Towards Culturally Inclusive MOOCs: A Design-based Approach

Mana Taheri

, Katharina Hölzle

and Christoph Meinel

Hasso Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam, Prof.-Dr.-Helmert-Strasse 2-3, 14482 Potsdam, Germany

Chair of Innovation Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Potsdam,

August-Bebel-Strasse 89, 14482 Potsdam, Germany

Keywords: Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), Cultural Inclusivity, Cultural Diversity, Design Thinking.

Abstract: Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have become one of the most popular ways of acquiring new

knowledge and skills. One of the unique characteristics of MOOCs is their learner diversity. MOOC learners

vary in age, gender, cultural background, language and discipline. This poses a great challenge for MOOC

designers to create learning experiences that resonate with their diverse global audience. This paper reports

instructional strategies that were applied to create culturally inclusive MOOCs. We applied a design-based

approach to experiment, test, and evaluate these strategies over the course of three MOOCs on the topic of

Design Thinking. The study uses in-depth qualitative interviews with international participants, pre- and post-

course surveys, as well as observations from the discussion forums, in order to gain insights into learners’

perspectives. As a result, the authors offer instructional strategies that may accommodate the needs of MOOC

learners from diverse cultural backgrounds. Considering that MOOCs promise opportunities for life-long

learning to learners around the globe, it is of utmost importance to design learning experiences that are

culturally inclusive.

1 INTRODUCTION

The advent of Massive Open Online Courses

(MOOCs) raised many hopes and expectations of

opening education access to global learners. One of

the unique characteristics of MOOCs is the diversity

among participants. While a typical campus

classroom may contain some international students,

any given MOOC usually draws a large number of

learners from all around the globe, with diverse

languages, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds. On

the flip side, this situation presents a great challenge

for MOOC designers and instructors to create

culturally inclusive learning experiences (Taheri et

al., 2017).

Since the advent of distance education, there has

been a significant amount of educational content

created by Western universities and exported to other

parts of the world via the internet. However, as

Rogers et al., (2007) point out, this has led to a

predominance of Western-centric instruction to

learners of diverse cultural backgrounds. This trend

has continued to this day, with the majority of MOOC

content still being produced by educational institutes

in the West (Frechette et al., 2014). Thus, if MOOC

designers wish to reach their global audience

effectively beyond their own context, they need to

apply instructional strategies to accommodate diverse

learners’ needs. In other words, they need to pay

attention to cultural aspects during their instructional

design process (Bonk et al., 2016).

Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot (2010) name the

following challenges that instructional designers face

in addressing cultural diversity in multicultural

classrooms:

▪ Understanding the cultural differences among

students and appreciating them in order to support

their learning with the appropriate instruction.

▪ Gaining awareness about one’s own cultural

biases and tendencies and accepting that their way

of thinking is not necessarily the “right” way.

▪ Understanding which student preferences and

behaviors are related to cultural values and

therefore not necessarily need to be challenged.

▪ Accepting the responsibility of instructional

designers to acculturate and respect the cultural

backgrounds of individual students.

▪ Considering that the instructional strategies and

practices which are research-based are also

Taheri, M., Hölzle, K. and Meinel, C.

Towards Culturally Inclusive MOOCs: A Design-based Approach.

DOI: 10.5220/0007715805970604

In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2019), pages 597-604

ISBN: 978-989-758-367-4

597

culture-based, and therefore might not be

appropriate at all times and may need adaptation

and modification.

Considering that any given MOOC resembles a

massive multicultural classroom, MOOC designers

face similar if not more challenges to create effective

learning experiences for their diverse learners.

Despite its significance for today’s connected world,

the body of literature on the intersection between the

instructional design of online learning and cultural

differences is narrow (Bonk et al., 2016; Jung and

Gunawardena, 2014; Rogers et al., 2007).

