline of Assessment in Humanistic Conversations: Definitions, Aims and Design. In R. Wegerif & L. Kerslake (Eds.), Theory on Teaching thinking: International Perspectives (pp. 134-150). Routledge.

[5] Gould, J., & Roffey-Barentsen, J. (2014). *Achieving your diploma in education and training* (1st ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

[6] Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking Press.

[7] Friedman, H. L., & MacDonald, D. A. (2006). Humanistic Testing and Assessment. *Journal of Humanistic Psychology*, *46*(4), 510-529.

[8] Davis, K., Chang, C. & McGlothlin, J.M. (2011). Teaching Assessment and Appraisal: Humanistic Strategies and Activities for Counselor Educators. *Journal of Humanistic Counseling*.

[9] Johnson, A.P. (2014). *Education Psychology: Theories of Learning and Human Development*. Mankato: Minnesota University.

[10] Chauhan, A. (2014) Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS): Emerging Trends in Assessment and Accreditation. *Digital Education Review*, 25(1), 7-18.

[11] Admiraal W, Huisman B and Pilli O "Assessment in Massive Open Online Courses" *The Electronic Journal of e-Learning,* 13(4), 207-216.

[12] Ventista, O.M. (2018). Selfassessment in Massive Open Online Courses. *E-Learning and digital media,* 15(4), 165-175.

[13] Admiraal, W., Huisman, B. & van de Ven, M. (2014). Self- and Peer Assessment in Massive Open Online Courses. *International Journal of Higher Education,* 3(3):119-128.

[14] Habib, M. and Sanzgiri, J. (2020). *Compendium on good practices in assessing and recognising MOOCs for the EU labour market (EMC-LM deliverable 4.1). EMC-LM Project. CC-BY 4.0.* https:// emc.eadtu.eu/images/publications\_and\_ outputs/EMC-LM\_Compendium\_on\_ good\_practices\_final.pdf.

[15] Comer, D.K. & White E.M. (2016) Adventuring into MOOC writing assessment: Challenges, results, and possibilities. *College Composition and Communication* 67(3): 318-359.

[16] Piech, C., Huang, J., Chen, Z., Do, C., Ng, A. & Koller, D. (2013). Tuned Models of Peer Assessment in MOOCs. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.2579.pdf

[17] Sadler, P.M & Goo, E. (2006)The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. *Educational assessment*, 11(1):1-31.

[18] Luo, H., & Robinson, A. C. (2014). Is peer grading a valid assessment method for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)? Paper presented at

the 7th Annual International Symposium. Emerging Technologies for Online Learning. Retrieved from http:// sloanconsortium.org/conference/2014/ et4online/peer-grading-validassessmentmethod-massive-open-online-coursesmoocs.

[19] Xiong, Y. & Suen, H.K. (2018). Assessment approaches in massive open online courses: Possibilities, challenges and future directions. *International Review of Education.* 64(2), 241-263.

[20] Chauhan, J. & Goel, A. (2017). Quiz in MOOC: An Overview. *International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology,* 4(7), 1-7.

[21] Gamage, S.H.P.W., Ayres, J.R., Behrend, M.B. and Smith, E.J. (2019) Optimising Moodle quizzes for online assessments. *Internation Journal of STEM Education* **6(**27) (2019)

[22] Andrade, H. (2019). A Critical Review of Research on Student Self-Assessment. *Frontiers in Education,* 4(87), 1-13.

[23] Lan, A.S., Spencer, J., Chen, Z., Brinton, C.G., & Chiang, M. (2018). Personalised Thread Recommendation for MOOC Discussion Forums. *ECML/PKDD*.

[24] Onah, D., Sinclair, J. & Byatt, R. (2014). Dropout Rates of Massive Open Online Courses: Behavioural Patterns. In *Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN14,* Barcelona, Spain.

[25] Brinton,C.G., Chiang, M., Jain, S., Lam,H., Liu, Z. & Wong. F. (2014). Learning about social learning in MOOCs: From statistical analysis to generative model. IEEE *Transactions on Learning Technologies*. 7(4), 346-359.

[26] Sharif, A. & Magrill, B. (2015). Discussion forums in MOOCs.

*International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research,* 12(1), 119-132.

[27] Mak, S.F.J., William, R. & Mackness, J. (2014). Blogs and Forums as Communication and Learning Tools in a MOOC. *Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010,*

[28] Cheng, J. (2017). An e-Portfoliobased Model for the Application and Sharing of College English ESP MOOCs. *Hinger Education Studies,* 7(2), 35-42.

[29] Downes, S. (2013). Assessment in MOOCs [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://halfanhour.blogspot.com. es/2013/05/assessment-in-moocs.html.

[30] Smith, M. (2020). Game-Based Assessments: what, why and how to succeed. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ careers/2020/10/19/game-basedassessments-what-why-and-how-tosucceed/#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20 Game%2DBased,based%20games%20 can%20be%20used.

[31] Luo, H., Robinson, A.C. & Park, J. (2014). Peer Grading in a MOOC: Reliability, Validity, and Perceived Effects. *Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network*, 18(2):1-14.

