Students' Technology Competency Levels for Online Learning Using MOOCs During the COVID-19 Pandemic

(1)

Students' Technology Competency Levels for Online Learning Using MOOCs During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Ruslina Ibrahim¹, Fatin Nabilah Wahid^1,2*, Helmi Norman¹, Norazah Nordin¹, Harun Baharudin¹, Mohd Amzari Tumiran²

1 Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia

2 Akademi Pengajian Islam Kontemporari, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Accepted: 15 December 2021 | Published: 31 December 2021

DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ijares.2021.3.4.15

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstrak: This study was conducted with the aim of identifying technological competencies of students who use Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) as an online learning platform during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected using online surveys with 1162 undergraduates. Descriptive analysis was performed on the data obtained. The results of the data analysis and discussion have been made and it can be concluded that the level of technical competence, social competence with instructors and classmates as well as communication proficiency among students using MOOC learning is at a high level.

Keywords: Online learning, MOOC, technology competency, COVID-19

___________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all sectors around the world. The administration and management of the education sector is also affected by this and has an impact on the smooth teaching and learning methods of students. According to data collected by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), a total of 320 million classes were closed on December 1 and increased to nearly 90 million from 232 million on November 1 (UNESCO, 2020). Prolonged school closures as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic present unprecedented challenges for the education system, as well as students around the world (World Health Organization [WHO], 2020). This situation also affects the education system at the tertiary level. In Malaysia, the action taken by the government to implement the Movement Control Order (PKP) for the control of this pandemic caused the operation of face -to -face teaching and learning in all educational institutions to be delayed (Ministry of Higher Education, 2020). The face -to -face and blended lecture system is converted to a fully online learning mode that allows educators and students to continue their teaching and learning activities using technology. Online learning can be termed as a tool that can make the teaching- learning process more student-centered, more innovative and flexible (Singh & Thurman, 2019).

In Malaysia, a blended-based education system has been implemented through the National e- Learning Policy (DePaN) whereby all courses in public universities are required to integrate blended learning (Nordin et al., 2016). These changes have led to some significant changes to the roles of students and educators as well as changes to the education system through digital

(2)

learning platforms (Khalil et al., 2020). The transformation introduced is to replace the concept of traditional learning in line with the Malaysian Education Development Plan (Higher Education) 2015-2025 (KPT, 2021) with its main leap which is online learning at the global level. Thus, this desire is also in line with the characteristics of the industry revolution for the maximum use of technology through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC).

2. Literature Review

2.1 Technology Competency

Technological developments are rapidly changing the methods of learning and teaching. These changes include not only access to a variety of digital devices in the classroom, but also a growing emphasis on preparing teachers and students to use technology effectively (Wang &

Lu, 2021). Technological competence is the ability to use and evaluate digital resources, tools and services correctly, and apply them to the lifelong learning process. Students ’understanding of the types of technological competencies is intended to make students act productively, and ethically in a learning environment (Falloon, 2020).

Students, who are typically teenagers have become accustomed to technology and multimedia elements such as video and audio (Kapi et al., 2017). Murugan et al. (2017) suggested that students are now at an appropriate level to use technology in learning. However, live streaming learning such as Zoom, has been reported to have a negative impact on students and made them less inclined to collaborate directly (Lloyd-Jones, 2021). This situation is believed to be due to the fact that there are a handful of students who are stressed and anxious when studying online especially to those with low levels of technological and communication competence (Espino et al., 2021). This situation illustrates that there are a number of students who are not yet ready to use online learning technology fully (Adams et al., 2018). However, Baranova et al. (2020) explained that students will be positive and motivated towards online learning if the learning uses an appropriate online platform. Thus, the use of appropriate platforms will affect the level of achievement and interest of students.

