This document discusses opportunities for improving language MOOCs by enhancing the human dimension. It notes low completion rates in language MOOCs and lack of teacher support and interactivity. However, it argues peer interaction is essential for language learning. It proposes developing social interaction guidelines, utilizing peer feedback and error correction, and designating "e-leading students" to guide discussions. The document concludes language MOOCs could benefit from learning analytics to address dropout, more active learning methods, and greater student involvement through peer roles.

1. Potentiating the human dimension in
Language MOOCs
May 18-20, 2015 Mons,
Belgium
Elena Bárcena,
Elena Martín-Monje & Timothy Read
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)
Madrid, Spain
[mbarcena, emartin]@flog.uned.es & tread@lsi.uned.es

2. Table of contents
• Introduction
• The ‘human dimension’ in Language MOOCs
– Completion rates
– Course work
– Teacher support
• Turning a problem into an opportunity
– Massive social language learning
– Social interaction with ‘mootiquette’
– Feedback and error correction
– The e-leading student figure
• Conclusion
• References

3. Introduction
• Very few Language MOOCs:
4,000 MOOCs available in 2014 → 30 Language MOOCs (Martín-Monje &
Bárcena, 2014).
• Foreign language learning specificities:
– Skill-based
– It entails considerable practice
– Engagement with higher-order thinking skills
– After infancy more rule-based cognitive profile (Meltzoff & Prinz, 2002)
• Concerns re. MOOC format for language learning
– Pro-activeness / live communicative interaction with ‘native’ speakers (Romeo,
2012)
– MOOCs not suitable to teach grammatical structures, unless participants learn
inferentially among themselves (Stevens, 2013)
• Very little scholarly work published to date

4. Introduction
• Dichotomy cMOOC/xMOOC
• An effective Language MOOC should combine both:
[T]he optimal approach to structuring a language learning MOOC is to provide an
adaptive learning system within an extensive social and personalizable learning
environment, in effect combining an xMOOC style format with a cMOOC. The mix
between machine learning and social learning, will depend on proficiency levels and
on the skills being learned or assessed with the social dimension gaining in
importance as proficiency develops. (Godwin-Jones, 2014, p. 8)
• Possible paths for future development
– Colpaert (2014): 1) modularity; 2) specialization); 3) adaptation; and 4) co-
construction
– Godwin-Jones (2014): 1) more options for credentialing from completion of
MOOCs; 2) growth in learning analytics applied to MOOCs; 3) more involvement
in planning and teaching by information specialists; 4) more openness in MOOC
content; 5) greater modularity in MOOC structure; 6) increased adaptation of
MOOCs to mobile environments; and 7) more LMOOCs in targeted areas

5. The ‘human dimension” in Language
MOOCs
• Completion rates
– Redefined as criterion in MOOC quality evaluation (Read & Rodrigo, 2014)
– Students hop in & off easily, but it is not an excuse for disrupting other
students’ motivation
– Self-motivated, work-as-you-please atmosphere of MOOCs, not appropriate for
everyone
– Learning Analytics needed to identify and interpret abandonment peaks
• Course work
– Criticism: Lack of interactivity & adaptive mechanisms (Mackness et al., 2010)
– Excessive demand of students’ time & effort
– Additional material not sequenced or integrated
• Teacher support
– Students’ sense of solitude /impersonal nature of MOOCs
– Teachers’disenchantment

6. Turning a problem into an opportunity
• Massive social language learning
– Peer interaction, essential in a MOOC
– Language courses rely on in-depth discussion & debate
– Intrinsically social nature of verbal communication
• Social interaction with ‘mootiquette’
•Be brief and relevant. Your colleagues are more likely to read your comments.
•Include a subject line that provides the topic of the message (not just "Hi, there!").
•Acknowledge and return messages promptly.
•Don’t worry about making mistakes. However, do revise your messages before posting.
•Be respectful in the form and content of your messages.
•Use controlled emotional language to empathise:
DON’T WRITE EVERYTHING IN CAPITALS – since it can be interpreted as shouting!
Avoid ‘flaming’, exaggerated language and signs such as !!!! and ????
Use asterisks surrounding words to indicate italics used for emphasis (*at last*).
Use words in brackets, such as (grin), to show a state of mind.
Use common acronyms (e.g., LOL for "laugh out loud").
Use appropriate emoticons (emotion icons). Use "smiley's" or punctuation such as :-)
to convey emotions.
•Be understanding. It is easy to sound impolite or be misunderstood in written comments,
especially by non-native speakers.
•Ignore silly responses or personal attacks. If you feel offended by anything, please let us
know.

