3.ESL Undergraduates’ Learning Activities In A Massive-Open- Online Environment

ESL UNDERGRADUATES’ LEARNING ACTIVITIES IN A MASSIVE-OPEN- ONLINE ENVIRONMENT

MD. MASUDUL HASAN

Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication

Putra University, Malaysia

e-mail: ranabd15@yahoo.com

Assoc. Prof. TAN BEE HOON

UCSI University Kuala Lumpur Campus

e-mail: tanbh99@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have revolutionized the e-learning contexts through innovating and improvising new pedagogical features and instructional tools. Started in 2008, MOOCs have succeeded in attracting millions of learners from various disciplines including language learning. This study investigates ESL undergraduates’ learning experience and engagement with a writing course offered by Coursera. Data were collected through learning logs in the form of diaries from 29 ESL undergraduates attending an obligatory course in a public university in Malaysia. Findings show that most of the participants expressed positive attitudes towards learning in the MOOC. They valued the MOOC instructional features and tools and showed strong satisfaction with their learning in the MOOC. Findings also revealed several problems encountered while attempting and completing the writing MOOC tasks.

Key Words: English-as-Second–Language (ESL), Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), learning experience, perception, academic writing

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The term MOOC was first used by Dave Cormier in 2008 during a course named Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (Rodriguez, 2013). Public awareness of MOOC began to grow in 2011 when Stanford University saw more than 100,000 people enroll in freely available online versions of two of their Artificial Intelligence courses. Interest in MOOCs then grew rapidly in 2012 when higher education insiders formed three major MOOC companies, Udacity, Coursera and edX, to make educational content broadly available through partnerships with traditional higher education (Fini, 2009). The idea of MOOC was inspired by the Open Educational Resources (OER) movement in order to curb the commodification of knowledge and provide an alternate educational paradigm (Kauppinen, 2013). Similar to traditional online course materials such as videos, recordings materials for reading, and problem-solving, MOOCs distribute online version of a complete course with formatted video instruction, embedded online quizzes to make lectures interactive, forums to encourage student engagement, live workshops where professors engage with students, and graded assignments (by software or peer students) to evaluate whether students learn from the course (Daniel, 2012; Kop, Fournier, & Mak, 2011). While MOOCs are starting to mushroom in the higher education space, research in the area is still very limited. For educators, learning designers, and university administrators, making decisions around MOOC design and deployment can be difficult given the lack of research.

In relation to the mentioned problem and the development of computer-aided instruction, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) tools have been used for decades to support language learning skills. Empirical studies suggested that computer technologies have a profound impact on various skills of English language (Yang & Che, 2015; Yulin, 2013; Warschauer, 2007). Writing, one of the core skills is likely to be benefitted by the use of CALL technology. Studies conducted on CALL and its relation to ESL writing mainly focuses on the use of word processors for composing and editing text (Owston et. al., 1992), blog for academic writing and feedback (Shahsavar & Tan, 2012; Arslan, 2014), wiki for collaborative writing (Ansarimoghaddam & Tan 2013; Suwantarathip & Wichadee, 2014), grammar and spell checkers for correcting text (Tschichold, 1999) and synchronous, asynchronous communication for enhancing learners’ communication skills (Perez, 2003). In the field of second language teaching and learning, MOOC, although a comparatively recent phenomenon, has created massive appeal among the language learners, teachers and researchers. MOOC providers such as Coursera, edX, Udemy, Futurelearn and Open2Study are offering a few courses on writing through collaboration with elite universities around the world. For example, Coursera, a leading MOOC provider, offers some writing courses namely English Composition 1: Achieving Expertise, Writing in the Sciences; Writing 11: Rhetorical Composing; and Crafting an Effective Writer: Tools of the Trade. Another MOOC provider, Futurelearn, offers writing in English courses such as A Beginner’s Guide to Writing in English for University Study. In addition, Edx offers Academic and Business Writing, English Grammar and Essay Writing, English for Doing Business in Asia:Writing, English Grammar and Style, and Principles of Written English. Such MOOCs seem to have become an innovative CALL tool likely to foster learners’ language skills (Barcena et al., 2014). Barcena et al. (2014) rightly argues that:

LMOOCs are presented as a fairly recent didactic modality that has emerged with an enormous potential for rich, flexible, and attractive collaborative learning and social interaction, in a world where huge economic unbalance gives rise to people with very different access opportunities to both formal language training and the diverse communicative scenarios that enhance the development of language competences (p.11).