2.2 Competence in learning using MOOCs

Access to learning through MOOCs is increasing with the involvement of various institutions and academics comprising various experts in the field both locally and abroad. The flexible design and openness found in MOOCs can attract more participants to sign up, making MOOCs have a larger scale of users and implemented worldwide across multiple networks and platforms, as well as unlimited engagement for individuals (Adzhar et al., 2017). Learning using MOOCs can train a variety of value-added skills that are beneficial to students. Among them are thinking skills, communication skills, time management, besides being able to discipline students (Hakala et al., 2017), even learning through online platforms can be done without requiring the involvement of a person in physical form. Thus, teaching and learning sessions can be conducted not only physically but digitally and online (Allen & Seaman, 2014).

According to Adzhar et al. (2017) also, the pedagogical concepts applied in MOOCs are different from other online learning. The main aspect that is emphasized in this online course is the content of the learning materials that are appropriate according to the needs of the students as well as the expected learning outcomes of a MOOC course implemented. Indirectly, this online learning method can also save learning costs (Hakala et al., 2017).

In fact, various other positive impacts can be seen through online learning through the MOOC platform. For example, interactions in MOOCs emphasize conducive relationships between students with students as well as students with educators (Abeer & Miri, 2014; Zheng et al.,

(3)

2015; Chua et al., 2015; Khalil & Ebner, 2015). Thus, through MOOCs, students are able to interact, discuss, share information and further expand knowledge with course partners (Islam et al., 2017; Hakala et al., 2017). They can also share views and ideas (Cole & Timmerman, 2015). In addition, the tutor-like concept found in MOOCs allows students to interact personally with instructors (Adam et al., 2014) and seek help from instructors at any time when needed (Bruff et al., 2013; Abeer & Miri, 2014). This can help to overcome the problem of insufficient teaching delivery time (Saleh & Siraj, 2017).

Moreover, the implementation of online forums in the MOOC platform is problem solving in aspects of communication skills, helps interpersonal competence, and strengthens leadership skills among students (Andersen et al., 2018; Norman et al., 2019; Wahid et al., 2019 ). This method of learning through forum techniques in MOOCs also allows students to provide feedback and have the opportunity to discuss online with fellow students involved (Chang &

Kang, 2016) naturally and there is no need to be afraid or embarrassed to give opinions ( Jowett, 2015). Through traditional methods, a large number of students will make it difficult for them to determine how to interact, and provide appropriate feedback (Arguello et al., 2015). This problem is closely related to emotional factors such as fear as well as uncertainty in decision making (Sani et al., 2016). Motivation or desire plays an important role in improving students

’decision to ask or not ask questions. When a discussion forum is simple and there is no pressure to implement then it can contribute to improved outcomes in learning (Vellukunnel et al., 2017). However, through the application of online forums through MOOCs gives students the opportunity to overcome such negative factors (Jowett, 2015).

In fact, online learning and teaching using the MOOC platform also simplifies the learning and learning process that takes place. Technologies used in MOOCs such as video which is a combination of several techniques presented by teachers contain descriptions and activities in videos such as, quizzes and assignments (Kovacs, 2016) diversify educator teaching techniques. In fact, according to Mohammadian et al. (2018) this way helps students to understand lecture videos especially courses that have complex and difficult content, thus this makes learning sessions more conducive and learning outcomes achieved (Vellukunnel et al., 2017).

Therefore, this study emphasizes the following research questions:

i. i. What is the level of student competence in technology and MOOCs?

ii. ii. To what extent is the level of social competence of students in the online learning environment through MOOCs?

3. Methodology

Data were collected using survey research method to the target group. The survey approach using a set of online questionnaires was administered by involving cross -faculty tertiary students (n = 1162). This developed instrument has been evaluated from validity and reliability through expert analysis, and includes three parts namely; (A) the background of the respondent which includes the readiness of the technology possessed; (B) Social competence with instructors; (C) Social competence with classmates and; (D) Communication Efficiency. The questionnaire for the technology literacy level of these students was adapted from the Yu &

Richardson (2015) questionnaire. All variables in Sections B, C and D use a Likert scale of 1 to 5. The variables that have been analyzed descriptively are displayed (Table 2 to Table 6).

