You are here:

Developing MOOCs to Narrow the College Readiness Gap: Challenges and Recommendations for a Writing Course ARTICLE

, Borough of Manhattan Community College, CUNY, United States ; , Indiana Wesleyan University, United States

International Journal on E-Learning Volume 14, Number 3, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have demonstrated the potential to deliver quality and cost effective course materials to large numbers of students. Approximately 60% of first-year students at community colleges are underprepared for college-level coursework. One reason for low graduation rates is the lack of the overall college readiness. MOOCs offering “remedial” writing have the potential to better prepare high school graduates for college, thereby increasing their chances of completing a degree and reducing the cost of education for students, families, institutions, and taxpayers. However, MOOCs are typically more suitable for motivated and prepared students. Designing a MOOC on writing for a diverse group of students who lack basic academic writing skills requires thoughtful modifications. In this article, we examine the needs of basic writers and the challenges involved in providing personalized feedback on the content of student writings via a MOOC platform. We recommend some MOOC variations that would be suitable for college readiness writing courses: Limited MOOC (lMOOC), Hybrid MOOC (hMOOC), Flipped MOOC (fMOOC), Mini MOOC (mMOOC), MOOC Workshops (MOOCw).

Citation

Bandi-Rao, S. & Devers, C. (2015). Developing MOOCs to Narrow the College Readiness Gap: Challenges and Recommendations for a Writing Course. International Journal on E-Learning, 14(3), 351-371. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 19, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Attali, Y. (2007). On-the-fly customization of automated essay scoring (RR-07-42). Princeton, NJ: ETS Research& Development. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-07-42.pdf
  2. Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 886-924.
  3. Bahr, P.R. (2008). Does mathematics remediation work? A comparative analysis of academic attainment among community college students. Research in Higher Education, 49, 420–450.
  4. Balfour, S.P. (2013). Assessing writing in MOOCS: Automated essay scoring and Calibrated Peer Review. Research& Practice in Assessment, 8(1), 40-48.
  5. Balmuth, M. (1986). Essential characteristics of effective adult literacy programs: A review and analysis of the research. The Adult Beginning Reader Project. New York: NY State Department of Education.
  6. Bandi-Rao, S. (2013). Using M technology with ESL learners in the community college setting. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3653-3653). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  7. Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can’t write (pp. 134-164). New York: Guilford.
  8. Ben-Simon, A., & Bennett, R.E. (2007). Toward more substantively meaningful automated essay scoring. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 6(1).
  9. Benson, B., Deming, M., Denzer, D., & Valeri-Gold, M. (1992). A combined basic writing/English as a second language class: Melting pot or mishmash. Journal of Basic Writing, 11(1), 58-59.
  10. Bernstein, S.N. (2008). Social justice initiative for basic writing. BWe: Basic Writing eJournal, 7.
  11. Bizzell, P. (1986). What happens when basic writers come to college? College Composition and Communication, 294-301.
  12. Bloom, L. (1995). A name with a view. Journal of Basic Writing, 14(1), 7–14.
  13. Bonk, C.J., & Khoo, E. (2014). Adding some TEC-VARIETY: 100+ activities for motivating and retaining learners online. OpenWorldBooks and Amazon CreateSpace. Retrieved from http://tec-variety.com/TEC-Variety_ch3.pdf Carson, J.E., Carrell, P.L., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., & Kuehn, P.A. (1990). Reading‐ writing relationships in first and second language. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 245266.
  14. Coursera Blog (2014, April 30). New learning hubs locations hosted by the New York Public Library and seven other international partners. Coursera Blog. Retrieved from http://blog.coursera.org/post/84322385012/new-learning-hubs-locations-hosted-by-the-new-york
  15. Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3. Retrieved from http://www.jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/viewArticle/2012-18/html/
  16. Downes, S. (2009). The role of open educational resources in personal learning. Open Educational Resources: Innovation, Research and Practice, 207.
  17. Elbow, P. (1987). The pleasures of voices in the literary essay: Explorations in the prose of Gretel Ehrlich and Richard Selzer. In C. Anderson (Ed.), Literary nonfiction: Theory, criticism, pedagogy (pp. 211-34). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
  18. Fowler, G.A. (2013, October 8). An early report card on MOOCs. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023037596045 79093400834738972
  19. Friedman, T. (2013, January 6). Revolution hits the universities. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/friedman-revolution-hits-the-universities.html?
  20. Grant-Vallone, E., Reid, K., Umali, C., & Pohlert, E. (2003). An analysis of the effects of self-esteem, social support, and participation in student support services on students’ adjustment and commitment to college. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 5(3), 255-274.
  21. Graesser, A.C., & McNamara, D.S. (2012). Automated analysis of essays and openended verbal responses. In H. Cooper, P.M. Camic, D.L. Long, A.T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K.J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 1: Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics (pp. 307-325).
  22. Holbrook, A. (1999). Formulaic writing: Blueprint for mediocrity: GED. Items, 3 (4), 8-9.
  23. Hollands, F.M., & Tirthali, D. (2014, May). MOOCs: Expectations and reality. Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education. Teaching College, Columbia. Retrieved from http://cbcse.org/wordpress/wp-content/up Loads/2014/05/MOOCs_Expectat ions_
  24. Jaggars, S.S. (2011). Online learning: Does it help low-income and underprepared students? CCRC Working Paper No. 26. Assessment of Evidence Series. New York: Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
