EFL Students’ Views on MOOCs’ Usability in the North of Vietnam: A Qualitative Study

EFL Students’ Views on MOOCs’ Usability in the North of Vietnam: A Qualitative Study

Nguyen Huu Hoang huuhoang309@gmail.com Academy of Journalism and Communication (Vietnam)
The primary aim of this study was to explore the usability of Language Massive Open Online Courses (LMOOCs) from the perspective of Vietnamese learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). To achieve this, the research utilized a qualitative questionnaire to gather data from a purposively selected group of 12 EFL learners. These participants were drawn from five different universities in the north of Vietnam. The outcomes of the study encompass a wide array of positive and negative facets pertaining to LMOOCs. Based on the findings of content analysis, it can be observed that learners exhibit consensus regarding the favorable attributes of LMOOCs. These attributes encompass the learning environment, the applicability of LMOOCs in language acquisition, the inclusive nature of educational technology employed, and the existence of parental involvement. However, the attitudes of the learners exhibited inconsistency when it came to affective variables and feedback in the context of LMOOCs. Ultimately, it was posited that contextual considerations serve as impediments to the adoption of LMOOCs. The study posits that it would be beneficial for EFL authorities in Vietnam and similar contexts to increase the provision of teacher education and professional development courses. This would help EFL instructors to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively implement teaching methodologies utilizing LMOOCs.
Language Massive Open Online Courses (LMOOCs)
qualitative content analysis
Vietnamese EFL learners

[1] Alario-Hoyos, C., Estévez-Ayres, I., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Delgado Kloos, C., & Fernández-Panadero, C. (2017, May 12). Understanding Learners’ Motivation and Learning Strategies in MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.2996

[2] Alioon, Y., & Delialioğlu, M. (2017, April 12). The effect of authentic m‐learning activities on student engagement and motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 655–668. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12559

[3] Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015, January). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compedu.2014.08.006

[4] Babbie, E. R. (2004, January 1). The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth Publishing Company

[5] Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001

[6] Burnard, P. (1991, December). A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse Education Today, 11(6), 461–466. https://doi. org/10.1016/0260-6917(91)90009-y

[7] Clifford, E., Pleines, C., Thomas, H., & Winchester, S. (2019, December 9). Learners as teachers? An evaluation of peer interaction and correction in a German Language MOOC. CALL and Complexity – Short Papers From EUROCALL 2019, 88–93. https:// doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.38.991

[8] Cohen, A., & Holstein, S. (2018, March 30). Analysing successful massive open online courses using the community of inquiry model as perceived by students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 544– 556. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12259

[9] Correa, M. (2015, June 30). Flipping the Foreign Language Classroom and Critical Pedagogies. Higher Education for the Future, 2(2), 114–125. https://doi. org/10.1177/2347631115584122

[10] Council Of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge University Press.

[11] Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018, January 6). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.

[12] de Freitas, S. I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015, April 8). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 455–471. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12268

[13] Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2020, March 29). Linking learner factors, teaching context, and engagement patterns with MOOC learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(5), 688– 708. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12437

[14] Deshpande, A., & Chukhlomin, V. (2017, November 27). What Makes a Good MOOC: A Field Study of Factors Impacting Student Motivation to Learn. American Journal of Distance Education, 1–19. https://doi.org /10.1080/08923647.2017.1377513

[15] Doo, M. Y., Tang, Y., Bonk, C. J., & Zhu, M. (2020, January 2). MOOC instructor motivation and career development. Distance Education, 41(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1724770

[16] Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006, January 1). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. McGraw-Hill Companies.

[17] Geng, S., Niu, B., Feng, Y., & Huang, M. (2020, July 25). Understanding the focal points and sentiment of learners in MOOC reviews: A machine learning and SC‐LIWC‐based approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1785–1803. https:// doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12999

[18] Graneheim, U., & Lundman, B. (2004, February). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105– 112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

[19] Gupta, K. P., & Maurya, H. (2020, October 12). Adoption, completion and continuance of MOOCs: a longitudinal study of students’ behavioural intentions. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(3), 611–628. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2020.1829054

[20] Hashemifardnia, A., Shafiee, S., Rahimi Esfahani, F., & Sepehri, M. (2021, January 1). Effects of flipped instruction on iranian intermediate EFL learners’ speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Cogent Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/233118 6x.2021.1987375

[21] Hew, K. F. (2014, December 22). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 320–341. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12235

[22] Hmedna, B., Mezouary, A. E., & Baz, O. (2019). How Does Learners’ Prefer to Process Information in MOOCs? A Data-driven Study. Procedia Computer Science, 148, 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.045

[23] Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & McKenna, H. P. (2001, April). A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38(2), 195–200. https://doi. org/10.1016/s0020-7489(00)00044-4

[24] Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Siemens, G., & Hatala, M. (2015, April 6). What public media reveals about MOOCs: A systematic analysis of news reports. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 510–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12277

[25] Kumar, P., & Kumar, N. (2020). A study of learner’s satisfaction from MOOCs through a mediation model. Procedia Computer Science, 173, 354–363. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.06.041

[26] Lee, S., & Chung, J. Y. (2019, April 3). Lessons learned from two years of K-MOOC experience. Educational Media International, 56(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09523987.2019.1614245

[27] Li, G. (2017). A Study on the Blended-Teaching Mode Combining MOOCs and Flipping Classroom in College English Teaching. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Education, Management, Information and Mechanical Engineering (EMIM 2017). https://doi.org/10.2991/emim-17.2017.256

[28] Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016, April). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40–48. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003

[29] Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014, December 16). Designing Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.