(4)

4. Discussion and Conclusion

The findings of this study involve several constructs namely i. technical competence, ii. social competence with instructors, iii. social competence with classmates, and iv. communication competencies were studied to find out the level of readiness of students to use MOOCs.

Table 1: Demography

Item Yes No

Have a computer/ laptop/ smartphone. 1149 13

Has access to the internet. 1131 31

Based on the data displayed (Table 1), almost all respondents have a computer or smartphone (n = 1149) and have access to the internet (n = 1131). However, there are still a handful of respondents who still do not have a computer or smartphone (n = 13) people and do not have access to the internet (n = 31).

Table 2: Level of technical competence

No. Item SDA DA N A SA

1 2 3 4 5

1. I am confidence in using computer technology for specific tasks 9 62 371 519 200 2. I have skills in various computer technologies. 13 104 514 418 112

3. I am comfortable of using a computer 29 92 347 457 236

4. I know the benefits of using technology in learning 22 86 394 494 165 5. I am able to integrate technology with the learning process 22 112 418 468 141 6. I am motivated to learn to use computer technology 89 189 415 337 132

*SDA= Strongly Disagree; DA= Disagree; N=Neutral; S=Agree; SS= Strongly Agree

The level of technical competence required by students in preparation for online learning is displayed (Table 2). The results showed that students felt comfortable (n = 693), confident (n

= 719) and proficient (n = 530) using technology. Students are also able to integrate computer technology into learning activities (n = 609) and can explain the benefits of using computer technology in learning (n = 659). The technical competence of these students is in line with the findings of Kapi et al. (2017) who explained, today’s teenagers, who belong to the “Z”

generation, have become accustomed to technology and multimedia elements such as video and audio. In addition, learning using technology is able to motivate students and be active in the learning system (n = 469). This view is also supported by Saleh and Siraj (2017).

Table 3: Level of social competence with instructors

1 2 3 4 5

1. I am able to ask questions 50 172 439 379 122

2. I am able to start a discussion 47 157 434 400 124

3. I am able to get learning help 30 108 414 448 162

4. I am able to report an unexpected issue 31 74 360 480 217

5. I am able to submit an opinion 41 115 452 414 140

The findings explain that the social competence of students with instructors is at a high level (Table 3). Through the MOOC students can ask questions clearly to the instructor (n = 927) and can start a discussion (n = 946). This group of students felt comfortable asking questions and even asking for help with the instructor online. However, there are students who feel less comfortable to ask questions to the instructor (n = 222) and give opinions (n = 156) and start discussions (n = 204). The social competence of students and instructors is at a high level.

Through the MOOC students can ask questions clearly to the instructor and can start a

(5)

discussion. MOOCs act to replace face -to -face lectures between instructors and their students.

This approach is the most important interaction to connect and explain each thing. In this regard, Bruff et al., (2013); Abeer and Miri (2014) also agree by stating that through MOOCs students can get help from instructors and a "massive" learning community at any time when needed.

Table 4: Level of social competence with coursemates

1 2 3 4 5

1. I am able to build friendships with classmate 83 146 381 365 187 2. I am able to pay attention to the social activities of other students 38 133 426 420 145 3. I am proficient in different social interactions according to the

situation

38 133 426 420 145 4. I am able to initiate social interactions with classmates 56 138 408 403 157 5. I am able to interact socially with other students well 58 142 410 395 157

Next, the level of social competence with coursemates required for online learning is displayed (Table 4). This group of students was able to build friendships (n = 548) and pay attention to social activities with other classmates (n = 453). In addition, this group was able to use their social interaction skills (n = 560) and could initiate interactions (n = 555) as well as could interact socially with classmates well (n = 548). However, there are a few students who are not able to build friendships (n = 224) and can not pay attention to the social activities of other students (n = 277). This situation is expected to occur because they are not able to use different social interaction skills (n = 167) to initiate interactions (n = 190) and interact socially with other students well (n = 197). For social competence with coursemates, MOOCs feature unlimited openness and student involvement. With MOOCs students can exchange views and help each other. In terms of sharing information and materials, students can exchange and share information and materials with other students, in addition to being able to build friendships with teammates. This method is also mentioned by Islam et al. (2017); Hakala et al. (2017) where online learning facilitates such communities to meet and interact with each other in a virtual form. These findings can also be linked to the study of Norman et al. (2015) where online learning is linked to the “ladder of participation and mastering” (Ryberg & Christiansen, 2008) and the “continuum for roles of social participation in mobile social media learning.”