Objective of the study

Many academicians have appreciated the MOOC instructional design, yet the idea has not been researched adequately in ESL contexts. Until now there has been little research conducted to evaluate ESL learners’ language learning experience with MOOCs. Thus, the present study aimed at examining ESL undergraduates’ learning experience with a MOOC writing course, henceforth known as the Writing MOOC. The purpose of the present study is to gain an understanding of how ESL undergraduates’ use the MOOC technology to learn writing skills of English language outside the face-to-face ESL classrooms. The study is necessary to understand the impact of the MOOC instructional design in ESL contexts, and how the MOOC features and tools can be used for improving ESL undergraduates’ academic writing skills.

Review of Related Studies

A large body of emerging literature has been published in relation to learning theories associated with the MOOC pedagogy (Boling et al., 2012; Fini, 2009; Kop et al., 2011; Rodriguez, 2012), and learning experience as well as motivational factors and engagement with MOOCs (de Waard et al., 2011; Fini, 2009; Kop, 2011; Mackness et al., 2010). ESL and EFL researchers have also shown their interest in the MOOC instructional pedagogy (see Bárcena & Martin-Monje, 2014; Bárcena et al., 2014; Hibbs & Stevens, 2012). At present, a few researchers have taken up the challenge to investigate the learning opportunities created by MOOCs. They attempted to gauge challenges of receiving feedback in language MOOCs (LMOOCs) (Ventura et al., 2014), investigated learners’ participation in a MOOC in terms of satisfaction and dropout issues (Bárcena & Martin-Monje, 2014), highlighted the profile of LMOOC learners, and the motivational aspects in MOOCs (Beaven et al., 2014). Research effort has also been given to analyzing the potential correlation between the types of feedback and pronunciation gains (Rubio, 2014).

There is currently limited information available on participants’ perceptions of MOOCs (Murray, 2014). Thus, Murray (2014) initiates a study at the University of Edinburg to examine perceptions of a group of MOOC learners who participated in a course named Equine Nutrition. A self-completion survey consisting of series of question (Likert scale) was administered to find out the learners’ general perception towards MOOCs. The participants of Murray’s study highly appreciated and rated the course features positively. However, Murray (2014) recommended further studies on the lack of interaction that exists in the MOOC environment. Another researcher, Veletsianos (2013) expressed similar ideas that current conversations around educational innovations in general and MOOCs in particular, lack learners’ voices. His e-book entitled Learner Experiences with MOOCs and Open Online Learning where several MOOC learners who functioned as authors, described and reflected upon their learning experiences, thus contributing to better understanding of MOOCs. The reported studies show a mixed perception from learners’ who participated in the MOOCs. For example, Ramirez (2013) claims that the MOOC was a valuable learning experience and it did not present too many challenges. The peer-to-peer interaction had supported student-centered learning. On the other hand, Ota (2013) commented on the MOOC instructional design, and he suggested that MOOC providers should revise the courses in the ways the course content was delivered. He added that the greatest departure from good instructional design practice found in the MOOC was in the questions and assessments. Moreover, the design of the video lectures and text-based materials failed to engage learners with the course content. However, Ota (2013) did not provide any suggestion that could enhance learning engagement with the course.

A few LMOOC studies investigated learners’ participation and satisfaction level in a foreign or second language (see Bárcena & Martin-Monje, 2014; Bárcena et al., 2014). Bárcena and Martin-Monje (2014) collected both qualitative and quantitative data from 1,120 MOOC registrants. The findings reveal the participants’ satisfaction in terms of course design, content, peer assessment, length of the course, interaction, feedback, and scaffolding mechanisms. However, although the participants’ overall perceptions towards the LMOOC were found to be positive, the dropout rate was considered serious. One of the reasons for dropping out from the course was that the course provider allowed anyone to register for the course with no commitment to continue. In another

LMOOC, Beaven et al. (2014) examined learners’ participation and highlighted some issues for course designers to look at. The MOOC, Travailler en français, was a 5-week course for learners of French at basic level for developing French and employability skills for working in a francophone country. The results highlighted some significant factors that could directly influence intrinsic motivation for learning in a MOOC environment. Along the same line, Bentley et al. (2014) pointed out that self-direction and prior experience are necessary to be successful learners in a MOOC. A similar idea was found in Cisel (2014) that learners’ personal aims and achievements are highly dependent upon their self-direction, employment status, geographical origin and time constraints. The study also found that the use of forums and involvement in peer assessment are significantly associated with the level of achievement in the MOOC, and learners who interacted on the forums and assessed peer assignments were more likely to be successful in MOOCs (Cisel, 2014).