### **Chapter 6**

## A Conceptual Model for Conformance with Accessible Gamification

*Keyonda Smith*

### **Abstract**

There currently remains limited Gamification awareness and training for developers on WCAG conformance. Studies indicate an increased interest from developers to raise their acceptance, awareness, and technical abilities for designing accessible digital products. This article explores and presents a conceptual module to improve web developers' capabilities and knowledge of accessible digital design. By leveraging the standards put forth by WCAG 2.0, developers can create accessible content for users who identify with various forms of abilities. Four primary principles comprise WCAG 2.0 and 12 standards, and 12 standards deliver fundamental objectives as best practices for developers. These guidelines were employed for gaming content design and development, permitting users to regulate reality and Gamification associations whereas immersing in the game. The goal is to apply diverse processes for each stage of the game to allow challenges and motivation for users to determine novel processes while understanding the guidelines. Assistive Technology was used to navigate each stage. To suit independence or self-reliance, the conceptual model supports players' personalization while completing the game activities. Likewise, employing complex, advanced, and reward dashboards satisfies the proficiency component, and social network communications to other players provide the opportunity for interconnectedness. The conceptual model presented in this paper underpins Gamification and the potential to incorporate evidence-based accessibility principles developed by W3C. The previous examinations focused on instruments (e.g., software, feature, components) to achieve WCAG conformance. This examination presents a distinction from prior studies as this conceptual model recognizes consciousness and self-determination as the initial starting point.

**Keywords:** Gamification, accessibility, eLearning, ADA, disability

### **1. Introduction**

The expansion of accessible e-learning and its components presents challenges and barriers recognized by the World Wide Consortium (W3C) and similar compliance organizations. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [1] study results suggested that over 60 million adults live within the United States and identify as possessing a disability. These results indicate that most adults in the United States seeking higher education may experience barriers and challenges when presented with digital learning tasks. Sallafranque-St-Louis & Normand [2] research revealed that approximately 25 percent of disabled adults lacked access to

the Internet, compared to over 10 percent of non-disabled adults. This disproportion for Internet access demonstrates an essential disadvantage, particularly when considering age.

Additionally, these statistics forecast an increase as people are living longer. The lack of accessibility provisions validates a significant digital gap for adults that identify with a disability. Even though there are continuous improvements, less than 20 percent of public websites conform to the World Wide Consortium (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0/2.1 guidelines [3]. This statistic suggests insufficient compliance for most web developers' inability to comply with the guidelines. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) necessitates specific public and private entities to ensure published web content is accessible for those who identify with various levels of blindness, deafness, dexterity abilities, cognition, or using assistive technology. However, there is a continued overall deficiency of consciousness regarding accessibility resources such as training and developers' incentive to practice accessible design.

Moreover, Dror et al. [4] argue that the most recent global pandemic exposed how assistive device and technology marketplaces remain disjointed and largely cost-prohibitive, resulting in digital products lacking compliance to accommodate all users. These issues demonstrate the critical state of accessibility and developers' capacity to implement and assimilate accessible features for digital products. Considering that accessible and compliant digital products increase the UX (UX) by over 30 percent [5], verify positive returns when integrating content that meets accessibility standards and guidelines. To improve user results, engagement, and the general experience, developers incorporate Gamification features within digital products. Nacke & Deterding [6] defines Gamification as employing 'game design elements in a non-game context.' As research increases and practice improves, there remains scant guidance on the appropriate design and implementation of accessible digital gamification elements using game design elements (e.g., leaderboards, points, progression indicators, leaderboards). Organizations and institutions generally leverage Gamification to enhance learning, provide training, increase employee enrichment and inspiration, and research projected its growth to over \$19.4 billion by 2023 [7].

There currently remains limited Gamification awareness, and training [8], for developers on WCAG conformance. Studies indicate an increased interest from developers to raise their acceptance, awareness, and technical abilities for designing accessible digital products. This article explores and presents an engaging resolution to improve web developers' capabilities and knowledge of accessible digital design.

### **2. The literature**

### **2.1 Accessibility background**

Developers employ various conventions to mitigate accessibility issues. As an endeavor to commiserate and perceive users' requirements, this proposal suggests the deployment of avatars. Zhang et al. [9] examined the adoption of sensible methods to further this concept. Their research focused on implementing accessibility and its corresponding users to navigate a Gamified platform named '**CoMove.'** CoMove is a virtual living space atmosphere for players who identify with differing cognitive abilities. Coincidentally, researchers continue to explore mechanized online accessibility review tools [10, 11] without requiring user intervention that measures accessibility using WCAG standards and guidelines. Automated tools lack complete compatibility with current WCAG standards and with constraints to only evaluating select elements.

In contrast, current tools often present limitations, steep learning curves, and often require clarification, resulting in issues and non-compliance. Undeniably, research has demonstrated that the current standards present as vague, abstruse, and unnecessarily challenging to decipher. There is a deficient examination to refine the convoluted and arduous process to mitigate digital products when leveraging WCAG standards. The effort to improve digital accessibility centers on employing approaches and procedures that consolidate the recommended standards; yet, these tactics fail to confront encouragement and absence of consciousness by developers', which present various barriers and challenges.

