Page - 145 - in Radical Solutions and Open Science - An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education

152 H.ChaandH.-J.So activities and contents according to their specific needs. Theydiscussed that open, flexible, and non-linear approaches, which are different from traditional learning with a linear progression, promoteSRL for highly intrinsicallymotivated learners. Theyalso suggested that the completion rateofMOOCsmightnot be the indicator ofMOOCqualityandvalue,andnewformsofevaluationcriteriaspecifictoMOOCs shouldbedeveloped. Overall, fromtheliteraturereviewonthe third integrationapproach, itwasfound that a diverse range of students has utilizedMOOCswith the purpose of informal ornon-formal learning.Thedemographicprofilesand learnerbehaviors inMOOCs shown in somecase studiesmay imply thatwell-educatedandyoungstudents con- siderMOOCsasacomplement to traditional formal learning.However, there isstill uncertaintyabouthowMOOCscanbe replacingor integrated into traditional class- rooms due to the characteristics of massiveness and flexibility (Marcus-Quinn& Clancy,2015).Suchflexibleopenlearningcontextsandmassivelearnershaveledto diverse teaching and learningpaths andmodels. Furthermore, asMOOCplatforms are rapidly growing around theworld, the diversity of learners, learning objective, and learningbehaviors arealsogettingexpanded. Due to such features,most research related to informal or non-formal learning throughMOOCswasconductedwithacasestudymethod.Recent literature tendsto dealwith the completion andSRLproblems inMOOCs (Marcus-Quinn&Clancy, 2015).Littlejohnet al. (2015) found thatoneof the importantpurposes,why learn- ers utilizeMOOCs, is to enjoy open and flexible learning experiences. The per- ceived reputation and effectiveness of MOOC contents similar to the traditional learningcontextsappeartomakelearnerscompletethecourseandincreaseretention (Alraimiet al. 2014;Hone&Said, 2016).Therefore, topromote informal andnon- formal learning throughMOOCs,openandflexible learningexperiences shouldbe strengthenedwithhigh-qualitycontents. 9.3.4 ComparisonBetweenIntegrationApproaches Someof thepreviousstudiescompareddifferent integrationapproaches. Josephand Nath (2013) conducted apilot study to compare formal and informal learningwith MOOCs.Akeydifferencewas found in the assignment completion rate thatwhile all participants in the formal learninggroup submitted at least partial assignments, only 32.5% in the informal learning group submitted partial assignments. Further- more, 71.4% in the formal learning group accomplished the coursewhile 7.6% in the informal learning group did. However, the number of students who received distinctionwas about the same: 5.7% in the formal group and 3.0% in the infor- malgroup.Gutiérrez-Santiuste,Gámiz-Sánchez,andGutiérrez-Pérez(2015)present comparativeanalyzesoftwointegrationapproaches:blendedlearningvs.non-formal learning.First, theycompared sociological, psychological, technical, andcognitive barriers that students perceived during blended learning and non-formal learning withMOOCs(seeTable9.7). Itwas found that thehighestbarrier students faced in