Thus far, only incomplete mosaic of students’ learning experiences with open online learning is found. Several key themes have emerged from the literature reviewed such as motivation, learning strategies, varied definitions of openness, and high dropout rate. However, very few researchers have sought to gain a deep, qualitative, and multidimensional understanding of learner experiences in MOOC especially in ESL contexts. Thus, the present study aims to fill in the gap by examining ESL undergraduates’ learning experience in a MOOC environment.

METHOD

The research design of the study is qualitative in nature. The target population of this study was an intact class consisted of 29 ESL undergraduates (19 female and 10 male) from a public university in Malaysia attending an obligatory course. Participants of the study were asked to attend a MOOC on writing named Crafting an Effective Writer: Tools of the Trade from the leading MOOC provider, Coursera. The participants were given the necessary instructions to register and complete the Writing MOOC tasks. To collect data regarding students’ experiences of MOOC, the participants’ were instructed to keep learning logbook in the form of a diary. The diary is considered an effective instrument to collect learners’ account of his/her learning experience, written down regularly (Ref?). Participants were asked to record in their diaries their learning experiences h in the Writing MOOC, the problems they encountered and how they tried to solve and managed the problems. In the briefing to the participants, a diary writing guide was given to them before the Writing MOOC commenced. Participants were asked to report in their diaries retrospectively for 5 consecutive weeks. The diaries were then collected after they completed the MOOC.

Analysis of results obtained through qualitative measures of the study was by no means an easy and straightforward task, as Ely et al. (1991) argue “…analysis of qualitative data is not for faint-hearts or for anyone wanting quick results; often the first analysis creates a place where reality hits, and it is where doubts, fears, and avoidances begin” (p.86). The study adopted Creswell’s (2012) six-step framework to analyze the qualitative data. The study transcribed all diaries into computer and then each transcribed diary was reviewed and studied by itself to find participants’ reflection about the Writing MOOC instructional design. Repeated words and themes, positive and negative attitudes toward the MOOC were noted. Recurring themes were also identified when a student repeated the same words, phrases, or ideas several times. Similar ideas of each diary were compared with other logbook. The study retrieved two important themes after analyzing the participants’ diaries. The themes were categorized into significant challenges and perceived advantages of the MOOC.

RESULTS

The collected data from diary was grouped and reported by means of thematic elaboration. The principal objectives of the study are to gauge ESL undergraduates’ viewpoints of the writing MOOC, their opinions of the MOOC instructional features and tools, and how the writing MOOC helped develop their skills in writing. The study also looked at participants level of engagement with the writing MOOC. ESL undergraduates’ initial reactions towards the writing MOOC were found to be positive. However, after analyzing participants’ diary entries and questionnaire responses mixed perceptions were generated. Majority of the participants had appreciated the MOOC instructional features and tools which they think facilitated their learning in the MOOC environment. In their diary entries participants frequently talked MOOC instructional features and tools, penned challenges they faced while completing the MOOC tasks. Moreover, undergraduates’ diary entries mentioned daily tasks completed, skills learned daily, time spent in each log in and perceived strengths of the MOOC instructional design. MOOC instructional features such as the format of the video lectures, quizzes, assignment, peer assessment and certification are some common aspects that participants had talked about.

The duration of the course Crafting an Effective Writer: Tools of the Trade was five weeks long. Each week MOOC users were provided with couple to tasks to complete. The findings from participants’ diaries revealed that almost all of the participants had watched all the video lectures, completed all the assignments, quizzes and evaluated peers’ essays and contributed on the discussion forum. Out of 29 ESL undergraduates 21 participants had successfully completed the writing MOOC and received completion certificates. A high completion rate was noticed in this study due to the fact that participants were given 20 marks in their face-to-face course for completing the course which might have motivated them to complete the writing MOOC. Although MOOCs have attracted millions of students to join various courses from MOOC platform, the success of the completion rate is found to be scant.