### **2.2 Gamification and eLearning**

Usability and UX act as essential characters concerning the quality of ubiquitous access to digital materials. Several models underpin how UX, internally and externally, supports motivation and inspiration when conducting specific activities. However, Wigfield's [12] examination of the Expectancy Value Theory of Motivation (EVTM) published results grounded on acknowledging that inborn inspiration is most desirable due to leveraging three central rational requirements - aptitude, self-sufficiency, and empathy. When satisfied, the user expresses increased satisfaction and inspiration. The examination of Gamification advantages meant to engage users is not novel. Further exploration has indicated that Gamification aids in self-efficacy, empathy, compassion, and engagement. Research also indicated that Gamification enhanced stimulation.

In practice, there are a few instances of this hypothesis. For example, to help individuals become familiar with another dialect, the software Duolingo utilized Gamification. Microsoft [13] integrated and introduced Gamification to nearly 1,000 employees to enhance its Windows interpretation program, where they completed over 25,000 assignments. This strategy exhibited that their employees completed assignments over 130 percent more rapidly than the benchmark group. These results concluded an over 60 percent increase in participation when engaging with Gamification. Online training also demonstrated increased participation in course activities when employing Gamification by over 60 percent.

Prior research purported that boundaries exist when comparing an assignment to reality [14, 15]. A more prominent construct among the present reality situation and a gamified task may improve UX and satisfaction. However, it may conceivably increase challenges and difficulty for accomplishing the coarse learning objectives. Games with realistic scenarios present fewer challenges when working towards accomplishing the course objective, yet the user experiences, engagement, and commitment may decline. Nakamura et al. [16] assessed Gamification and the UX's viability in learning management systems by measuring UX and usability. Their research introduced several models applied to appraise knowledge attainment and learning conditions.

In this article, the author furthers this exploration by constructing a scheme outlining realistic Gamification components to increase accessibility consciousness and improve acceptance of WCAG's accessibility standards.

### **3. Aligning WCAG principles and Gamified solutions**

As a methodology, Gamification demands the development of a practical solution centered on the foundations of Gamification. The standards put forth by WCAG 2.0 provides a conduit for developers to create accessible content that is and increasingly available for users who identify with various forms of abilities. Four

primary principles comprise WCAG 2.0 and 12 standards. The 12 standards deliver fundamental objectives as best practices for developers. In the context of this article, the standards are central to achieving accessibility.

This scheme intends to employ gaming content design and development, permitting users to regulate reality and Gamification associations whereas immersing in the game. The game entails various stages, individually plotting to each of the WCAG standards. The goal is to apply diverse processes for each stage to allow challenges and motivation for users to determine novel processes while understanding the guidelines. Assistive Technology observes and aids users as they navigate each stage. Assistive Technology is acting as the sole and primary guide. Assistive Technology provides motivation and clarity on comprehending strategy and design in numerous stages.

The projected plotting among how the game operates and WCAG 2.1 consists of the below criteria.

	- *Alternative Text:* Present all non-text content to users with text alternatives. This standard maps to the '**Facebook® Live Trivia'** game, where users are positioned in a dark room viewing an unclear picture. The Assistive Robot will explain what is on the image, and the player transcribes the explanations in the image 'ALT tag' to move forward.
	- *Synchronization:* Time-based media, or synchronization, contains characteristics that allow corresponding alternatives (e.g., Audio or Video content). This corresponding measurement tool is the '**Facebook® Live Trivia'** game, which contains ambiguous videos. By viewing this multimedia in a noisy and loud environment, Assistive Technology then connects the text and player to complete the 'ALT Text' and obtain information from the video that provides access to the next stage.
	- *Flexible:* Create various content types (e.g., more straightforward layout) without losing information or structure. The game **'Braid'** aligns with the 'Flexibility' standard. Braid is a puzzle game where the user receives tasks to open three doors in a specific sequence, using two keys. The first key in the cadence is the most difficult. However, users have access to a rewinding feature, which allows the user to reverse any mistakes.
	- *Differentiate:* Create a simple, user-friendly experience that distinguishes the foreground content from the background. The **'Sift Heads Cartels'** game measures and links to the 'Differentiate' standard. The user identifies a unique target in a mass of targets. All targets are homogenous and require filtering to allow visualization. Alternatively, other features require finetuning by the user, such as audio.
	- *Focus:* Keyboard focus and usability connect to the '**Discovery! A Seek and Find Adventure**' game, whereby players accept a duty to restore a keyboard

### *A Conceptual Model for Conformance with Accessible Gamification DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98195*

to submit the security information. To accomplish this particular task, the player must discover the misplaced keys. The assistive technology recommends applying keyboard shortcuts. The game consists of specific zones that disallow keyboards and mice, challenges expected for the player to conquer.

	- *Comprehensive*: To understand the game material and its contents, it must sustain readability. This standard correlates with the **'7 Little Words**' game, which requires the player to locate the URL to alter the instructions' language.
	- *Intuitive:* The game pages and screens must operate intuitively and expectedly. The 'Intuitive' standard connects with the **'Escape the Crate'** game. The game initiates with the player situated in a room that is locked. The exit has a dashboard located adjacently. First, there is a code which the player needs to locate. Conversely, the entry field requires unlocking to allow the play to input the secret code. Lastly, a submission control containing the appropriate tag is required to enter the secret code.
	- *Form Entry Ability*: Assistive Technology seeks to aid players in preventing and adjusting errors. The game '**2 For 2: Connect The Numbers**' corresponds with this standard. For this game, players receive instructions to match to solve for the sum of those numbers. This task involves the player associating

where the player needs to connect verifications, proof, and tags to specific areas to advance to the next phase.