Their study found that online students will go through several phases in learning through

"apprenticeship learning" where students will begin as "lurker" (students who see and do not give input in the discussion) to "coach" (students who have reached the level of

"apprenticeship" ”High and capable of teaching other students).

Table 5: Level of communication competence

1 2 3 4 5

1. I am comfortable expressing my opinion in writing to others. 43 124 420 407 165 2. I am comfortable responding to other people’s ideas. 22 104 460 449 127 3. I am able to express my opinion in writing so that others

understand what I mean.

42 107 470 415 128 4. I give constructive and proactive feedback to others even when I

disagree.

22 97 530 403 110

Subsequent data (Table 5) showed that students felt comfortable expressing their opinions in writing to others (n = 572) and also responding to other people's ideas (n = 576) as well as being able to express their opinions in writing, so that others understood what they mean (n =

(6)

543). In addition, students were able to give constructive and proactive feedback to others even if there were disagreeing views (n = 513). However, there are a few students who have a low level of communication competence and are not interested in giving opinions or feedback to others. These findings can be linked to the study of Deshpande and Chukhlomin (2017) where the level of motivation for learning and MOOC can be linked to factors such as support from students and instructors, learning materials, navigation, interactivity, visual design and self - assessment. The study also found that the level of students' communication towards learning by MOOC was able to help them interact socially with other students better. Students can also develop their ideas and communicate their views to other groups through relevant social engagement (Abeer & Miri, 2014; Zheng et al., 2015; Chua et al., 2015; Khalil & Ebner, 2015;

Cole & Timmerman, 2015; Alshehri. , 2015).

Table 6: Level of technological competence of students based on gender and level of education

Item Categories Frequency Scale of

average

(a)

Has a high level of technical

competence

Gender Male 187 ^Agree

Female 426.5 ^Agree

Level of education

Certificate 39 ^Agree

Diploma 146 ^Agree

Bachelor's Degree 414.3 ^Agree Master's Degree 14.1 ^Agree

(b)

Have a high level of social

competence with instructors

Gender Male 169.4 Neutral

Female 426.5 ^Agree

Level of education

Certificate 43.8 ^Agree

Diploma 127.4 Neutral

Bachelor's Degree 391.8 Neutral Master's Degree 14.2 ^Agree

(c)

Have a high level of social

competence with friends

Gender Male 161 Neutral

Female 426.5 ^Agree

Level of education

Certificate 43.2 ^Agree

Diploma 139 ^Agree

Bachelor's Degree 340 Neutral Master's Degree 15.2 ^Agree

(d)

Has a high level of communication competence

Gender Male 160.7 Neutral

Female 426.5 ^Agree

Level of education

Certificate 40 ^Agree

Diploma 124.5 Neutral

Bachelor's Degree 369.75 Neutral Master's Degree 16.75 ^Agree

Subsequent findings indicate the level of competence of students to socialize and communicate using technology (Table 6). A total of 1162 students, 349 were male and 813 were female. The majority of students' Education levels are Bachelor's Degree (n = 820) followed by Diploma (n

= 258), Certificate (n = 61) and the least are Master's Degree students (n = 23). Based on the above findings, the majority of students have a high level of technical competence, but students have a neutral view on their level of social and communication competence. As for the level of social competence with the instructor, female students agreed compared to male students who were only neutral at this level of competence. As for the level of education, all students with different educational levels have agreed on their technical competencies. However, only certification and Master's Degree students have high levels of competence for all levels of competence.