MOOCs have the benefit of offering certificates that participants can use to document professional development or for other uses. Participants of this study who received certificate of accomplishment were found to be excited. However, a question is raised by some of the participants that if a student completes a MOOC course successfully and received an accomplishment certificate from the organization offering the MOOC, will the certificate be of any value when you apply for a job? (Participant 4). In this regard Coursera is working with American Council of Education (ACE) to ensure that the credits that come from the Signature Track program (paid courses) will be honored by many ACE’s member school such as Amherst University, Boston University, Carnegie Mellon and many others. Since certificate has a value, however, we cannot ignore the fact that taking a course certainly has inherent value (Coursera, 2013).

In the present study participants’ engagement with the writing MOOC was found to be high as most of the participants completed the quizzes, assignments, participated in the forum discussion, and reviewed peers’ essays. Findings from ESL undergraduates’ diary entries showed that their level of engagement in the first week of the writing MOOC was found to be high as most of the participants completed given tasks. However, there was a continuous decrease in their level of engagement in the second, third, fourth and fifth week of the writing MOOC. Several factors associated with low engagement rates were identified such as lack of time, lack of pressure and slow internet connection. For example, a few number of participants (4, 11. 18) talked about the problem they faced while listening and downloading a video lecture. “Basically, the challenges are the internet connection here in the university. Slow internet connection prevents me from learning the course smoothly”. One significant challenge for participant (5) is to manage her time for the course as she has to complete several tasks such as watching the video lectures, attempting the quizzes, completing the assignments and evaluating peers’ essays. Participant (9) added that “challenges that I have to face while attending this course that I have to really put my time in very tight consideration due to my preparation for final year project and doing this course. Another challenge is that I have to complete a two set of video lecture, quizzes, mini project and peer evaluation for this course”.

Besides talking about the challenges, participants also mentioned some positive thoughts about the MOOC instructional features and tools. Participants’ diary entries frequently mentioned about the added benefit of watching the video lectures. MOOC providers added new features on its videos. In MOOC shorter videos lectures with embedded subtitles, students get multiple opportunities for interactions. Quizzes are also added in the video lectures to see and test whether the learners are tracking the materials. Their diary entries frequently mentioned their engagement with the video lectures. For example participant (7) commented that the design of the video was such an advantage that the participants did felt like they were in class with some other students listening and watching the lecture. The embedded subtitles also helped them to understand the American English added by participant (4). However, the slow internet connection in the campus has hindered their learning in the MOOC environment (participant 4, 7, 12 & 21). Participants’ diary entries also mentioned their learning experience with the quizzes and assignments. The findings suggested that doing the quizzes was the easiest part for the participants. The benefit of doing the quizzes was that answers given in the quiz were given an explanation that let the learners understand the reason of their wrong answer as well as get correct explanation for the right answer (Participant 14). The problem with quizzes was the number of attempts to complete the quiz was not consistent. Meaning that some of the quizzes are given multiple attempts and some quizzes got only one attempt which makes learners confused and thus learners fail to achieve good results in some quizzes as they think that they might get another chance to do it better. Such design in the quizzes might directly affect the results of the learners (Participant 9).

Some participants found the assignment questions too difficult to answer as well as the time given to complete the assignment. “I feel so disappointed because I have missed the deadline for assignment two as I have too many things to do on that week.” Another student penned that “It was very hard to get more appropriate materials for all the assignments as the topic given for the essay is more into giving new ideas to improve the older version.” Moreover, the design of the assessment is critical-given the fact that the assessment design is entirely voluntary in nature. Learners might lose interest in the learning process for such poorly design assessment. Most of the participants mentioned that evaluating the peers’ assignments was found to be the significant challenges for them while attempting to evaluate peers’ essays.