On the benefits of taking learner diversity into

account, Meo (2010) suggests that a curriculum that

incorporates a variety of learner needs benefits not

only the “non-typical” learner, but also the

“mainstream” learners can benefit from more flexible

learning experiences. In addition, Chita-Tegmark et

al., (2011) suggest that creating learning experiences

that reflect the cultural dimensions of learner

variability not only diminishes learning barriers for

culturally diverse learners, but also contributes to

culturally informed learning opportunities for all

learners. Since MOOCs promise an opportunity for

life-long learning to global learners with diverse

backgrounds, it is of the utmost importance to create

inclusive and culturally responsive learning

experiences.

This paper reports on the efforts of a team of

instructional designers in creating culturally inclusive

MOOCs. The goal was to create effective and

inclusive learning experiences by accounting for

cultural diversity in all aspects of instructional design.

We applied a design-based approach and

experimented with a number of practices, evaluated

them and revised them if necessary. This report is

based on the results of three MOOCs on the topic of

Design Thinking. For the sake of this work, we refer

to these MOOCs as ProtoMOOC, MOOC#1, and

MOOC#2. The courses ran on openHPI which is a

well-established European MOOC platform between

November 2016 and October 2018 (see openhpi.de).

Learner feedback was gathered through qualitative

interviews with participants, as well as survey results

and observations from the forum discussions and

participants’ interactions.

The contribution of this work is twofold. On the

one hand it adds to the relatively new discourse

around MOOCs and cultural diversity and suggests

practical recommendations for MOOC design, on the

other hand it contributes to teaching Design Thinking,

a popular problem-solving approach, at a global scale.

For the purpose of this conference, we focus on the

first contribution, and refrain from deeper discussions

about the latter. However, some instructional

strategies that were chosen specifically due to the

qualitative and explorative nature of the topic of these

MOOCs will be highlighted.

In the following we will first provide a brief

literature review on culture and learning. Next, the

research design is described followed by instructional

practices applied in each MOOC. We will present the

results of learners’ feedback on these practices as well

as their relation to literature. And finally, we offer

implications for MOOC design.

2 CULTURE AND LEARNING

Culture is a ubiquitous part of an individual

experience. It defines what aspect of our environment

we attend to, it influences our interaction with our

surroundings, determines what behaviours we

perceive appropriate in certain contexts, and shapes

what we value (Nisbett et al., 2001). Some aspects of

culture such as communication styles, values,

learning styles, and traditions have direct implications

for learning and teaching (Gay, 2001).

Chen et al., (1999) argue that cultural inclusivity

is one of the essential pillars of a learning

environment that is student-centered. They

emphasize that considering the relationship between

culture and learning, instructors need to apply and

reflect critically on educational practices that address

learners’ needs from diverse cultural backgrounds.

Scholars have tried to understand the implication

of cultural aspects on teaching and learning, often by

borrowing from research in other fields and applying

existing theoretical frameworks (Rogers et al., 2007).

One of the first and still widely used frameworks of

this kind is the Hofstede’s Model of Cultural

Dimensions (Hofstede, 1986). However, one of the

main drawbacks of Hofstede’s work is that it

oversimplifies cultural differences and implies a

static view on culture (Signorini et al., 2009).

Moreover, the study assumes a homogenous domestic

population within geographical borders, hence

dismissing the nuances and diversities that exist

within different nations (Gu and Maley, 2008).

Goodfellow and Lamy (2009) argue that the problem

with this approach to culture is that it sees individuals

mainly in terms of their cultural attributes:

“The understanding of the notion of cultural

differences that underpins most current research

arises from a view of cultures as the manifestation in

individuals of all the values, beliefs and ways of

thinking and doing things that come with the

membership of particular national, tribal, ethnic, civic

CSEDU 2019 - 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

598

or religious communities. Culture, in this view, is a

consequence of geographical, historical, climatic,

religious, political, linguistic and other behaviour and

attitude-shaping influences that are assumed to act on

everyone who shares the same physical and social

environment” (Goodfellow and Lamy, 2009, p.7).