	- Congruency This standard aligns with the '**Metro Exodus**' game. In this game, players must unlock an electric door. However, the power supply is not functioning. Therefore, the player's task is to repair the component. The assistive technology software does not recognize this screen and lacks any notification to the player. If the player somehow realizes this error, they can remediate this by repairing user identification labels or tags to allow the assistive technology to recognize what is occurring on the screen and the required next steps.

### **3.1 Gamification tools, features, and measure**

Lastly, the final phase entails the incorporation of Gamification technology. A study conducted by van Roy & Zaman [18] acknowledged several Gamification features and their correlation to EVTM.

Correspondingly, to suit independence or self-reliance, the conceptual model supports *players' personalization* while completing the game activities. Likewise, employing *complex, advanced, and reward dashboards* satisfies the proficiency component, and *social network communications to other players* provide the opportunity for interconnectedness **Figure 1**.

### **4. Discussion**

The conceptual model presented in this paper underpins Gamification and the potential to incorporate evidence-based accessibility principles developed by W3C. The previous examinations focused on instruments (e.g., software, feature, components) to achieve WCAG conformance. This examination presents a distinction from prior studies as this conceptual model recognizes consciousness and selfdetermination as the initial starting point.

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, amended in 1998, mandates federal agencies to comply with providing accessible information technology to people with disabilities. This mandate comprises both employees and the public. Section

### *A Conceptual Model for Conformance with Accessible Gamification DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98195*

508 underwent a significant revision in 2017 and commissioned that by January 2018, all federal and contracted service providers conform to WCAG 2.0 A/AA. Therefore, this conceptual model reinforces and supports Gamification and gamified learning equity for active participation and engagement to increase WCAG 2.0/2.1 knowledge. The prediction based on this remedy is a treatment for future accessibility in a digital environment. It is recommended to researchers to examine further an exhaustive treatment for accessibility in conjunction with developers. Moreover, researchers should further review the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and its relationship to M-learning -Usability and User Experience Encountered in Mobile Educational Context (MUUX-E).

### **Author details**

Keyonda Smith Trident @ American InterContinental University, Fairfax, VA, USA

\*Address all correspondence to: kmsmithphd@gmail.com

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Disability and Health Data System (DHDS) [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021]. Available from: http:// dhds.cdc.gov

[2] Sallafranque-St-Louis, F., & Normand, C. L. (2017). From solitude to solicitation: How people with intellectual disability or autism spectrum disorder use the Internet. *Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace*, *11*(1).

[3] Acosta, T., Acosta-Vargas, P., Salvador-Ullauri, L., & Luján-Mora, S. (2018, January). Method for accessibility assessment of online content editors. In *International Conference on Information Technology & Systems* (pp. 538-551). Springer, Cham.

[4] Dror, A. A., Morozov, N. G., & Layous, E., (2021). United by hope, divided by access: Country mapping of COVID-19 information accessibility and its consequences on pandemic eradication. Frontiers in Medicine, 7, 1133.

[5] Chandrashekar S, McCardle L. How WCAG 2.1 Relates to Online User Experience with Switch-Based Tools. Journal on Technology and Persons with Disabilities [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021];**8**:223-36. Available from: http:// hdl.handle.net/10211.3/215990

[6] Nacke, L. E., & Deterding, C. S. (2017). The maturing of gamification research. *Computers in Human Behavior*, 450-454.

[7] Wünderlich, N. V., Gustafsson, A., Hamari, J., Parvinen, P., & Haff, A. (2020). The great game of business: Advancing knowledge on Gamification in business contexts.

[8] Larson, K. (2020). Serious Games and Gamification in the corporate

training environment: A literature review. *TechTrends*, *64*(2), 319-328.

[9] Zhang, L., Fu, Q., Swanson, A., Weitlauf, A., Warren, Z., & Sarkar, N. (2018). Design and evaluation of a collaborative virtual environment (CoMove) for autism spectrum disorder intervention. *ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (T-ACCESS)*, *11*(2), 1-22.

[10] Parajuli, P., & Eika, E. (2020, July). A comparative study of accessibility and usability of Norwegian university websites for screen reader users based on user experience and automated assessment. In *International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction* (pp. 300-310). Springer, Cham.

[11] Souza, N., Cardoso, E., & Perry, G. T. (2019). Limitations of Automated Accessibility Evaluation in a MOOC Platform: Case Study of a Brazilian Platform. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial, 25(4), 603-616.

[12] Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancyvalue theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. *Educational psychology review*, *6*(1), 49-78.

[13] Microsoft (2018). Limitations of Xamarin.iOS - Xamarin | Microsoft Docs. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/ xamarin/ios/internals/limitations [2020-2104-6].

[14] Liu, S., Saito, S., Chen, W., & Li, H. (2019). Learning to infer implicit surfaces without 3d supervision. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00767*.

[15] Markowitz, D. M., Laha, R., Perone, B. P., Pea, R. D., & Bailenson, J. N. (2018). Immersive virtual reality field trips facilitate learning about climate change. *Frontiers in psychology*, *9*, 2364.