Forum can effectively facilitate langue learning; help develop learners’ critical thinking and problem solving skills. The findings of the current study also are evident that discussion forum had played a major role in the MOOC by providing opportunities to interact with the course contents. Findings revealed that most of the participants could not contribute anything in the forums. They only introduced themselves and commented on a few topics. Participant (14) penned that “I couldn’t contribute much on the discussion forum as I was busy with other activities such as doing the quizzes and assignment, evaluating peers’ assignment and watching the videos.” A few numbers of participants also raised a few questions in the MOOC forum and received many responses from their peers. “The responses from peers were found to be thoughtful, supporting and fun-to-read” stated by participant (12). Each week there was a new topic to discuss on. Participant can exchange their opinion on the topic provided, can ask question and get better ideas from peers. The weak point of the course was that discussion forum was not given much attention by the administrator (Participant 5). Some of the students might be actively engaged in the discussion forum but they lose their interest as irrelevant discussion is found in the discussion forum. Participant (7) urged that the instructor should take part and comments on students’ work on the discussion forum so that students could find more interest to continue participating and contributing in the discussion forum. Participant (14) inscribed that:

Excerpt 1

The discussion forum used in the course allows all the people in this course shared their knowledge and different perspectives towards different topics as we know sharing is caring. It is useful and the way they shared different opinions on different topics allowed me to gain widely and learn more through this course.

Participant (6) commented that she can compare her writing quality with the peers and can edit her writing following peers’ writing. Thus, students can help develop their skills in writing. One of the significant challenges students faced in the forum is that it is difficult to find the question posted by the instructor as there are massive postings. Students could not trace the topic they were looking for.

ESL undergraduates’ diary entries frequently mentioned the added benefits of the writing MOOC for developing English language skills, especially writing. Participant (3, 12, 17, 22, 27 and 31) stated that the writing MOOC helped a lot in producing their ideas through essay writing. The steps provided to develop essay enhanced participants’ skills in writing. Participant (4) stated that “Through this five week course, I manage to learn a lot of things about writing. Besides that, I get reviews from peers who detect my mistakes which I found this course as interesting.” Participant (14) appreciated the writing MOOC commented that:

Excerpt 2

“The tips are very useful for me in order to improve my academic writing skills. I will definitely apply all the tips given every time I am about to start my writing routine. Furthermore, the course also rich with useful contents, such as the defining an academic essay, what makes an essay is an academic essay, some grammar skills and the most important of all is about the step by step in producing a good complete essay.”

Participant (16) added that:

Excerpt 3

“MOOC improve my essay’s writing skill because it gave me the real analyzing experience which could help me realize the strength and weaknesses that might have in an essay. For example, it gave me some examples of other student’s essay and asked me to comment on it which could encourage me for learn from other people mistakes.”

Participants found the quizzes format amazing as it helped them to learn various aspects of English language. Participant (5, 29, 30, 41 and 47) added that over the five weeks course they have gained a lot of knowledge about grammar, sentence structures, brainstorming ideas for essay writing and reviewing the peers’ essays. Participant (24) stated that “I have learnt numerous lessons that could actually take a semester or even year to be fully learnt.” Participant (9) was able to identify and organize the essay in order. She claimed that essay organization is important as it makes the readers to understand what essay is all about. “Throughout the five week of the writing MOOC, I find it hard to dislike the course” added by participant (2). She further added that the advantage of the writing MOOC is learning the grammar skills through quizzes. Throughout the five weeks, the writing MOOC taught learners various grammatical skills to assist leaners to write a good academic essay. Participant (3) commented that:

Excerpt 4

The MOOC platform helped me improve my writing skills through several ways. There were peer responses, teacher responses and a discussion where students’ contributions were found to be massive. Peer responses gave me general comments about my essay. Also my classmates can look at my essay types. This comment focused on the perceived benefits of MOOC from the students’ perspective, confirming that instructor and course objectives were being met.

The final theme that comes from participants’ diary entries is that of peer assessment. The two most common methods of MOOC assessment are machine-graded multiple-choice quizzes or tests and peer-reviewed written assignments. Peer review is often based upon sample answers or rubrics, which guide the grader on how many points to award different answers. MOOC students are expected to learn both by being the grader as well as by having their work graded. Most of the participants felt that the peer assessment task was one of the difficult tasks in the MOOC. The peers decide what marks to give: full marks or zero on their peers’ assignment. It is considered too extreme (Participant 22). Some students might be doing their works well but not good enough to achieve the full marks and receive a zero marks either. There should be more choice of marks given for the reviewer to give on the works (Participant 6). One student cited that “in my opinion, the weakness of this course is that it let the student to give the mark by evaluating other students’ assignment, evaluation marks from peers contribute to the overall marks”. Some students found the evaluation procedures more difficult than doing an assignment. Participant (8) added that “evaluating peers assignment is time consuming. As a student it is difficult to complete the assignment as well as evaluate the peers’ papers.” Another issue comes while analyzing participants’ diary. Some participants feel that some MOOC learners have the tendency to cheat by copying peers’ work and paste it on behalf on them. “This is so uncool for university student to have such disgrace attitudes.