We also agree with scholars such as Goodfellow

and Lamy, Gunawardena, and Jung, and Signorini et

al., who see culture as a complex set of values and

practices that are not necessarily limited to the

national level,

With regards to designing courses in both online

and traditional settings, failing to accommodate the

cultural sensitivities may lead to misunderstandings

between instructors and students. Considering the

high level of diversity among participants of any

given MOOC, creating effective learning experiences

with cultural diversity in mind, is a great challenge

for instructional designers. As novel as MOOCs may

seem, they are only the latest advance in the field of

distance and open education (Mazoue, 2014). Thus,

MOOC research should build on and draw from good

practices in distance education. On accounting for

learner’s cultural diversity in developing and

delivering distance education, Spronk (2004)

highlights a number of good practices, such as

contextualizing the learning, creating safe spaces for

learning, welcoming alternatives, using media

effectively, and celebrating diversity.

Instructional designers and teachers play a crucial

role in designing inclusive learning experiences, both

onsite and online. Rogers et al., (2007) explore the

role of instructional designers in understanding and

addressing cultural diversity in creating online

educational content. Alongside other scholars, such

as McLoughlin and Oliver (2000) and Chen and

Mashhadi (1998), they argue that there needs to be

more sensitivity and responsiveness to cultural

differences amongst instructional designers.

Bonk et al., (2016) conducted a survey with

instructors from major international MOOC

platforms to gather insights into strategies and

practices applied to address cultural diversity of

MOOC learners. Among them are: providing text

with audio or video, using visuals, refraining from

using sophisticated language, and avoiding gestures

and body language that might not be familiar for other

nations. Finally, on the importance of considering

cultural diversity for the instructional design of online

courses, McLoughlin (2001) states: “Unless

educators address the issue of teaching to a diverse

body of students, and do so systematically, then

online delivery may become just another way of

dumping course content, with the assumption that all

students, regardless of cultural background, can

access learning resources and achieve success.”

3 RESEARCH DESIGN

Anderson and Shattuck (2012) describe design-based

research as a methodology that helps bridge the gap

between research and practice in educational

research. Wang and Hannafin (2005) characterize the

methodology as both systematic yet flexible, which is

a result of a collaboration between researchers and

practitioners. It is an approach that applies iterative

analysis, design, development and implementation to

improve educational practices. Thus, scholars

recommend close collaboration and partnership

between researchers and practitioners throughout the

whole process of identifying problems, consulting

literature, designing interventions, implementing and

assessing them (Anderson and Shattuck, 2012).

With this in mind, it was of benefit that the

researchers were also the instructional designers for

culturally inclusive MOOCs on Design Thinking.

The work was guided by the following research

questions:

 How did the MOOCs perform with regard to

addressing cultural diversity among learners?

 What are some of the practices that worked and

what are the areas for improvement?

In order to address these questions, we applied in-

depth qualitative interviews with diverse learners,

pre-and post-course surveys, as well as observations

from assignments and discussion forums. By

analyzing learner feedback and critically reflecting on

each MOOC, we were able to then improve the

succeeding MOOC. In the following we will briefly

describe the structure of each MOOC and the

instructional practices applied. We will also report on

learner feedback and the performance of each MOOC

regarding cultural inclusivity.

3.1 ProtoMOOC

In November 2016, we ran the ProtoMOOC with the

aim to experiment with various instructional

strategies and gather learner feedback. Therefore, we

recruited a limited number of international

participants through various channels (120 enrolled

learners). The main objective of this course was to

enable learners to identify inspirations and

opportunities for designing human-centered

solutions. Therefore, the focus was on introducing

two methods of Qualitative Interviewing and

Towards Culturally Inclusive MOOCs: A Design-based Approach

599

Observation. Table 1 provides an overview of the

structure of the ProtoMOOC.

Table 1: The structure of MOOC#1.

