Digital Learning and MOOCs

Much research has been done on the benefits of learning for students from diverse backgrounds and age groups enrolled in MOOCs. ^{Brahimi and Sarirete (2015)} noted the tendency of MOOCs to appeal to learners from various ages, learning contexts, countries, interests, and abilities. ^{Koller et al. (2013)} pointed out the benefits to learning in MOOCs despite retention rates, challenging traditional concepts of assessment and course completion. ^{Liyanagunawardena and Williams (2016)} reported that elderly learners are also engaging at a significant rate in MOOCs. There has been a lack of research into understanding age difference and participation in MOOCs (^{Liyanagunawardena & Williams, 2016}; ^{Torres & Beier, 2018}). However, age may not be the crucial factor in determining learners’ motivation. Studies by MOOC providers have recently focused on other relevant factors determining their learners’ interest. For example, ^{Walker (2018)} reported different learners on the digital education platform FutureLearn in terms of behavioral archetypes regarding common human behaviour, typical attitudes, motivation, and similar goals. Likewise, the first objective of this paper is to discuss, from a pedagogical perspective, the type of adult learners that take MOOC courses launched by UNED, a Spanish distance education university.

So far, research on digital learning through MOOCs in higher education has put forward their potential to make high-quality teaching accessible to everyone with internet access (^{Grünewald et al., 2013}). Indeed, one distinct aspect of these open-learning systems includes diminished impediments to enrollment; moreover, an analysis of learning analytics can aid in telling a more complete story of the benefits of open digital learning (^{Wedemeyer, 1973 Jung et al., 2019}).

Possible motivations for entrance into MOOCs could include individual demand, broader intellectual improvement, acquiring employability skills and possible exposure to prospective subject matter for future study (^{Breslow et al., 2013}; ^{Christensen et al., 2013}; ^{Gütl et al., 2014}; ^{Hew & Cheung, 2014}). Some participants may take a MOOC course to complement additional learning in a formal setting. For example, it was noted that university learning provides both formal and informal learning opportunities that can include MOOCs as informal learning support (^{Pankowska, 2017}); however, further research is still needed to determine how learning outcomes may vary for users based on their motivations for supplemental learning through MOOCs (^{Universities UK, 2013}). Some users may want to enroll in a MOOC to interact with people of common interests. Social connections, a desire to engage with other like-minded individuals around the world and learning about peers’ experiences and perspectives were also cited as driving factors in learners’ motivation to join a MOOC (^{Loizzo et al., 2017}).

Following ^{Pilli and Admiraal (2016)}, we may distinguish among types of MOOCs offered by different open institutions. In particular, we can distinguish between MOOCs, relying on some text materials supplemented with interactive exercises and discussion boards, and more social-oriented MOOCs based on open educational resources in which participants play a more relevant role by constructing their own learning process through crucial interaction with others, as expected by connectivist pedagogy (^{Siemens, 2005}). Due to the flexible nature of this second type of MOOC, which has an epistemological foundation based on connectivism, it is commonly referred to as a cMOOC.

This adaptability of MOOCs is also one of their greatest benefits, allowing users to participate based on connection regardless of location, age, and other factors (^{Brahimi & Sarirete, 2015}). Moreover, ^{Anders’ (2015)} study suggested that hybrid MOOCs, such as those that are community or task-based, are able to reach the greatest diversity of learners and also help to address the issue of a loss of users and unequal participation over time.

Finally, other new types of MOOCs targeting other specific goals are being developed (^{Castrillo de Larreta Azelain et al., 2018}). Even if the technology and heutagogy surrounding these types of open learning systems advance, it seems that the current false dichotomy of xMOOCs and cMOOCs is inadequate to describe the variety of MOOCs that are currently available to users (^{Canole, 2016}). Another type of MOOC that can take advantage of and combine formal and informal learning while promoting improvement of reciprocal and practical interactions that could be lost in other language-learning contexts are Language MOOCs (^{Bárcena & Read, 2015}), discussed more in the following section.