DISCUSSION

The study examined ESL undergraduates’ learning experience and engagement with a writing MOOC provided by the leading MOOC provider, Coursera. The finding of the study is strongly encouraging as it provides a different viewpoint of the MOOCs instructional features and tools in general and the writing MOOC in particular in ESL context. Participants of the study highly appreciated various features and tools of MOOC instructional design as well as highlighted number of challenges they faced while completing the MOOC tasks. They appreciated the design format of the video lectures, embedded quizzes, and the peer supports received in the discussion forum. The findings also revealed that most of the participants had successfully completed the writing MOOC and received certificates of accomplishment from the course provider. It is noticed that often, more than 90% learners who register for MOOCs do not complete the course. Early reports of Coursera also provide a similar completion rate of 7%-9% (Koller et al., 2013). For example, in the writing MOOC Crafting an Effective Writer: Tools of the Trade only 2700 students successfully completed the course out of 40000 students who enrolled in the course. The motivation behind the high completion rate was the 20 marks which was given in their actual course ICT and Language Learning. Students who register for MOOC signature track courses or paid courses have higher completion rate (70%) than who do the course at free of cost (Kolowich, 2013). Grainer (2013) claimed that all MOOC learners are not active participants. According to Grainer (2013) 60-80% of the MOOC participants usually watch the video lectures without completed and commenting any tasks. Kim et al. (2014) claimed that students in MOOC were selectively choosing part of the videos to watch. Moreover, Seaton et al., (2014) reported that most visited components in MOOCs were video lectures and homework assignments.

Learners’ engagement in any form of education is considered as a significant aspect in success of students learning (Kuh, 2003). Earlier studies have scrutinized the relationship between learners’ engagement with academic performance and pointed out that students’ academic performance is largely depend on their engagement with various aspects of the course. Several metrics were identified in relation to engagement such as engagement with the course contents, with instructor and peers. Most engagement metrics are positively correlated to performance and the relationship in many cases can be weak (Carini et al., 2006). The MOOC approach is different from traditional approach in terms of the number of participants enrolled, students’ faculty interactions, assessment methods, and instructional design. In MOOCs all learners are not active participant, some learners are found to be passive participants only watching and observing the course contents without completing quizzes, assignment and participating in the discussion forum (Milligan et al., 2013; Kizilcec et al., 2013).

Forum interaction is another issue that participants had talked about in their diaries. Discussion forum in MOOCs does playing a crucial role in promoting interaction among the MOOC learners. Early studies on forum mentioned that space (forum, blog, and wiki) can effectively facilitate language learning and teaching activities, help develop critical thinking of the learners, provide effective and thoughtful feedback to learners (Kim, 2008). In addition, those who contribute on the forum have greater sense of freedom to express their ideas, elaborate their arguments more effectively than face-to-face classroom. Forum extends learners’ ideas and opinion to a wider context people coming from various backgrounds and circumstances (Sun, 2010; Ahluwalia et a., 2011). The study participants also agreed that the forum discussion helped them in various ways. They received thoughtful feedback and ideas from their peers on their written contents. The forum was useful and the way peers shared their different opinions on different topics allowed participants to gain widely and learn more through the course.

Peer assessment is one of the critical and debatable issues mostly discussed in the MOOC context. Some of the participants find difficulty while evaluating their peers’ essays. There are arguments for and against peer assessments. Experts like Ragan (2012) are skeptical about the reliability and validity of the peer assessments. Evaluating such higher-level thought requires human experts and formal examinations. Sharples et al. (2012) provides a compromise by pointing out that these new forms of assessments are simply an aid to the overall learning process, but not a means of assessing the learning outcomes. Quizzes can be evaluated through automation, but higher level thought cannot be measured through technology alone (George, 2012). George (2012) uses driving test as an analogy to explain this. In his words: “Driving test is an example of a blended online assessment course where some of the information [like the Highway Code] is perfectly acceptable for testing online ... .Driving a car is something you can’t do online”(George, 2012).