*A Conceptual Model for Conformance with Accessible Gamification DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98195*

[16] Nakamura, W. T., de Oliveira, E. H. T., & Conte, T. (2017, April). Usability and User Experience Evaluation of Learning Management Systems-A Systematic Mapping Study. In *International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems* (Vol. 2, pp. 97-108). SCITEPRESS.

[17] Accessibility Principles. (2021). Accessibility Principles. https://www. w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/ accessibility-principles/

[18] van Roy, R., & Zaman, B. (2017). Why Gamification fails in education and how to make it successful: Introducing nine gamification heuristics based on self-determination theory. In *Serious Games and edutainment applications* (pp. *485-509).* Springer, Cham.

### **Chapter 7**

## Teachers' Readiness for e-Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic, South Africa

*Melikhaya Skhephe*

### **Abstract**

The event of the COVID-19 pandemic and the respective implementation of social distancing protocols resulted in a rapid transition to online teaching and learning for most education institutions around the world, independent of whether teachers were prepared. The Corona Virus Disease −19 (COVID-19) has interrupted educational processes worldwide. The impact of COVID-19 on the educational system has gained crucial relevance in research, with the intention of identifying a scientifically based solution to this problem. This study is based on the notion that, while the pandemic's effect is broad, a unit-level analysis can provide some insight. As a result, this study thus investigated the teachers' readiness for e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. A qualitative approach, in particular a case study research design was employed, with sampling consisting of six teachers being purposively and conveniently selected. The findings revealed that teachers do not understand what e-learning is all about and how it can be implemented within the classroom. Another finding was that classrooms do not promote e-learning. The researchers recommend that; education officials need to organize continuous e-learning workshops for teachers. Classrooms need to be redesigned in order to promote e-learning.

**Keywords:** covid-19 pandemic, e-learning, teachers, teachers' readiness and classroom

### **1. Introduction**

E-readiness is the capability of e-learning users to adapt to a new learning environment, using new technologies, and be involved in self-directed learning [1]. E-learning is the feature of the 21st century and all institutions worldwide are looking for innovative and more effective ways to deliver education and to connect more broadly learners and other stakeholders [2]. Rosen [1] supports this notion that the 21st century is characterized by the pervasive influence of technology across all spheres. As a result, utilization of technology offers an uncompromising alternative form of instruction, especially in the developed world. However, Glenda [3] argues that e-learning has become an essential feature in the delivery of education, particularly in the 21st century. Glenda [3] further observe that e-learning effectiveness relies on a stable network with specific software, a repository for managing the delivery of content, and a good social environment created

by the online interaction among learners. Hammond [4] over the past two decades, technology has transformed education systems. Mncube et al. [5] revealed that the usage of digital tools and resources revealed that school teachers do not use digital tools and devices for exploring curriculum content, and this has something to do with their readiness. Dagada and Chigona [6] supported this finding that most teachers do not make use of digital tools because they lack the understanding of the complex relationships between content, pedagogy, and the technology to be integrated into the curriculum delivery. Dagada and Chigona [6] further reveal that there is a need for schools to assist teachers to improve their technological pedagogical content knowledge if the institutions are to successfully domesticate e-learning platforms. Kiilu and Muema [7] opine that e-learning is a powerful enabling tool for educational change and reform and many of the productivity gains in the developed world economies over the past decade to a great extent can be attributed to the impact of technology. Cloete [8] teachers' readiness is achieved by providing the requisite infrastructure and ensuring the populace has access to technologies. Njagi [9] states that heads of state worldwide and educational organizations are supporting the view that incorporating e-learning in teaching and learning is an important aspect of keeping the curriculum relevant and preparing learners for the future. Kaur and Abas [10] teachers' readiness for e-learning helps their schools to design e-learning strategies comprehensively and to implement its technology goals effectively. Kaur and Abas [10] learners must also be ready for e-learning so that a coherent and achievable strategy, tailored to meet their needs, may be implemented. Kaur and Abas [10] went further that once teachers and learners become technology ready this helps in providing key information to the classroom to supply solutions that can cater to the specific needs of each learning group. Amir and Krish [11] argue that in the 21st century teachers' readiness for technology teaching should be considered an important feature of the 21st century and e-learning connections should be ready all the time. To understand teachers' readiness for e-learning in more detail, examining its relations to these factors is critical [12]. Moreover, these factors may not affect all teachers in the same way. Teachers in schools are not a homogeneous group, the different important relationships affecting one group may be completely different for another, given different backgrounds, experience with e-learning. To be able to provide appropriate support, understanding some of the reasons why teachers do or do not adopt new e-learning practices is necessary [13]. Scherer et al. [14] assert that e-learning teaching understanding is positively related to teachers' general self-efficacy and their attitudes toward e-learning. Carril [15] confirm that showed that more e-learning teachers' understanding also has higher self-confidence in their pedagogical competencies to teach online. Shea [16] reported that teachers with little understanding of e-learning have high levels of struggle related to communication and interaction, and unfamiliarity with effective online pedagogy and technology. A study conducted by Martin et al. [17] showed that experience and understanding from teaching online impact online subject design and facilitation, that is, aspects of teaching practice and presence. However, little or no online teaching experience and understanding are associated with lower self-efficacy. De Villiers [18] further observe that lack of critical non-technical skills are among the things that need to be addressed in the teaching of education. According to Kassim et al., [19] overemphasis on the content-driven approach in which textbooks are cases of academic dishonest have become among the prime subjects of constant debates in the academic domain. Kozma [20] asserts schooling has been recognize as one of the nationalize sectors most affected by technological developments and it's a subject that has also been influenced by this shift as well. Kozma [20] further observes that improvement of technological use in the schooling sector and improvement in