Language MOOCs

Since MOOC courses are especially useful when meeting specific requirements of learners, language researchers, attempting to meet the needs of language teachers, have put forward a type of MOOC containing features of brief language courses. In this sense, the so-called LMOOCs crucially pay respect to the roles and methodological strategies of online language teachers (^{Martín-Monje & Bárcena, 2014}; ^{Bárcena et al., 2015}; ^{Castrillo de Larreta Azelain (2015}). Currently, course organization is a central focus of online language teaching. Following Bárce^{na and Read (2015)}, modularly organized LMOOCs hold advantages for diverse groups of learners because they can offer more activities than necessary for most users while having students only complete a certain percentage of the total.

According to ^{Castrillo de Larreta Azelain (2015)}, the teacher should work as a structure designer or content generator in an LMOOC, being engaged in four important steps, including dividing the course into modules of units, (over)estimating the hours of study involved in the MOOC, setting mastery standards for each unit, differentiating between obligatory and optional tasks, and including a proposed timeline with an ordering of content. ^{Bárcena et al. (2015)} discussed the “human dimension” of LMOOCs and noted that new teaching methods should create learning experiences that can be approachable and acceptable to students of differing personality profiles and cognitive abilities. Furthermore, the role of the teacher as a facilitator in LMOOCs cannot be overlooked since this is key for the educational integration of these types of open courses (^{Mengual-Andrés & Payà Rico, 2018}).

Intention-Behaviour Gap

As discussed by recent research, such as in ^{Sheeran & Web (2016)}, the concept of intention has also proved essential, and some interventions are specifically claimed to promote public health, energy saving, as well as educational and organizational outcomes. Some studies indicate that intentions predict specific behaviour. Most ordinary-life behaviour is expected when provided with ordinary situational cues (^{Bargh, 2006}). However, in extreme situations like the current COVID-19 pandemic, the students’ intentions may result in unexpected behaviour, and forming new intentions can be crucial for securing long-term goals (^{Baumeister & Bargh, 2014}; ^{Kuhl & Quirin, 2011}). Indeed, there are emerging studies of different academic approaches to respond to emergency eLearning as an essential alternative to face-to-face schooling in many universities around the world (^{Escobar & da Cunha, 2018}; ^{Kenny & Escobar, 2020}).

The study discussed in the following section addresses the intention-behaviour gap in educational contexts regarding LMOOCs launched in different social situations. In particular, it frames the responses of an emergency LMOOC launched by a Spanish university. It also provides a more in-depth analysis of students’ responses to these types of courses and considers their utility in educational contexts extended to digital learning in future contexts after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Common Challenges Encountered With MOOCs

Despite the potential of MOOCs for global digital education, a few challenges have been emerging, especially those related to foreign language learning. ^{Hakim (2020)} noted that some common challenges faced by online language teachers during the pandemic include the inability to access modern equipment, problems with internet connection, learners’ low levels of motivation and attention deficit. The course completion rate of MOOCs is a challenge affected by numerous variables. ^{Zhang et al. (2019)} indicated that academic program alignment with student needs, English proficiency, and motivation all can contribute to the likelihood of MOOC completion. Another common obstacle for elementary language MOOCs lies in learners’ low level of English language skills. In addition, the brevity of this type of course makes it difficult to provide materials with authenticity and communicativeness. It is difficult to include a complete teaching method, regardless of whether it encompasses several activities under different skill or genre-oriented approaches. Self-motivation can also be difficult for learners, particularly during a pandemic, so exploiting the social nature of MOOCs through group work and connectivist activities can help to ease and even overcome this challenge. The emphasis on inclusiveness combined with mastering some discipline-specific knowledge can result in clear benefit from MOOCs.

The present MOOC framework might facilitate instructors attempting to address student needs concerning one particular purpose: to help them pass the English language university entry-qualifications test. Therefore, we include discipline-specific knowledge that is typically tested there: basic grammar, use of vocabulary and reading skills. While grammar is not always considered a practical ingredient in courses adopting a communicative approach, we adopt it as essential for our MOOC because it is part of the content on the entry-qualifications test which measures language proficiency levels.

