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

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

[1]  Maged N Kamel Boulos,et al.  The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. , 2007, Health information and libraries journal.

[2]  D. Garrison,et al.  Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing , 1999 .

[3]  M. J. Bishop,et al.  Theoretical foundations for enhancing social connectedness in online learning environments , 2009 .

[4]  Zane L. Berge,et al.  A Model for Sustainable Student Retention: A Holistic Perspective on the Student Dropout Problem with Special Attention to e-Learning , 2004 .

[5]  G. Kraaykamp,et al.  Personality, media preferences, and cultural participation , 2005 .

[6]  George Siemens Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age , 2004 .

[7]  Kathryn Weed Jablokow,et al.  A Multidisciplinary MOOC on Creativity, Innovation, and Change: Encour- aging Experimentation and Experiential Learning on a Grand Scale , 2014 .

[8]  L. Vygotsky Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press , 1978 .

[9]  Hershey H. Friedman,et al.  Using Social Media Technologies to Enhance Online Learning. , 2013 .

[10]  Mark J. W. Lee,et al.  Personalised and Self Regulated Learning in the Web 2.0 Era: International Exemplars of Innovative Pedagogy Using Social Software. , 2010 .

[11]  Rosanna E. Guadagno,et al.  Gender differences in mediated communication: Women connect more than do men , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[12]  Andrew Lane The potential of MOOCs to widen access to, and success in, higher education study , 2013 .

[13]  Manuela Tomai,et al.  Can Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Promote Counter-stereotypical Gender Communication Styles in Male and Female University Students?☆ , 2014 .

[14]  Klaus Bruhn Jensen,et al.  The internet as a cultural forum: Implications for research , 2011, New Media Soc..

[15]  J. Bruner,et al.  The role of tutoring in problem solving. , 1976, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[16]  Christian Gütl,et al.  Attrition in MOOC: Lessons Learned from Drop-Out Students , 2014, LTEC@KMO.

[17]  Mark J. W. Lee,et al.  Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era , 2007 .

[18]  Robert F. Boruch,et al.  Moving Through MOOCs , 2014 .

[19]  Rebecca Yvonne Bayeck,et al.  Exploring the relation between women’s socio-economic status and their preferences to work in MOOC groups , 2015 .

[20]  Feng-Yang Kuo,et al.  “Mommy Wants to Learn the Computer” , 2012 .

[21]  Carlos Delgado Kloos,et al.  Analysing the Impact of Built-In and External Social Tools in a MOOC on Educational Technologies , 2013, EC-TEL.

[22]  Jim Hewitt,et al.  Exploring asynchronous and synchronous tool use in online courses , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[23]  Masaaki Kurosu,et al.  The Choice of Communication Media and the Use of Mobile Phone among Senior Users and Young Users , 2008, APCHI.

[24]  Dimitrina S. Dimitrova,et al.  Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community , 1996 .

[25]  Mark J. W. Lee,et al.  Mapping the digital terrain :New media and social software as catalysts for pedagogical change , 2008 .