### *Teachers' Readiness for e-Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic, South Africa DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101242*

schooling attainment achievement are prime to states' compound for worldwide, technology-based changes in all sections. Were et al. [21] argue that, formation of information and communication technology blueprint in schooling much as inserted in the international technology plans of the of each state, is seen to be critical as technology take part in a major role in preparing solidarity in school for the workstation. Online teaching, if cautious integrated into schooling, has a future to facilitate the acquisition of relevant life skills that buttress the development process in the prevailing economic and information order. Hare [22] observes that in many African countries there is a deficiency of a determined strategy for online use within the schooling zone despite acknowledging technology as an enabler in improving access and quality of schooling. Hare [22] further observes that one of the challenges facing online teaching is the insufficiency of perception, coupled with a shortage of qualified teachers within information communication technology knowledge, which has resulted in the deficiency of interest and seeming lethargy related to adopting ICT in the classroom. Mangesi [23] reveals that online teaching in the classroom is not controlled by any accepted framework. Mangesi

*Source: Mail & Guardian 8 March 2013*

*Source (News 24, 8 April 2015)*

*Source(News 24, 8 April 2015)*

*Source (Daily Maverick, 03 March 2016)*

[23] further stated that various schools led their own enterprise mainly funded on bilateral terms between the school and their donors'. In the western countries of Africa, there are strategies and proposals to ensure that school curriculum is on compact disc to ease access across the nation without distributing it as a hard copy [23]. Farrell [24] reveals that in many secondary schools, technology studies are offered as a different subject, focusing on expanding respective capabilities. At the end of the year, the learners are expected to be familiar with internet usage and presenting their work using technology in a different way as well as, using technologies with data and information processing [24]. Farrell [24] further observes that these learners are also expected to bear on the idea, understanding, and expertise of technology on a day-to-day basis; provide answers to challenges using technology and indicate promptness to possess up to date with recent growths and matters related to daily use of technology.

It is against this background that the researchers wanted to explore teachers' readiness for e-learning during the Covid-19 pandemic in South Africa.

### **2. Research framework**

Based on global expectations, and changing realities related to the way in which technology influences teaching in the era of COVID-19 and in the 4IR [25] developed the technology acceptance model (TAM). Having considered the stated research question, the researchers who authored this article deemed TAM ideal for underpinning their study, which is reported here. TAM is used to predict or determine why someone might use technology, while another individual may decline to do so [25]. To have a better understanding of how teachers relate and think of technology, the TAM theory was explored. TAM is a theoretical model that is popularly employed by researchers to critique the usage and the acceptance of technological systems by its intended users [25]. TAM has been proven over time by many researchers as a good model to explain the users' attitude and behavioral intention to use a particular system of technology [26]. According to Davis et al. [27], technological systems do not serve their purpose of improving organizations if they are not utilized. Similarly, this study is holding the premises that educational technologies are only fully utilized if their potential is to be realized. This view is supported by Davis [27] who observed that the potential benefits of technological systems are often not realized because of the intended users' lack of will to utilize them. Davis et al. [27] further highlighted that users shy away from using systems because they either do not believe they will help improve their jobs or believe they are difficult to use, as a result, TAM uses the two variables as the main determinants of the attitude and the behavioral intension to use the system. Collectively this evidence presented in this section suggests that TAM is possibly relevant to explain the relationship between the teachers and the educational technologies. Moreover, Davis et al. [27] raise the concern that organizations will not realize the gains of technological systems if the intention of using those systems is not realized. TAM takes into account only users versus the system, whereas in the context of this study the users (being the teachers) also have the responsibility to be concerned about the other users (being the learners) expected to utilize some of the systems. The teachers' main responsibility is to transfer knowledge to the learners [28], with the aim of realizing learners' excellence with regard to their academic responsibilities. As a result, it is assumed by this study that from the lecturer's perspective, each intervention to improve any aspect of the learners' learning, should be in the interest of successful knowledge transfer and the achievement of good academic results by their learners. According to the view of TAM [27], the two external variables are recognized as the determinants of the users' attitude and behavioral intention to use the system. The TAM concept has been expanded by other scholars to accommodate furthermore variables. In the context of this study, another external variable being the "perceived response and benefit" of the other users' (learners) is also a key determinant of their attitude and behavioral intention to use educational technologies. This study reserves a view that it would be unbeneficial to the teachers to utilize a system that would not be beneficial to their learners, or the learners are somehow unable to respond expectantly to the system. Also, the adequate facilitation and support of the systems play a key role in determining the actual use of the system.