  25. Jaggars, S.S., & Xu, D. (2010). Online Learning in the Virginia Community College System. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:172174 Jordan, K. (2014) Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 133-160.
  26. Kelly, A.P. (2014, May). Disruptor, distractor, or what?: A Policymaker’s Guide to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Bellweather Education. Retrieved from http://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/BW_MOOC_Final.pdf Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Reflecting on the cognitive–social debate in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 773-787.
  27. Lotkowski, V.A., Robbins, S.B., & Noeth, R.J. (2004). The role of academic and nonacademic factors in improving college retention. ACT Policy Report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED485476). M. Maiz, personal communication, May 24, 2014.
  28. Muraskin, L.D. (1998). A structured freshman year for at-risk students. ERIC Document ED420265. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED420265 Murray, D. (1972). Teach writing as a process not product.” In Villanueva, V. (Ed) (2003). Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Revised and Updated. National Council of Teachers of English. Urbana, IL. National Council of Teachers.
  29. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2013). Beyond the rhetoric: Improving college readiness through coherent state policy. Retrieved from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/college_readiness/gap.shtml Pappano, L. (2012, November 2). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times. Retrieved
  30. Perez-Hernandez, D. (2014, April 29). Coursera seeks to create a ‘global translator community.’ The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/b Logs/w iredcampus/coursera-seeks-to-create-a-global-trans latorcommunity/52129?cid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en
  31. Perin, D. (2006). Can community colleges protect both access and standards? The problem of remediation. Teachers College Record, 108(3), 339-373.
  32. Picciano, A.G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.
  33. Poulin, R. (2013, September 21). Crafting an effective MOOC: One community college’s experience. WCET Frontiers. Retrieved from http://wcetblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/creating-an-effective-mooc/
  34. Reichard, C. (2013, June 4). MOOCs face challenges in teaching humanities. The Stanford Daily. Retrieved from http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/06/04/moocs-facechallenges-in-teaching-humanities/
  35. Richardson, J.C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88.
  36. Riehl, R.J. (1994).The academic preparation, aspirations, and first-year performance of first-generation students. College and University, 70(1), 14-19.
  37. Rose, M. (1988). Narrowing the mind and page: Remedial writers and cognitive reductionism. College Composition and Communication, 39(3), 267-302.
  38. Russell, A.A. (2004). Calibrated peer review-a writing and critical-thinking instructional tool. Teaching Tips: Innovations in Undergraduate Science Instruction, 54.
  39. Schunk, D.H., & Rice, J.M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback effects on self-efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services. The Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 257-276.
  40. Shah, D. (2014). MOOCs in 2014: Breaking down the numbers. EdSurge. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/n/2014-12-26-moocs-in-2014-breaking-down-the-num DASHDASH
  41. Shaughnessy, M. (1979). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
  42. Shaughnessy, M. (1994). Some new approaches toward teaching. Journal of Basic Writ-370 Bandi-Rao and Devers
  43. Shermis, M.D., Burstein, J., Higgins, D., & Zechner, K. (2010). Automated essay scoring: Writing assessment and instruction. In E. Baker, B. McGaw, & N.S. Petersen (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 75–80). Oxford, England:
  44. Skinner, A.D. (2014). Academic outcomes among a sample of learning support community college students. Community College Journal of Research& Practice, 38(1), 50-53.
  45. Sorden. S.D., & Munene, I.I. (2013). Constructs related to community college student satisfaction in blended learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 12, 251-270. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol12/JITEv12ResearchP251-270Sorden1206.pdf
  46. Terenzini, P.T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P.M., Pascarella, E.T., & Nora, A. (1996). Firstgeneration college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher education, 37(1), 1-22.
  47. Trombley, W.H., & Sallo, T. (2012). American higher education: Journalistic and policy perspectives from National CrossTalk. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/ctbook/pdfbook/CrossTalkBook.pdf
  48. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-learning, 6(1), 81-94.
  49. Whitmer, J., Schiorring, E., & James, P. (2014, March). Patterns of persistence: What engages students in a remedial English writing MOOC? Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 279-280).
  50. Witte, S.P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College composition and communication, 32, 189-204.
  51. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S.S. (2011). Online and hybrid course enrollment and performance in Washington State Community and Technical Colleges. CCRC Working Paper No. 31. New York: Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
  52. Yang, Y, Buckendhal, C.W., Juszkiewicz, P.J., & Bhola, D.S. (2002). A review of strategies for validating computer-automated scoring. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(4), 391-412.
  53. Zajacova, A., Lynch, S.M., & Espenshade, T.J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677-706.
  54. Zavarella, C.A. (2008). Computer-based instruction and remedial mathematics: A study of student retention at a Florida Community College (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Available at ProQuest Dissertations Developing MOOCs 371

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.