Week1

Video

Introduction game

Week 2

Video

Exercise

Peer-reviewed assignment

Week 3

Video

Exercise

Peer-reviewed assignment

Week 4

Wrap up

In the pre-course survey of the ProtoMOOC, we

asked participants to indicate their interest in taking

part in follow-up interviews. Our goal was to evaluate

how well the protoMOOC performed regarding

cultural inclusivity and which aspects needed

iteration and improvement for MOOC#1. In total, we

conducted 16 interviews with course participants,

nine of whom were international. Since the course

was offered by a German institute, those who had

lived for most of their lives outside of Germany were

considered international. The interviews were

conducted by three researchers and lasted between 30

and 60 minutes. The interviewees were from the

following countries: Chile (1) - France (1) - Iran (2) -

Russia (1) - The Netherlands (1) - Italy (1) - India (1)

- Kuwait (1). The interviews were conducted via

Skype or in person. Apart from the overall learning

experience and the platform, some questions focused

on the culturally inclusive aspects of the course. For

instance, interviewees were asked whether they found

any of the material offensive or culturally insensitive,

how they perceived the course in terms of addressing

cultural diversity, and whether there was any aspect

of the course that they found unclear or confusing.

And finally, we asked them to share their

recommendations for future improvements.

It is worth mentioning that the interviewees had

different levels of experience with Design Thinking

as well as with MOOCs. For instance, one

interviewee was completely new to MOOCs, whereas

another interviewee had been an instructional

designer of a MOOC on Design Thinking for two

years. This led to fruitful feedback on different

aspects of the course.

The first week was solely dedicated to learners

getting familiar with the learning platform. In order to

encourage cross-cultural interactions and create

opportunities for individuals to bring in their own

context to the course, we designed an introductory

game. Participants were asked to introduce

themselves by sharing a picture of three important

artefacts from their daily lives in the discussion forum

and explain their choices. Learners reacted positively

to this exercise conducted in the first week (44

learners participated in this exercise). This activity

sparked many conversations on the forum and

interactions continued until the final week. All

interviewees had a positive view of the first week and

the introductory game.

We made sure to use simple and clear language in

this MOOC. We refrained from using domain specific

jargons and tried to find simple synonyms when

needed. Surprisingly, the fact that the instructors were

not-native but fluent English speakers contributed to

the simple language of the course, something that was

even viewed as positive by one interviewee.

Short lecture videos (max. 6 min.) were used not

only to introduce a concept but also to show examples

of application of the concept in real life. We paid

close attention to visuals and examples used in the

videos and made sure to incorporate images and

references from around the globe (e.g. an example

from South Africa and France). Bringing in narratives

and individuals from different cultures helps students

to understand their commonalities as well as

differences among cultures (Huang, 2002). In

addition, we consciously refrained from referring to

characters and events that are only known to a

specific part of the world.

We followed Bonk et al.’s (2016)

recommendation and used visuals and images instead

of long text, both in video and written content. We

refrained from using content or instructional

messages – including text, images and phrases – that

could evoke unwanted emotional feedback from

students and eventually interfere with their learning.

In other words, we payed close attention to using

visuals and text that are culturally appropriate. Griffin

et al., (1995) point out how simple symbols can have

completely different, and sometimes offensive

interpretation, across cultures. Murrell (1998) also

warns about the use of icons and symbols of alcohol

(e.g. popping champagne) or animals as feedback

response in learning material.

While exercises were solely designed for the

purpose of practice – thus not graded – the two

qualitative assignments in the course were peer-

reviewed and graded. In designing assignments, we

followed Nkuyubwatsi’s (2014) recommendation and

enabled learners to make their learning relevant to

their own context by giving them freedom to choose

project topics and share examples from their

environment. The first peer-reviewed assignment

asked learners to take a picture of a creative solution

to a design problem (also known as Workaround)

from their own lives. The feedback showed that

giving students the freedom to choose project topics

and share with their peers is a good strategy for

CSEDU 2019 - 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

600

allowing students to contextualize their learnings.

However, through our observations and learner

feedback, we learned that only sharing a picture of a

Workaround from one context, might not suffice and

be confusing for peers to review, hence there is a risk

of undergrading by peers. In other words, a creative

and innovative solution in one context may be a

common practice in another.