In this study, we examine the responses to a pair of questionnaires completed by two groups of adult learners who had undertaken the course at different times: in late 2017 and in 2020, during the global pandemic of COVID-19. By analyzing students’ responses to these questionnaires, we attempt to see the relevance of LMOOC courses among adults after having completed the course in two different human situations: ordinary and pandemic. In brief, we raise two main questions: (1) Can a MOOC course meet the human intention to learn, in other words to study and find something new that has not been seen or thought or discovered before? (2) Can a MOOC course similarly help to satisfy students’ L2 needs and provide them with the most appropriate resources to optimize academic performance in both ordinary and pandemic situations? Since our study includes two different groups of adult learners according to the course year of the LMOOC when they

were enrolled, either in 2017 or in 2020 (COVID19 pandemic special edition), we find ourselves in the unique position to also compare their motivation and preferences in these very different social backgrounds (ordinary and pandemic). By doing so, we have been able to contrast their responses and predict in future situations the importance of LMOOCs for digital learning that can be extended across borders.

Participants

The data concerning the main characteristics of participants was provided by the initial test, which was administered at the beginning of both LMOOCs. Altogether, the majority of course participants were aged in their 30s or 50s (each approximately 28%). Nearly 30% belonged to the group in their 30s, and a remarkably high 55% came from the group above 40 years. The remaining 15% were students of 30 years and younger. Since the LMOOC course focused on English grammar topics, we also asked for a self-assessment of our users’ background in English upon registration: approximately 60% of participants described themselves as having a very low level (A1) of English, 32% declared themselves as beginners (A2), and 18% identified as intermediate (B1).

From the final experimental questionnaire delivered to all of the approximately 3,000 registered participants in the first LMOOC, we obtained over 500 questionnaire responses, and with over 1,200 registered participants in the special edition LMOOC, we obtained over 120 responses. These responses allowed us to understand the motivations, conditions, and expectations for taking part in the course in both ordinary and pandemic situations, and to obtain a high number of valuable suggestions for improving the course content and format in the future. The experiment design followed all research standards and abided by normative practices in the country where the experiment took place.

LMOOC Design

For the purpose of our study, we attempted to design an LMOOC following the ideas put forward in current research. However, we did not draw on the beneficial implications of LMOOCs for language teachers. Rather, we paid closer attention to students’ L2 needs in this type of course. In fact, our LMOOC course was part of a larger online program of English as a second language that prepared mature learners for university entry-qualifications tests. When designing the LMOOC, not only did we look for purely theoretical learning content, but we also invited learners to relate and apply the knowledge to their future needs. Interestingly, our LMOOC turned out to be very attractive to many other adult learners, as seen in the discussion of the results of our study.

The goal of the first edition of the LMOOC, launched in late 2017, was twofold. First, it would support a formal online English course (elementary level) offered by UNED to students over 25 years old, who wanted to get trained for the university entry-qualification test. Secondly, it would highlight the four skills of this university entrance exam: reading comprehension, use of English, vocabulary, and writing. In short, the LMOOC included video clips with some guidelines followed by a few traditional exercises addressing listening, reading, and writing practice, like those exercises found in those tests through an intensive five-week program. The course ended with an optional post-questionnaire about learners’ expectations and preferences for this type of LMOOC course in the context of learning English as a second language.

Eventually, the same LMOOC was offered as part of an open program to adults that wanted to keep learning from home due to confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic from March to June 2020. In this case, the main goal was to test the importance of LMOOCs in extreme social situations like our current one. News sources, governments, and scientists affirm that we will not return to our previous lives because we will have a “new normal,” and its effects will be very important in the global academic sector. What will that new situation be like? Will its effects continue in the long term? We must consider different scenarios, but, in the short-term, the effects will be decidedly relevant. In our study, we wanted to test whether an LMOOC can maintain learning curiosity and motivation.

The LMOOC course lasted 5 weeks and included 4 modules, each taught by a different instructor. The first module was about the importance of learning a second language and its widely recognized benefits such as augmenting social life and enhancing work promotion. The second module included some basic concepts of English grammar fundamentally dealing with word order and highlighting the basic properties of nouns, verbs, and clauses. The third module largely focused on reading comprehension in a second language. It included a short English text followed by multiple-choice questions. The fourth module was about writing in the second language, where some key linking words were introduced to show how to write a coherent paragraph.

All modules included short video clips in the form of learning “pills” (^{Martín-Monje & Bárcena, 2014}), recorded by each module instructor. Related exercises followed all learning video clips to let participants practice and assess their own understanding of each course module. The LMOOC ended with some specific information about how to deal with the entry-qualifications test, with an extra learning video in which an instructor provided students with a mock test and some examination tips. After the course, participants could freely complete a questionnaire that we used as part of the current study. The final LMOOC structure is given in Table 1.