CONCLUSION

The study examines ESL undergraduates’ learning experiences and engagement with a writing MOOC offered by the leading MOOCs provider, Coursera. Specifically, the study tried to measure ESL undergraduates’ learning experiences with a writing MOOC and found that participants’ responses were found to be positive as most of the subjects highly appreciated the MOOC instructional features and tools. They also valued the writing MOOC for developing their skills in writing. They also penned problems that hampered their learning is slow streaming of the videos, doing the assignment on time and evaluating the peers’ assignments as it is time consuming. By examining ESL undergraduates’ learning experience with MOOC the study opens the doors of ESL language learning researches and practices. The study contributes to the field of second language learning by drawing instructors, researchers, educators and learners’ attention to a new form of online education namely massive open online course (MOOC). Although the practicality of this educational model is generally accepted by people, there is still some fundamental doubt that this educational model will actually be useful in helping students gain a command of the skills of English language. The limitation of the study is that of small sample size which might not examine the data at a finer level. More research can be conducted on the effects of MOOC technologies on various skills of English language.

REFERENCES

Ahluwalia, G., Gupta, D., & Aggarwal, D. (2011). The Use of Blogs in English Language Learning: A Study of Student Perceptions. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 13(2), 29-41.

Ansarimoghaddam, S., & Tan B. H. (2013). Co-constructing an essay: collaborative writing in class and on wiki. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(1): 35 – 50. ISSN: 0128-5157.

Arslan, R. S. (2014). Integrating feedback into prospective English language teachers’ writing process via blogs and portfolios. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 131-150.

Bárcena, E., Read, T., Martín-Monje, E., & Castrillo, M. D. (2014). Analysing student participation in Foreign Language MOOCs: a case study. EMOOCs 2014: European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit, 11-17.

Barcena, M. E., Read, T., Martin-Monje, E., & Castrillo, M. D. (2014). Analysing student participation in Foreign Language MOOCs: a case study. In EMOOCs 2014: European MOOCs stakeholders summit proceedings (pp. 11–17). Retrieved from http://www.emoocs2014.eu/sites/default/files/Proceedings-Moocs-Summit -2014.pdf

Beaven, T., Comas-Quinn, A., de los Arcos, B., Hauck, M., & Lewis, T. (2013). The open translation MOOC: creating online communities to transcend linguistic barriers. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved from http://wwwjime open.ac.uk/jime/article/view/2013-183

Bentley, P., Crump, H., Cuffe, P., Gniadek, B. J., MacNeill, S., & Mor, Y. (2014). Signals of Success and Self-Directed Learning. In EMOOC 2014: European MOOC stakeholder summit proceedings (pp. 5-10). Berlin: De Gruyter Open.

Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. Internet & Higher Education, 15(2), 118-126

Carini, R.; Kuh, G.; and Klein, S. 2006. Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1):1–32.

Cisel, M. (2014). Analyzing completion rates in the First French xMOOC. Proceedings of the European MOOC stakeholder summit (p. 26). Berlin: De Gruyter Open.

Cormier, D., Siemens, G., & Downes, S. (2011). Welcome to change: education, learning, and technology! MOOC web site. Retrieved August 8^th December, 2012 available at http://change.mooc.ca/index.html.

Coursera (2013). Pedagogy. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/#psj=1&q=coursera+pedagogy

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3.

de Waard, I., Abajian, S. C., Gallagher, M. S., Hogue, R. J., Keskin, N. O., Koutropoulos, A., & Rodriguez, C. O. (2011). Using mLearning and MOOCs to understand chaos, emergence, and complexity in education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 94-115. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1046/2026

Ely, M., Anzui, M., Friedman, I., Garner, D., & Stenmet, A. (1991). Doing qualitative research: Circles within circles. London: THe Falmer press

Fini, A. (2009). The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08 course tools. The International Review of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 10(5).

George, A. Interviewed by P. Subramanian on November 7^th, 2012. Retrieved from http://prabhus.com/media/Subramanian-P-2012-WEMBA-thesis.pdf

Grainger, B. (2013). Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Report. University of London Intern'l. Academy. Retrieved From http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/mooc_report- 2013.pdf

Hibbs, J., & Stevens, V. (2012). The new frontier of MOOC: massive open online learning. Paper presented at the Global Education Conference, 12-17 November 2012. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/vances/the-new-frontier of mooc

Hill, P. (2013, March 2). The four student archetypes emerging in MOOCs [Blog post]. E-Literate. Retrieved from http://mfeldstein.com/the-four-student-archetypes-emerging-in-moocs/

Kauppinen, I. (2013). Different meanings of'knowledge as commodity'in the context of higher education. Critical Sociology, 0896920512471218.

