1. Needs Analysis of the Meetup Function Design for Massive Open Online Course Learners in Taiwan Wei-Ting Lin, Chao-Hsiu Chen, & Wei-I Lee

2. Massive open online course, MOOC Complete course includes course videos, syllabus, lecture notes, assignments, reading lists, reading materials, tests, and interaction Open free for registration, watching videos, downloading learning materials Coursera, edX

3. Massive open online course, MOOC MOOC vs. OCW course vs. courseware certification vs. non-credit collaborative learning vs. self learning A major difference between MOOC & OCW is “interaction”

4. Interactions in an online environment More interactions can enhance cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence (Moore, Masterson, Christophel, & Shea, 1996). Interactions increase learner satisfaction and learning effectiveness (Swan, 2002).

5. Interactions in an online environment However, interaction in online learning environments is often restricted by devices and technologies. Commonly used text-based technologies: discussion boards, short message services (SMS), e-mail, etc.

6. Interactions in an online environment Text-based technologies have less media richness than face-to-face conversation (Lan & Sie, 2010). F2F > Telephone > Text-based communication Media richness is a critical factor that influences user satisfaction in online environments (Simon & Peppas, 2004).

7. Interactions in an online environment From computer-mediated communication to face-to- face: Meetup

8. Interactions in an online environment Is the Meetup design useful to Taiwan learners?

9. Method Reviewing relevant research and Coursera Meetup to form a basic design. Analyzing learners’ needs and attitudes toward face-to- face discussion. (Survey: 62 participants) Interviewing 3 online learners and 1 professor who had incorporate OCW materials to his instruction.

10. Results (b) Is it hard to you to post and describe learning questions on discussion board? (c) Is it hard to you to reply and answer others’ questions on discussion board? (a) 87.1% of the participants prefer face-to-face discussion to computer-mediated communication

11. Results (e) Willingness of face-to- face discussion with other learners; some learners are your familiar friends (d) Willingness of face-to- face discussion with other learners you don’t familiar

12. Results (f) Willingness of face-to- face discussion with other learners who are all your familiar friends. Taiwan learners are shy!

13. Results Interviewees’ suggestions: – Function allows users to set group criteria such as “groups only visible to friends”, “groups only visible to MOOC classmates”, and “groups only visible to learners who had joined the same group(s) with me.” – Learners should be able to remain anonymous if they look for help from someone they don’t know. – Every user has a personal reputation score which gets higher if the user frequently helps others. – History logs.

14. Scenario 1 A student used his mobile device to learn statistics, and he encountered a problem about ANOVA.

15. Scenario 2 Several students taking “Introduction to Computer Science” wanted to start a scheduled study group.

16. Scenario 3 A businessman was waiting for his flight at the airport. He used mobile phone, launched the MOOC-meetup and clicked “Who’s around?” to search other users with the same learning interests.

17. Conclusion 1.Learners prefer face-to-face discussion to computer- mediated communication. 2.Learners prefer joining a learning group with people they know. 3.Learners prefer setting the criteria to screen group members. 4.The function should include history logs of meet-up groups and participants.

18. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

19. References 1.An, Y.-J., & Frick, T. (2006). Student Perceptions of Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication in Face-to-Face Courses. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 485-499. 2.Balaji, M. S., & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student Interactions in Online Discussion Forum: Empirical Research from 'Media Richness Theory' Perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1). 3.Carson, S. (2009). The unwalled garden: growth of the OpenCourseWare Consortium,2001-2008. Open Learning, 24(1), 23-29. 4.Dyson, L. E., Litchfield, A., Lawrence, E., Raban, R., & Leijdekkers, P. (2009). Advancing the m-learning research agenda for active, experiential learning: Four case studies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 250-267. 5.Hiltz, S. R. (1997). The Impact of Online Assessment on Grades in Community College Distance Education Mathematics Courses. Journal Of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(2), 1-19. 6.Lan, Y.-F., & Sie, Y.-S. (2010). Using RSS to support mobile learning based on media richness theory. Computers & Education, 55(1), 723-732. 7.Meetup.com. (2012a). edX global community, from http://www.meetup.com/edX-Global-Community/http://www.meetup.com/edX-Global-Community/ 8.Meetup.com. (2012b). Official Coursera Meetup Channel, from http://www.meetup.com/Coursera/http://www.meetup.com/Coursera/ 9.Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., & Shea, K. A. (1996). College teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45(1), 29-39. 10.Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49, 581-596. 11.Simon, S. J., & Peppas, S. C. (2004). An examination of media richness theory in product Web site design: an empirical study. info, 6(4), 270-281. 12.Song, Y. (2009). Handheld Educational Applications: A Review of the Research. 13.Swan, K. (2002). Building Learning Communities in Online Courses: the importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49. 14.Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students' decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 115-127.