Finally, students could do some additional research by browsing through a list of sources while working on each module. These resources ranged from web resources to online free dictionaries used freely as those indicated in Table 2.

To provide students with some help for the entry-qualifications test, the course ended with an extra learning pill in which an instructor provided students with a mock test and some examination tips. After the course, participants could freely complete the questionnaire. As for the communication with students, a group of 5 external facilitators were in charge of the forums created for each particular module. For low-level participants, online language forums were very convenient since they gave learners the flexibility to practice and ask the questions they had throughout the course, and the facilitators could address their questions about specific content and exercises as those mentioned in the LMOOC structure in Table 1, as well as for those web resources found in Table 2.

Through an intensive five-week course, students could practice the five modules described above. They were also encouraged to express their expectations concerning LMOOCs through the questionnaire at the completion of the course. In the first edition LMOOC in late 2017, this would initially serve to collect the data concerning students’ intention-behaviour gap, learning curiosity and motivation to take the course. Eventually, the same questionnaire was included in the special edition LMOOC in March 2020; therefore, we could also obtain information about participants’ preferences regarding the type of content exhibited in the LMOOC during very different social circumstances.

For the purpose of the current study, we attempted to analyse learners’ perceptions of their L2 needs while attending this brief course during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the study could test the null hypothesis that there were no significant differences regarding the LMOOC questionnaire results of the pre and post-pandemic courses regarding the average intention-behaviour rate, provided that all modules were completed equally.

Data Collection

In order to collect data regarding participants’ preferences and needs with respect to both LMOOC editions, a two-fold survey was included at the end of the course in which we could raise our experimental queries in a final questionnaire. In the first place, we wanted to know about the reasons why participants chose our LMOOC course, paying particular attention to their initial intentions either for general interest, research purposes, or just curiosity about this type of course. Secondly, we wanted to know what type of contents participants expected to find in an elementary English course: a traditional grammar-based method or a tailor-made course with vocabulary or contents for specific professional purposes.

In particular, a total of 12 informative questions were posed: 6 questions regarding participant’s intention-behaviour, and another set of 6 statements relating to students’ expectations regarding the type of course contents for an LMOOC like ours. For the purpose of this paper, the different questions have been translated into English and discussed in the next two subsections below.

General Course Satisfaction

First of all, we used a binary-scale design to control student’s general satisfaction and possible recommendation of the course. The items in the questionnaire related to course satisfaction are listed below.

Items on General Course Satisfaction

On the one hand, we wanted to compare students’ general satisfaction with the course in both years 2017 and 2020. Figure 1 includes students’ responses to the two main questions rating general satisfaction and future recommendation of the MOOC launched in 2017.

According to the findings depicted Figure 1, most participants showed to be satisfied with the course and responded to be willing to recommend the course to friends and relatives. On the other hand, we wanted to see whether we obtained similar data from the students enrolled in the LMOOC launched in 2020 during the COVID-19 epidemic. As indicated in Figure 2, the data obtained in this second case shows a slightly higher number of students to be satisfied with the course compared with the first LMOOC, whereas a similar number of students responded that they were willing to recommend the course to friends and relatives.

Figure 1 General Satisfaction and Recommendation (LMOOC 2017) 

Figure 2 General Satisfaction and Recommendation (LMOOC 2020) 

In what follows, we consider the data concerning both students’ intentions and perceptions regarding the contents for this type of LMOOC for an elementary English-based course. We present the mean responses per group in a contrastive manner to compare the data obtained from the questionnaires included in both LMOOC years (2017 and 2020).

LMOOC-2017 Results

Nearly 500 students (out of 3,000 course participants) responded to the experimental questionnaire in the first LMOOC offered in 2017. For the purpose of our study, we took 122 students at random out of the first group to contrast their responses with those provided by the same number of students? from the second group of participants who took the LMOOC in 2020.