Kim, H. N. (2008). The phenomenon of blogs and theoretical model of blog use in educational contexts. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1342-1352.

Kim, J., Guo, P. J., Seaton, D. T., Mitros, P., Gajos, K. Z., & Miller, R. C. (2014). Understanding in-video dropouts and interaction peaks in online lecture videos. Proc. of First ACM Conf. on Lang. @ Scale Conf. 31–40. NY, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2556325.2566237

Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In D. Suthers, K. Verbert, E. Duval, & X. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 170-179). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi: 10.1145/2460296.2460330

Kolowich, S. (2013). Coursera takes a nuanced view of MOOC dropout rates. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/coursera-takes-a-nuanced-view-of-mooc -dropout-rates/4334

Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C., & Chen, Z. (2013, June 3). Retention and intention in massive open online courses: In depth. EDUCAUSE Review online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/

Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. S. F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 74-93.

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24-32.doi:10.1080/00091380309604090

Mackness, J., Mak, S. F. J., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. Proceedings of the seventh international conference on networked learning. Lancaster: University of Lancaster. MI. Retrieved from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/ nlc2010/abstracts/Mackness.Html

Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2).

Murray, J. A. (2014). Participants’ perceptions of a MOOC. Insights, 27(2), 154-159.

Ota, M. (2013). MOOCs: Falling Short of What Online Learning Could Be. Edited Veletsianos, G. (2013). Learner Experiences with MOOCs and Open Online Learning. Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved from http://learnerexperiences.hybridpedagogy.com

Owston, R. D., Murphy, S., & Wideman, H. H. (1992). The effects of word processing on students' writing quality and revision strategies. Research in the Teaching of English, 249-276.

Perez, L. C. (2003). Foreign language productivity in synchronous versus asynchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO journal, 21(1), 89-104.

Ramirez, J. (2013). Searching for Extraterrestrials, One Video Lecture at a Time. Edited.Veletsianos, G. (2013). Learner Experiences with MOOCs and Open Online Learning. Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved June 19, 2014 from http://learnerexperiences.hybridpedagogy.com

Rodriguez, O. (2013). The concept of openness behind c and x-MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). Open Praxis, 5(1), 67-73.

Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the Al-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/?p=current&article&article=516

Rubio, F. (2014). Teaching pronunciation and comprehensibility in a language MOOC. In EMOOCs 2014: European MOOCs stakeholders summit conference proceedings (pp.11–17). Retrieved from http://www.emoocs2014.eu/sites/default/files/Proceedings-Moocs-Summit-2014.pdf

Seaton, D. T., Bergner, Y., Chuang, I., Mitros, P., & Pritchard, D. E. (2014). Who does what in a massive open online course? Commun. of ACM, 57(4), 58–65.

Shahsavar, Z., & Tan, B.H. (2012). Developing a questionnaire to measure students’ attitudes toward the course blog. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 200-210. ISSN: 1302-6488

Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., Mor, Y., Gaved, M., & Whitelock, D. (2012). Innovating Pedagogy 2012: Open University Innovation Report 1. Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Sun, Y. C. (2010). Developing reflective cyber communities in the blogosphere: a case study in Taiwan higher education. Teaching in Higher education, 15(4), 369-381.

Tschichold, C. (1999). Grammar checking for CALL: Strategies for improving foreign language grammar checkers. CALL: Media, Design & Applications. Swets&Zeitlinger, Lisse, 203-222.

Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2014). The effects of collaborative writing activity using Google Docs on students’writing abilities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 148.

Ventura, P., Bárcena, E., & Martín-Monje, E. (2014). Analysis of the impact of social feedback on written production and student engagement in language MOOCs. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 512-517.

Veletsianos, G. (2013). Learner Experiences with MOOCs and Open Online Learning. Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved from http://learnerexperiences.hybridpedagogy.com

Warschauer, M. (2007). Technology and writing. In International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 907-917). Springer US.

Yang, J. Y., & Che, P. C. (2015). Improving College Students English Learning with Dr. Eye Android Mid. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 101.

Yulin, C. H. E. N. (2013). The Impact of Integrating Technology and Social Experience in the College Foreign Language Classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(3).