In the second assignment, we offered three

interview topics and asked learners to pick one and to

conduct an interview. The challenge was to select

three topics that are relevant to different contexts.

Therefore, we asked ourselves the following

questions: Is this topic culturally insensitive to any

group? (e.g. dating in the digital age). Can everyone

relate to the topic regardless of their context? (e.g.

living in a shared flat). Does this topic exclude any

group? (e.g. gym membership). We discussed various

potential topics through the lens of these questions,

and finally picked the following three: visiting a new

city, packing and preparing for a trip, and first day on

a new job or at school. In this way we made sure that

the topics are relevant to different cultural and

professional settings (Nkuyubwatsi, 2014). For this

assignment, we designed a template that was visual

and helped learners to organize the tasks they were

required to execute.

Finally, the diversity among the team of

instructors was perceived as positive by learners. One

of the instructors was from Iran while the other two

were from Germany, and all three came from

different disciplines. We included our own unique

stories and experiences in the form of little anecdotes

within the course content (e.g. in the introduction

game at the beginning of the course).

3.2 MOOC#1

This MOOC was launched publicly on September

2017 with about 5000 participants. The structure and

the content remained the same. We continued with the

good practices from ProtoMOOC. The following

describes the iterations we made based on learner

feedback from ProtoMOOC.

We added subtitles to all videos and provided the

option to download the text of the presented content.

We also created a text summary of the content and

provided additional resources for those who prefer to

read more on a given topic.

Although allowing learners to contextualize their

learning through identifying a local Workaround and

sharing a picture with their peers proved to be a good

practice, we learned that allocating a space in the

assignment for learners to provide context and

reasoning alongside the image is important. This

resulted in less confusion and better peer reviews on

the assignment.

We introduced a visual time plan and changed the

assignment deadlines in the course. A common

practice in MOOCs – which are mostly designed in

the West – is to set deadlines on the weekend (e.g. on

Sundays). Whereas in several countries in the Middle

East, Friday is the day of rest. This was also

mentioned during the interviews with the

ProtoMOOC participants. Therefore, we set the

deadlines and the release date for each week’s

material to Thursdays. Thursday is close to the end of

the week for everyone and in this way, learners can

have a full weekend prior to each week’s deadline.

During the wrap-up week, we recorded a video

showcasing examples of learner submissions for the

assignments. We made sure to select submissions

from learners in different parts of the world in order

to represent the diversity in the course. Finally, we

asked learners to reflect on how they would apply

their learnings in their professional or daily lives and

share it on the forum.

In the post-course survey, we asked several

questions about the MOOC#1 performance with

regard to cultural inclusivity. The feedback was very

positive for these questions (see Appendix)

3.3 MOOC#2

This MOOC was launched on September 2018, and

had around 3500 participants. The topic of the MOOC

was Synthesis and Ideation. Table 2 shows the

structure of this MOOC.

Table 2: The structure of MOOC#2.

Week1

Video

Introduction game

Week2

Video

Exercise

Peer-reviewed assignment

Week 3

Video

Exercise

Week 4

Wrap up

We adjusted the structure of this MOOC to allow

for more learner flexibility. All content was made

accessible at once, and we offered only one

assignment that would cover both core topics of the

course. This approach proved to work better for our

learners.

To promote an environment of mutual respect

among learners (Ginsberg, 2005), we introduced a

short video about ethics and values that we, as

instructors wished to promote. This video covered

various topics, including mindfulness of diversity

within the course and emphasis on valuing peer

Towards Culturally Inclusive MOOCs: A Design-based Approach

601

feedback over grades. From MOOC#1 we realized

that encouraging constructive feedback in peer-

reviews, was an area for improvement. Moreover,

different cultures have different attitudes towards

feedback (Bailey et al., 1997). While direct feedback

may be deemed as valuable in one culture, in another

culture it may be perceived as impolite and thus

discouraging. Therefore, in this video we emphasized

how to provide constructive feedback along with

using the evaluation rubrics. In the post-course

survey, we asked participants to share their thoughts

about the video. Many mentioned it helped them with

providing feedback and focusing on learning rather

than grade. Some also found it valuable in raising

awareness about cultural sensitivity within the course.