### **3. Material and method**

### **3.1 Context and participants**

South Africa is a developing country with a majority of the teachers working in rural schools where there is no infrastructure [29]. The majority of teachers

and learners do not own, have access to or lack adequate computer or internet facilities at home. With the introduction of e-learning, teachers have to be the instructors in order to offer blended learning (classroom-based or computer laboratory-based with online components). Learners in either cohort can completely become computer experts once e-learning is taken place at school. This study analyzed teachers' readiness for e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, South Africa.

### **4. Methodology**

*Research design:* A case study research design was used in this investigation. As Leavy [30], a case study is a form of qualitative analysis that focuses on providing a detailed account of a single case or numerous cases.

*Sample*: The sample of the study consist of 10 accounting teachers. Educators were chosen specifically because they held the data needed for the study. They were selected from 5 high schools in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa.

*Instruments*: Interviews were employed to gather data for this article. Bogdan and Biklen [31] define interviews as a conversation between two or more people that is moderated by one person with the goal of obtaining information from other people. They were semi-structured interviews. However, it is important to mention that since the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted online in order to comply with COVID-19 protocols.

*Reliability and validity*: In order to validate the instrument, researchers shared the data collection instrument to check for consistencies after which it was administered to seven in-service student teachers who were not part of the participating sample. A cronbach alpha test was utilized to check for and ensure the reliability of the instrument.

*Ethical considerations*: Permission was sought from and granted by participants' prior data collection. The first author administered informed consent forms which detailed the purpose of the study and to which all participants signed an agreement to participate.

*Data analysis*: This article used a constant comparison technique to data analysis, which is consistent with qualitative research [32]. In this approach, data was reviewed and reread as it was collected, and the authors identified emergent patterns through a process of inductive reasoning. Then, as new data was gathered, social phenomena were categorized and their attributes noted, and instances were compared.

### **5. Findings**

### **5.1 Teachers' understanding of e-learning and how it can be implemented within the classroom**

The study revealed that teachers do not have any knowledge ofs e-learning, and how it is being implemented. The findings support Dagada and Chigona [6] that most teachers do not make use of digital tools because they lack the understanding of the complex relationships between content, pedagogy, and the technology to be integrated into the curriculum delivery. However, the findings are contrary to Kaur and Abas [10] that teachers' readiness for e-learning helps their schools to design e-learning strategies comprehensively and to implement its technology goals effectively. Instead, this finding shows that there is a need for schools to assist teachers to improve their technological pedagogical content knowledge if the institutions

*Teachers' Readiness for e-Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic, South Africa DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101242*

are to successfully domesticate e-learning platforms. When the teachers do not possess the needed understanding for the successful implementation of e-learning it means the goals associated with e-learning cannot be achieved. Kiilu & Muema [7] opine that e-learning understanding and implementation are powerful enabling tools for educational change and reform and many of the productivity gains in the developed world economies over the past decade to a great extent can be attributed to the impact of technology. The findings connect with De Villiers [18] observation that lack of critical non-technical skills are among the things that need to be addressed in the teaching of education. These findings is agreeing with Hare [22] who observe that in many African countries there is a deficiency of a determined strategy for online use within the schooling zone despite acknowledging technology as an enabler in improving access and quality of schooling. Furthermore, one of the challenges facing online teaching is the insufficiency of perception, coupled with a shortage of qualified teachers within information communication technology knowledge, which has resulted in the deficiency of interest and seeming lethargy related to adopting ICT in the classroom. However, Davis et al. [27] assert that technological systems do not serve their purpose of improving organizations if they are not utilized and the potential benefits of technological systems are often not realized because of the intended users' lack of will to utilize them. Further highlighted that, users shy away from using systems because they either do not believe they will help improve their jobs or believe they are difficult to use and this is what is being confirmed by the study.

### **6. Classrooms condition**

The study revealed that even if teaching and learning are expected to make use of technology within the classroom, the reality is that classrooms do not support any technology learning. This is contrary to the findings of Kiilu & Muesma [7] that e-learning is the feature of the 21st century and all institutions worldwide are looking for innovative and more effective ways to deliver education and to connect more broadly learners and other stakeholders. However, this finding is supporting Glenda [3] e-learning effectiveness relies on a stable network with specific software, a repository for managing the delivery of content, and a good social environment created by the online interaction among learners. The finding is supported by Skhephe and Caga [29] that COVID-19 has disrupted how teaching is delivered as a result the impact of COVID-19 has gained critical importance, with the hope of drawing scientific driven solution to this predicament online teaching is an uncompromising option. This finding is also noted by De Villiers [18] that, lack of critical non-technical skills are among the things that need to be addressed in the teaching of in education.

### **7. Conclusion**

Delivering quality education is the primary goal of any nation-building. During and after the COVID-19 pandemic e-learning serve as a powerful tool that provides an opportunity for both learners and teachers in their schools to improve their technological skills so that they can meet the needs of the 21st century. However, the implementation of e-learning needs to be done with great care. This study explored teachers' readiness for e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, South Africa. This study focuses on teachers' readiness for e-learning during COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, the researcher concludes that for teachers to be ready for e-learning, the implementation of it needs to be monitored by educational officials. Furthermore, the researcher concludes that there is a need to form e-learning policies to be implemented across all schools and infrastructure needs to be made available across all schools in order to support e-learning.

