Logo image
Back
Equalizing MOOC Instruction: Instructor perspectives in addressing learner diversity
Conference presentation

Equalizing MOOC Instruction: Instructor perspectives in addressing learner diversity

N. Sabir, C. J. Bonk, M. Zhu, A. Sari, Minkyoung Kim and S. Xu
Comparative and International Education Society | 61st Annual Conference Problematizing (In)Equality: The Promise of Comparative and International Education, 61st (Atlanta, GA, 03/05/2017–03/09/2017)
03/08/2017

Metrics

33 Record Views

Abstract

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) provide developing nations’ learners access to quality education (Jagannathan, 2015; Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013), thousands at a time (Cormier & Siemens, 2010). MOOCs are also leveraged by IGOs and national governmental initiatives for capacity building (Alony et al., 2015; Boga & McGreal, 2014; Colenbrander et al., 2015; Czerniewicz et al., 2014; Miller & Jay, 2015; Warugaba at al., 2016). Stanford proved their impact in 2011 (Markoff, 2011), simultaneously instructing 160,000 learners from 190 nations (Ebben & Murphy, 2014; Rodriguez, 2012). Instructors are a critical element of a successful MOOC (Kop, 2011), and are generally highly skilled, reputable academics. However, these academics tend to be unaware of the unique demands of online education for culturally heterogeneous participants (Hill, 2015). Consequently, the growth of MOOCs necessitates an improved understanding of instructional approaches addressing cultural diversity. 2.6% (Allen & Seaman, 2013) of surveyed universities taught at least one MOOC in 2012, growing to 8% in 2014(Allen & Seaman, 2015). Many scholars have called upon instructors to better accommodate learners’ style, preferences, culture, and linguistic and technical capabilities during course design (Ahn, et al., 2015; McAuley et al., 2010; Ostashewski & Reid, 2012) and implementation (Fini, 2009; Schulze, 2014; Siemens, 2012; Speece, 2012) Few empirical studies evaluate how MOOCs address cultural diversity (Jung & Gunawardena, 2014; Rogers et al., 2007; Swierczek & Bechter, 2010; Wang & Reeves, 2007). Subramony (2004) finds that instructors overlook culture when designing MOOCs. However, addressing cultural criteria is integral to a course’s acknowledgment by “a massive number of participants around the globe” (Yousef et al., 2014, p. 46). The extent to which cultural diversity is addressed in both design and implementation stages has a tremendous impact on MOOC success (Seufert, 2002). This study utilizes mixed methods (Greene, 2007) to understand cultural accommodation during MOOC design and implementation amongst an international cohort of 162 MOOC instructors. A sequential approach (Creswell, 2013) addressed the following research questions: (1) How do MOOC instructors design their course and learning environment to meet the needs of culturally heterogeneous learners? (2) What instructional practices are utilized to address the needs of the diverse MOOC participants during the course’s implementation stage? The cohort represented universities, organizations, and museums including the Smithsonian and World Bank Institute. This study evaluates two datasets: (1) email interviews with experts (n=19), focused on cultural sensitivity and MOOC personalization; (2) an online questionnaire deployed to over 1,200 MOOC instructors, with 162 respondents. A third dataset of MOOC instructor interviews are currently being collected and analyzed. The questionnaire comprised 23 close-ended and 7 open-ended questions, derived from a thematic analysis of the email interviews. The interviews’ thematic analysis enabled “emerging themes [to] become categories” (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006, p. 4), and specified points of inquiry (Bogner, et al., 2009) for the questionnaire. Questionnaire data was open-coded (Merriam, 2009) and analyzed with themes from the literature review. For example, Yousef et al.’s (2014) coding scheme was used as an initial framework for understanding MOOC design practices. One salient finding was that MOOC design and implementation phases were equally weighted within instructors’ course personalization. The instructors (n=144) reported an average of 6 out of 10 effort for personalizing MOOCs during both design and implementation. Instructors (n=141) reported an average of 5 on effort towards addressing cultural and linguistic diversity. Only 43 instructors reported exerting a high level of effort. Amongst the 35 responses to open-ended questions that discussed cultural accommodation, eight prioritized instructor feedback, 13 provided course supplements for self-learning, and five included guest speakers and/or case-based learning. One outstanding instructor made all content available offline and actively encouraged students to share materials in their native language and context. The data illustrates myriad instructional practices as varied as the cultural diversity they seek to accommodate. There is no universal interpretation of culture and no definitive best practices to draw on. Nevertheless, instructors are clearly making a conscious effort to address cultural diversity in their MOOCs. Some relied on subtitles and transcription. Others consciously altered their diction and hand gestures or encouraged students to localize content for peers. Instructors actively rely upon both colleagues and MOOC participants during design processes. Other approaches included the adaption of content for specific populations, open discussions about diversity, and increased multimedia usage. This study offers a snapshot of emergent approaches to addressing cultural diversity in MOOCs, many of which warrant their own in-depth investigation. Whether they are best practices or embryonic experiments is for future studies to determine.

Details

Logo image