The following quotes are two examples of learners’

feedback:

“This is the first time that I have seen this type of

video in a MOOC. I think it’s great to have considered

multicultural components that can represent a

MOOC”.

“I find the video helpful because it reminded me of

the different perceptions of critique in different

nations.”

Introducing this video led to less misunderstandings

and complaint reports from peer-reviews. Finally, in

order to offer multiple avenues to learners to interact

with the content, we created two podcasts that delved

deeper into the theories behind synthesis and ideation

in Design Thinking.

The post-course survey data shows a positive

perception of the overall performance of this MOOC

with regard to cultural inclusivity (see Appendix).

4 RECOMMENDATIONS

Applying design-based research allowed us to

experiment with various instructional practices and to

learn from students’ feedback. The approach of

testing a prototype version of the MOOC#1 with a

limited number of participants led to valuable

learnings. In order to gain insights about learners’

perspectives, we recommend testing the entire or

various aspects of the learning experience (e.g. a

template or an assignment) with a diverse group of

learners before publishing a MOOC.

Allowing learners to feel encouraged and

comfortable in sharing some aspects of their own

context in the course, is a good way to create a

learning community and an environment of mutual

respect. Based on our experience with using

introduction games, we recommend instructors to

initiate creative ways to start a MOOC. Allocating the

first week to getting familiar with the learning

environment and getting to know the community, is a

helpful way to ensure that learners from diverse

backgrounds and different levels of familiarity with

MOOCs would feel welcomed.

Designing assignments that encourage learners to

make meaning and construct knowledge in their own

context is an important attribute of culturally

responsive teaching (Kieran and Anderson, 2018). As

Nkuyubwatsi (2014) points out, instructors need to

make sure that not only learners relate to the course

from their own context or similar settings or see the

applications in respect to their professional or

everyday lives, but also that learners from various

cultural settings can relate to the content. This

requires instructors to think beyond what they are

familiar with. Our recommendation is to reach out to

people from different cultural backgrounds for

feedback on how well the content resonates with

them, and adjust if needed.

Peer-reviewed and project-based assignments that

offer learners freedom to choose the project topic they

deem relevant to their context, is a good practice

towards a culturally responsive learning experience

(Ginsberg, 2005). However, MOOC designers need

to pay attention to the risk of misinterpretations that

may occur due to lack of context-relevant knowledge

between peers, which may lead to poor or unfair

grading in peer-reviews. Thus, designing clear rubrics

and examples of their application is crucial.

Moreover, allocating space within the assignment for

learners to provide context and reasoning behind their

choices can help to avoid such problems.

Finally, Liyanagunawardena and Adams (2014)

point out the challenges of creating inclusive and

dynamic discussions in MOOCs; for instance,

something humorous in one context may be perceived

as offensive in another. Given that in MOOCs

learners from various cultures are engaging in the

dialogue, the risk of misunderstandings and conflicts

is higher than in a traditional classroom. Therefore,

instructors need to pay careful attention to facilitating

the dialogue and interactions in forums and reviews.

Moreover, we recommend that instructors explicitly

emphasize those behaviours and values that they wish

to promote in their MOOCs, through video or text.

The instructional practices we tested in these

MOOCs were informed by the literature and our

experiences. We are well-experienced in teaching

Design Thinking in international settings, and have

either studied or worked in different countries. The

instructors’ background and cultural sensitivity can

CSEDU 2019 - 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

602

be a valuable asset in designing inclusive MOOCs.

Therefore, forming instructional design teams with

diverse cultural backgrounds facilitates learning

experiences that resonate with diverse audience.

Although some of the recommended practices

may seem minor, such as changing the course

deadlines from ‘Western norms’, they send a strong

signal to the learners from diverse cultural contexts—

a signal that the course is designed with them in mind

and that they are welcome.