7. Turning a problem into an opportunity
• Feedback & error correction
– Peers: invaluable academic role in language, providing opportunity for practice
through forum messaging, debate & linguistic feedback
– Teacher in-depth feedback not realistic in MOOCs
– Open language production needs feedback on demand
– Feedback in LMOOCs: spontaneous & voluntary language error corrections in
forums / embedded in the course methodological strategy (e.g. MiriadaX)
– Problems in LMOOCs peer feedback (e.g. dubious identity & authority)
• The e-leading student figure
– E-leading student ‘humanizes’ MOOCs
– Encouraged by teacher, will gain attention & respect of the group
– Evidence: numerous responses to messages, high karma
– Teacher will prioritize their interventions so that they, in turn, do voluntarily the
same with peers (positive cascade effect)

8. Turning a problem into an opportunity
• The e-leading student does most or all of the following:
•Connects on a very regular basis and keeps more or less on task with his/her work;
•Spends a considerable amount of time participating in collective tasks;
•Answers lots of messages and peer queries showing concern and attention to detail;
•Contributes to the resolution of academic disputes satisfactorily, seeking consensus where possible;
•Searches for supporting evidence to help throw light on debates;
•Undertakes tasks for the benefit of the group, such as building up an errata list of the course
materials;
•Acts as a pacifier when there is social conflict in the forum;
•Defends teachers when attacked;
•Corrects others’ mistakes with grace;
•Serves as a ‘coach’, praising good work and encouraging demotivated students;
•Serves as a voluntary intermediate with the teachers when there are problems with the
methodology, contents or materials of the course;
•Shows an attractive positive and extrovert attitude and, thus, becomes popular with the group.

9. Conclusion
• 4 proposals for LMOOC teachers:
1) Student dissatisfaction, demotivation & dropout may find valuable
tool in Learning Analytics
2) Replacement of old language teaching methods & passive
unidirectional content consumption with better learning experiences
that can be accepted by different student cognitive profiles
3) Impersonal nature of MOOCs & unlikely reconciliation btw.
Excessively controlled & laxly structured designs call for students’
proactive involvement
4) Peers destined to fulfil crucial social & academic roles in MOOCs:
‘e-leading student’

10. References
• Colpaert, J. (2014). Conclusion. Reflections on present and future:
Towards an ontological approach to LMOOCs. In E. Martín-Monje &
E. Bárcena (Eds.), Language MOOCs: Providing learning,
transcending boundaries (pp. 161-172). Berlin: De Gruyter Open.
• Godwin-Jones, R. (2012). Emerging Technologies: Challenging
hegemonies in online learning. Language Learning & Technology,
16(2), 4-13. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2012/emerging.pdf
• Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of
participating in a MOOC. In Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Networked Learning Conference (pp. 266-274).
Lancaster, UK: University of Lancaster. Retrieved from:
https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/
The_Ideals_and_Realilty_of_Participating_in_a_MOOC.pdf

11. References
• Martín-Monje, E. & Bárcena, E. (Eds.) (2014). Language MOOCs:
Providing learning, transcending boundaries. Berlin: De Gruyter
Open.
• Meltzoff, A.N. & Prinz, W. (2002). The imitative mind. Development,
Evolution and Brain Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Read, T. & Rodrigo, C. (2014). Toward a quality model for UNED
MOOC. eLearning Papers 37,43-50.
• Romeo, K. (2012) Language Learning MOOCs? Retrieved from
https://www.stanford.edu/group/ats/cgi-bin/hivetalkin/?p=3011
• Stevens, V. (2013a). What’s with the MOOCs? TESL-EJ: Teaching
English as a Second or Foreign Language, 16(4). Retrieved from
http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume16/ej64/ej64int/

12. Thank you for your attention
Timothy Read
tread@lsi.uned.es