### **8. Recommendations**

Before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the teaching and learning process has been taking place within the classroom with physical contact. The researchers recommend that; education officials need to organize continuous e-learning workshops for teachers. The researcher further recommends that classrooms need to be redesigned in order to promote e-learning since it is a feature of the 21st century. The researcher further recommends that teaching requires relevant content and strategies for e-learning, which is a feature of the 21st century that needs to be made compulsory. Lastly, for teachers to master these aspects, they need proper exposure to all the processes involved before they can enter their classroom.

### **Author details**

Melikhaya Skhephe North West University, South Africa

\*Address all correspondence to: sikepemk@gmail.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Teachers' Readiness for e-Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic, South Africa DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101242*

### **References**

[1] Rosen D. From Chalkboards to Chatboards: What Will e-Learning Look Like in 2075? 2014. Available from: http://elearningindustry.com/elearningfuturewhat-will-elearninglooklike-2075 [Accessed: 20 June 2019]

[2] Raines PM, Clark CD. Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and Delivering E-Learning. Oxford: Routledge; 2019

[3] Glenda D. Digital Activism in the Social Media Era. Springer Nature; 2016. pp. 1-12

[4] Hammond M. Introducing information communications technology in schools in England: Rationale and consequences. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2013;**45**(2):191-201. DOI: 10.1111/ bjet.12033

[5] Mncube V, Olewale B, Hendricks W. Exploring teachers' readiness for e-learning: On par with the fourth industrial revolution? International Journal of Knowledge Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2019;**7**(2):5-20

[6] Dagada D, Chigona A. Integration of E-learning into curriculum delivery at university level in South Africa. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design. 2013;**3**(1):53-65

[7] Kiilu R, Muema E. An e-learning approach to secondary school education: E-readiness implications in Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice. 2012; **3**(16):142-148

[8] Cloete A. Technology and education: Challenges and opportunities. Theological Studies. 2017;**73**(4):5-20

[9] Njagi LW. Teacher factors influencing students academic achievement in secondary schools in Nyandarua County, Kenya. International Journal of

Education and Research. 2013;**3**(1): 145-158

[10] Kaur K, Abas Z. An Assessment of e-Learning Readiness at Open University Malaysia. Malaysia: Faculty of Education, Arts and Social Sciences Open University Malaysia; 2018

[11] Amir Z, Krish P. Mobile learning readiness among Malaysia students at higher learning institutes. Asian Social Science. 2012;**8**(12):5-20

[12] Hung ML. Teachers readiness for online learning: Scale development and teacher perceptions. Computers & Education. 2016;**94**(2016):120-133. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.012

[13] Bruggeman M. An online Engagement Framework for Higher Education. Online Learning. John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2020

[14] Scherer R, Sarah K, Howard R. Profilling teachers' readiness for online teaching and learning in higher education: Who's ready? Computers in Human Behavior. 2021;**118**:106675. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675

[15] Carril C. Pedagogical roles and competencies of university teachers practicing in the e-learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2013;**14**(3):462-487

[16] Shea W. Technological Changes in Shea Butter Production in Ghana: A Case Study of Shea Butter Production in the Yendi District of the Northern Region of Ghana. London: SAGE Publications; 2007

[17] Martin F, Budhrani K, Wang C. Examining faculty perception of their readiness to teach online. Online Learning Journal. 2019;**23**(3):97-119. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v23i3.1555

[18] Villiers D. Planning to use ICT in schools. Journal of Education. 2010; **29**(1):1-17

[19] Kassim CKHCK, Nasir NEM, Ahmad S. Academic dishonesty of accounting students at higher learning institutions. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2015;**6**(2):702-707

[20] Kozma R. National policies that connect ICT-based education reform to economic and social development. Human Technology. 2005;**5**(4):358-367

[21] Were E, Rubagiza J, Denley P, Sutherland R. The Use of ICT to Support Basic Education in Disadvantaged Schools and Communities: A Review of Literature. Rwanda: EdQual RPC; 2007

[22] Hare H. Survey of ICT in Education in Tanzania. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2007

[23] Mangesi K. Survey of ICT in Education in the Gambia. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2007

[24] Farrell G. Survey of ICT in Education in Rwanda. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2007

[25] Teo T. Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Educations. 2009;**52**(2):302-312

[26] Park SY. An analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students' Behavioral Intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society. 2009;**12**(3):150-162

[27] Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;**13**(10):318-333

[28] Reed P. Awareness, attitudes and participation of teaching- staff towards the open content movement in one university. Research in Learning Technology. 2012;**21**(2012):1-14

[29] Skhephe M, Caga NP. Dynamic factors affecting technology integration in accounting classrooms: A literature review. In: 12th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies. Valencia, Spain; pp. 8907-8913. ISBN: 978-84-09-17979-4. ISSN: 2340-1117. DOI: 10.21125/ edulearn.2020.0052 2020

[30] Leavy P. Research Design Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods, Arts Based and Community Based Participatory Research Approaches. New York: Gilford Press; 2017

[31] Bogdan RC, Biklen SK. Qualitative Research of Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 2015

[32] Gray A. Effective Differentiation: A Training Guide to Empower Teachers and Enable Learners With SEND and Specific Learning Difficulties. Texas: Routledge; 2018

## Section 2