5 DISCUSSION

MOOCs have the great potential for reaching learners

from all corners of the world. However, if they are to

be effective, instructors need to step out from their

comfort zone and equip themselves with the

knowledge about cultural diversity beyond their own

context. We argue that MOOC designers face a great

but exciting challenge to explore creative ways to

reach out to their global audience from diverse

cultural backgrounds. With the ever-increasing

number of MOOCs and more universities jumping

onto the MOOC bandwagon, a good instruction needs

to go beyond transforming an existing lecture into a

compact online format.

Nkuyubwatsi (2014) points out, those who wish

to democratize education and transform people’s

lives in developing countries need to develop an

understanding of local challenges from the

perspective of local people. In other words, they

“need to empathise with local stakeholders”. Unless

MOOC designers embrace cultural diversity and try

to resonate with learners beyond their own context,

the bold mission of democratizing education will

have no meaning. Cultural responsiveness needs to be

present in all aspects of MOOC design, including

planning, design, delivery and assessment. Moreover,

besides the domain-related knowledge and skills,

instructors need to equip themselves with culturally

responsive teaching practices.

McLoughlin (2001) points out that the common

view on inclusivity is ‘deficit-driven’ – meaning that

international learners of diverse race, language and

ethnic backgrounds need to be brought up to the

‘normal’ standards by compensating for their

‘deficit’. While on the contrary, inclusivity is about

embracing differences and allowing for diverse

experiences to be expressed in teaching and learning

(Gallini and Zhang, 1997). Our experience shows that

celebrating diversity within MOOCs contributes to a

rich learning experience. We recommend MOOC

instructors to treat diversity as an important asset in

their instructional design process, rather than a

hurdle, and to take advantage of its potential for

designing innovative instructional practices. After all,

inclusivity is just part of a good pedagogy.

REFERENCES

Anderson, T. and Shattuck, J., 2012. Design-based

research: A decade of progress in education

research?. Educational researcher, 41(1), pp.16-25.

Bailey, J.R., Chen, C.C. and Dou, S.G., 1997. Conceptions

of self and performance-related feedback in the US,

Japan and China. Journal of International Business

Studies, 28(3), pp.605-625.

Bonk, C. J., Zhu, M., Sari, A., Kim, M., Sabir, N., & Xu, S.

(2016, November). Instructor Efforts to Address

Cultural Diversity in MOOC Design and

Application. Presentation at E-Learn 2016—World

Conference on E-Learning, Washington, DC.

Brown, M.R., 2007. Educating all students: Creating

culturally responsive teachers, classrooms, and

schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(1),

pp.57-62.

Chen, A.Y. and Mashhadi, A., 1998. Challenges and

Problems in Designing and Researching Distance

Learning Environments and Communities, Paper

presented at the 1

Malaysian Educational Research

Association (MERA) Conference, Penang, Malasia

Chen, A.Y., Mashhadi, A., Ang, D. and Harkrider, N.,

1999. Cultural issues in the design of technology‐

enhanced learning systems. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 30(3), pp.217-230.

Chita-Tegmark, M., Gravel, J.W., De Lourdes, M., Serpa,

B., Domings, Y. and Rose, D.H., 2011. Using the

universal design for learning framework to support

culturally diverse learners. Journal of Education,

pp.17-22.

Frechette, C., Layne, L.C., and Gunawardena, C.N., 2014.

Accounting for Culture in Instructional Design. In

Culture and Online Learning: Global Perspectives and

Research (pp. 54-66). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Gallini, J.K. and Zhang, Y.L., 1997. Socio-cognitive

constructs and characteristics of classroom

communities: An exploration of relationships. Journal

of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), pp.321-

339.

Gay, G., 2002. Preparing for culturally responsive

teaching. Journal of teacher education, 53(2), pp.106-

116.

Ginsberg, M.B., 2005. Cultural diversity, motivation, and

differentiation. Theory into practice, 44(3), pp.218-

225.

Goodfellow, R. and Lamy, M.N. eds., 2009. Learning

cultures in online education. A&C Black.

Griffin, R.E., Pettersson, R., Semali, L., and Takakuwa, Y.