[30] Mellati, M., & Khademi, M. (2018, December 11). MOOCbased educational program and interaction in distance education: long life mode of teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1022–1035. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1553188

[31] Neuendorf, K. A. (2017, January 1). The Content Analysis Guidebook. SAGE

[32] Nworie, J. (2011, August 11). Using the Delphi Technique in Educational Technology Research. TechTrends, 55(5), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-011- 0524-6

[33] Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2013, November 6). Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

[34] Pasawano, T. (2015, February). Results of Enhanced Learning with the Edutainment Format. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 946–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.563

[35] Patton, M. Q. (2002, January 1). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. SAGE. http://books.google.ie/ books?id=FjBw2oi8El4C&printsec=frontcover&dq= Qualitative+Research+%26+Evaluation+Methods+( 3rd+ed.)&hl=&cd=1&source=gbs_api

[36] Philip, J. (2016). New pathways in researching interaction. In Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 377– 395). John Benjamins.

[37] Rabin, E., Henderikx, M., Kalman, Y. M., & Kalz, M. (2020, June 29). What are the barriers to learners’ satisfaction in MOOCs and what predicts them? The role of age, intention, self-regulation, self-efficacy and motivation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.14742/ ajet.5919

[38] Rayyan, S., Fredericks, C., Colvin, K., Liu, A., Teodorescu, R., Barrantes, A., Pawl, A., Seaton, D., & Pritchard, D. (2016, March 19). A MOOC based on blended pedagogy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12126

[39] Reparaz, C., Aznárez-Sanado, M., & Mendoza, G. (2020, October). Self-regulation of learning and MOOC retention. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, 106423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106423

[40] Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2012). README FIRST for a User′s Guide to Qualitative Methods. SAGE Publications.

[41] Rohs, M., & Ganz, M. (2015, December 3). MOOCs and the claim of education for all: A disillusion by empirical data. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6). https://doi. org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2033

[42] Romero-Frías, E., Arquero, J. L., & del Barrio-García, S. (2020, July 28). Exploring how student motivation relates to acceptance and participation in MOOCs. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(1), 480–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1799020

[43] Safdar, M., Yasmin, M., & Anwar, B. (2020, April 23). English for specific purpose through facilitated and nonfacilitated MOOCs: An analysis of the learners’ perspectives. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(4), 786–794. https://doi.org/10.1002/ cae.22246

[44] Sekayi, D., & Kennedy, A. (2017, October 20). Qualitative Delphi Method: A Four Round Process with a Worked Example. The Qualitative Report. https://doi. org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2974

[45] Soffer, T., & Nachmias, R. (2018, March 22). Effectiveness of learning in online academic courses compared with face-to-face courses in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 534–543. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12258

[46] Sun, Y., Ni, L., Zhao, Y., Shen, X., & Wang, N. (2018, December 18). Understanding students’ engagement in MOOCs: An integration of self-determination theory and theory of relationship quality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3156– 3174. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12724

[47] Tafazoli, D., Gómez Parra, M. E., & Huertas-Abril, C. A. (2020, July 11). A Cross-Cultural Qualitative Study on Students’ Attitudes towards Computer-Assisted Language Learning. The Qualitative Report. https:// doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4033

[48] Teixeira, A., & Mota, J. (2014). A proposal for the methodological design of collaborative language MOOCs. In Language MOOCs: Providing learning, transcending boundaries (pp. 33–47). De Gruyter Open.

[49] Thamrin, H., & Pamungkas, E. W. (2017). A Rule Based SWOT Analysis Application: A Case Study for Indonesian Higher Education Institution. Procedia Computer Science, 116, 144–150. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.10.056

[50] Thomas, V., De Backer, F., Peeters, J., & Lombaerts, K. (2019, January 16). Parental involvement and adolescent school achievement: the mediational role of self-regulated learning. Learning Environments Research, 22(3), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10984-019-09278-x

[51] Tseng, S. F., Tsao, Y. W., Yu, L. C., Chan, C. L., & Lai, K. R. (2016, April 8). Who will pass? Analyzing learner behaviors in MOOCs. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(1). https://doi. org/10.1186/s41039-016-0033-5

[52] Uchidiuno, J. O., Ogan, A., Yarzebinski, E., & Hammer, J. (2017, November 14). Going Global: Understanding English Language Learners’ Student Motivation in English-Language MOOCs. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28(4), 528–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-017-0159-7

[53] Veletsianos, G., Collier, A., & Schneider, E. (2015, May). Digging deeper into learners’ experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of MOOCs, notetaking and contexts surrounding content consumption. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 570–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/ bjet.12297

[54] Waks, L. J. (2016, January 1). The Evolution and Evaluation of Massive Open Online Courses: MOOCs in Motion.

[55] Walji, S., Deacon, A., Small, J., & Czerniewicz, L. (2016, May 3). Learning through engagement: MOOCs as an emergent form of provision. Distance Education, 37(2), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.20 16.1184400

[56] Zhou, M. (2016, January). Chinese university students’ acceptance of MOOCs: A self-determination perspective. Computers & Education, 92–93, 194– 203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.012

Articles in Issue