To begin with, we scored LMOOC participants’ intention-behaviour using the first six statements regarding their perceptions of their attitudes towards the course they took in 2017. We assigned 1 for each selected statement and 0 when the statement was not selected. The total score is shown in Figure 3. As can be seen, most students chose confirming English level, and very few students show just browsing. In addition, many participants chose meeting their needs and expectations, although for just a few the course was helpful for the entry-qualifications course. Finally, around half of participants opted for compiling English Grammar materials as their initial intention to take the course.

Figure 3 Results of Participants’ Intentions (LMOOC 2017) 

Next, more informative questions were asked regarding course contents in a similar fashion. The students’ responses for the 6 informative statements deal with their perceptions about course contents, as shown in Figure 4. As a means to measure their responses, we assigned 1 for each selected statement and 0 when the statement was not selected. For the total score: most participants selected “English grammar” or “Contrastive Grammar” (English-Spanish) as their favorite content for MOOC; a lot of them selected “CLIL modules” or “ESP contents”; whereas just a half of participants preferred to use printed copies of “grammar textbook” or “ESP textbook”.

Figure 4 Results of Participants’ Interest on Contents (LMOOC 2017) 

LMOOC-2020 Results

Over 120 students (out of 1,200 course participants) responded to the questionnaire in the special edition of the LMOOC launched during the COVID19 pandemic in 2020. This time, they were not encouraged to answer the questionnaire but were allowed to freely answer the 12 questions raised in the final survey, as their peers had done in 2017.

As with the previous group, we could obtain relevant information on participants’ intentions after having taken the brief course. Figure 5 displays the total score. Most of participants chose “confirming their English level”, whereas very few selected “just browsing the course”. About half of them chose “having met their L2 needs and course expectations” or “compiling English grammar materials”. Just a few chose “L2 improvement for the entry-qualifications test or “helpful for the entry-qualifications test”.

Figure 5 Results of Participants’ Intentions (LMOOC 2020) 

In addition, the same participants could freely rate this type of LMOOC. In this new course, participants were presented with six similar informative statements regarding their perceptions about course content. As in the previous cases, we assigned 1 for each selected statement and 0 when the statement was not selected. As indicated in Figure 6, below, most of participants selected “English grammar” or “Contrastive Grammar” (English-Spanish). More than half of them selected “ESP contents” or “CLIL modules”; less than half preferred to use a grammar textbook for standard English courses; and over a quarter of participants selected preferred to have a ESP textbook in other standard courses.

Figure 6 Participants’ Interest in Contents (LMOOC 2020) 

The design of a study is key to carry out the analysis of the data (^{Lehmann, 1992}). A number of initial steps were taken so as to correctly retrieve our designed study as indicated in the following sections.

Hypothesis Testing

First of all, we examined the normality of the data of our sample obtained from our experimental materials (the questionnaire) from two different periods of time; secondly, we established the statistical differences between the two groups; and, thirdly, we established the relevant correlations between the variables that we were interested in controlling in relation to the hypotheses that we wanted to test in our study.

Correlation

As we saw in the previous section, only the variable of “L2 needs” showed a significant difference between year groups. Therefore, it is worth asking if there is a correlation between this variable and the sociological environment in which the students took the LMOOC, both in 2017 and in the special course during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the K-S test, there was not a normal distribution, and therefore, we needed to use the Spearman Rho correlation test, following ^{Corder and Foreman (2014)} for similar designs. The test results are shown as in Table 6.

Table 6 Rho Spearman: Intention-Behaviour (L2 Needs) 

Rho-Spearman	Course Year	L2 Needs
Correlation	1.00	.250*
Significance (2-tailed)	.	.000
n	244	244

*correlation is significant at the level 0.01 (2-tailed).

In order to correctly interpret the Rho-Spearman test results above, we considered coefficient values. We followed the common assumption that if they were close to 1, they indicated a strong and positive correlation. Values close to -1 could instead indicate a strong and negative correlation. Values close to zero would imply that there might be another type of correlation, but not a linear one. The results of coefficient values per both groups are provided in Figure 7.

Since our design was based on a binary response: 1 was the response obtained by those students who showed to have met their L2 needs, whereas 0 was the response obtained from those students who did not answer or who considered not to have met them. The fact that there was a positive linear correlation in the second group, as indicated in Figure 7 above, led us to assume that this dependent variable was only relevant for this group.

Figure 7 Rho-Spearman Correlation & Intention-Behaviour (L2 Needs)