(1995), “Using symbols in international business

presentations: How well are they understood? In

Beauchamp”, In Roberts, D.G., and Griffin, R.E.

Towards Culturally Inclusive MOOCs: A Design-based Approach

603

(Eds), Imagery and visual literacy: selected readings,

Loretto, PA: International Visual Literacy Association,

pp. 182-189.

Gu, Q. and Maley, A., 2008. Changing places: A study of

Chinese students in the UK. Language and

Intercultural Communication, 8(4), pp.224-245.

Hofstede, G., 1986. Cultural differences in teaching and

learning. International Journal of intercultural

relations, 10(3), pp.301-320.

Huang, H.J., 2002. Designing multicultural lesson

plans. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(4), pp.17-23.

Jung, I. and Gunawardena, C.N., eds., 2014, Culture and

online learning: Global perspectives and research.

Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Kieran, L. and Anderson, C., 2018. Connecting Universal

Design for Learning with Culturally Responsive

Teaching. Education and Urban Society,

p.0013124518785012.

Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Williams, S., and Adams, A.,

2013. The Impact and Reach of MOOCs: A Developing

Countries’ Perspective. eLearning Papers, 33, pp.38-

Mazoue, J.G., 2014. The MOOC model: Challenging

traditional education.

McLoughlin, C., 2001. Inclusivity and alignment:

Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for

effective cross‐cultural online learning. Distance

Education, 22(1), pp.7-29.

McLoughlin, C. and Oliver, R., 2000. Designing learning

environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of

indigenous online learning at tertiary

level. Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology, 16(1).

Meo, G., 2008. Curriculum planning for all learners:

Applying universal design for learning (UDL) to a high

school reading comprehension program. Preventing

School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and

Youth, 52(2), pp.21-30.

Murrell, K.A., 1998, July. Human computer interface

design in a multi-cultural multi-lingual environment.

In 13th Annual MSc and PhD Conference in Computer

Science (Vol. 1).

Nisbett, R.E., Peng, K., Choi, I. and Norenzayan, A., 2001.

Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic

cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), p.291.

Nkuyubwatsi, B., 2014. Cultural translation in massive

open online courses (MOOCs). eLearning Papers, 37,

pp.23-32.

Parrish, P. and Linder-VanBerschot, J., 2010. Cultural

dimensions of learning: Addressing the challenges of

multicultural instruction. The International Review of

Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(2),

pp.1-19.

Rogers, P.C., Graham, C.R. and Mayes, C.T., 2007.

Cultural competence and instructional design:

Exploration research into the delivery of online

instruction cross-culturally. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 55(2), pp.197-217.

Signorini, P., Wiesemes, R. and Murphy, R., 2009.

Developing alternative frameworks for exploring

intercultural learning: a critique of Hofstede's cultural

difference model. Teaching in Higher

Education, 14(3), pp.253-264.

Spronk, B., 2004. Addressing cultural diversity through

learner support. Learner support in open, distance and

online learning environments, pp.169-178.

Taheri, M., Mayer, L., von Schmieden, K. and Meinel, C.,

2018. The DT MOOC Prototype: Towards Teaching

Design Thinking at Scale. In Design Thinking

Research (pp. 217-237). Springer, Cham.

Wang, F. and Hannafin, M.J., 2005. Design-based research

and technology-enhanced learning

environments. Educational technology research and

development, 53(4), pp.5-23.

APPENDIX

The following two questions are examples of the

questions asked in post-curse survey to evaluate the

MOOCs’ performance with regard to cultural

inclusivity:

 How would you evaluate this course in terms

of cultural inclusivity? (10:very good, 1:very

poor)

 Was there any aspect of this course that you

found insensitive towards your own or any

other culture?

In MOOC#1, 529 learners submitted the survey. The

two following graphs demonstrate the evaluations of

the above-mentioned questions:

In MOOC#2, 285 learners submitted the survey. The

two following graphs demonstrate the evaluations of

the above-mentioned questions:

CSEDU 2019 - 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

604