(7)

Thus, learning using MOOCs has the potential to increase the level of online student-centered learning especially when institution closures are due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the exposure of technology tools and students' positive perception of social skills using technology in learning is relevant because the concept of MOOC learning can not only help students to learn collaboratively, but also make learning more effective and interesting. However, further studies can examine in more depth the positive and negative effects of a longer and

“longitudinal” nature for the monitoring of learning in terms of digital citizenship and digital addiction to technology as well as MOOCs (Norman et al., 2019).

Rujukan

Abeer, W., & Miri, B. (2014). Students’ preferences and views about learning in a MOOC.

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 318-323.

Adams, D., Sumintono, B., Mohamed, A., & Noor, N. S. M. (2018). E-learning readiness among students of diverse backgrounds in a leading Malaysian higher education institution. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 227-256.

Adams, C., Yin, Y., Vargas Madriz, L. F., & Mullen, C. S. (2014). A phenomenology of learning large: the tutorial sphere of xMOOC video lectures. Distance Education, 35(2), 202-216. doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.917701.

Adzhar, H., Khalid, F., & Karim, A. A. (2017). Penggunaan massive open online course (MOOC) sebagai kaedah pembelajaran baharu. Pembelajaran abad ke-21: Trend integrasi teknologi, 179-188.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade Change: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.

Alshehri, F. (2015). The Perceptions of MOOCs Learners. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, 6(10), 550-552.

Andersen, B. L., Na-songkhla, J., Hasse, C., Nordin, N., & Norman, H. (2018). Perceptions of authority in a massive open online course: An intercultural study. International Review of Education, 64(2), 221-239.

Arguello, J., & Shaffer, K. (2015, April). Predicting speech acts in MOOC forum posts. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 9, No. 1).

Baranova, T., Kobicheva, A., & Tokareva, E. (2020). The Impact of an Online Intercultural Project on Students’ Cultural Intelligence Development. In Knowledge in the Information Society (pp. 219-229). Springer, Cham.

Bruff, D. O., Fisher, D. H., McEwen, K. E., & Smith, B. E. (2013). Wrapping a MOOC: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 187.

Chang, B., & Kang, H. (2016). Challenges facing group work online. Distance Education, 37(1), 73-88.

Cole, A. W., & Timmerman, C. E. (2015). What do current college students think about MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 188-201. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104081

Deshpande, A., & Chukhlomin, V. (2017). What makes a good MOOC: A field study of factors impacting student motivation to learn. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(4), 275-293.

Dogan, H., Norman, H., Alrobai, A., Jiang, N., Nordin, N., & Adnan, A. (2019). A Web-Based Intervention for Social Media Addiction Disorder Management in Higher Education:

Quantitative Survey Study. Journal of medical Internet research, 21(10), e14834.

(8)

Dotti Sani, G. M., & Treas, J. (2016). Educational gradients in parents' child‐care time across countries, 1965–2012. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(4), 1083-1096.

Espino, D. P., Wright, T., Brown, V. M., Mbasu, Z., Sweeney, M., & Lee, S. B. (2021, February). Student Emotions in the Shift to Online Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic. In International Conference on Quantitative Ethnography (pp. 334-347).

Springer, Cham.

Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2449- 2472.

Hakala, H., Niemi, L., & Kohtamäki, M. (2017). Online brand community practices and the construction of brand legitimacy. Marketing Theory, 17(4), 537-558.

Islam, M. A., Agarwal, N. K., & Ikeda, M. (2017). Effect of knowledge management on service innovation in academic libraries. IFLA Journal, 43(3), 266-281.

Jowett, A. (2015). A case for using online discussion forums in critical psychological research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(3), 287-297.

Kapi, A. Y., Osman, N., Ramli, R. Z., & Taib, J. M. (2017). Multimedia education tools for effective teaching and learning. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering, 9(2-8), 143-146.

Khalil, A. A., Othman, M. K. H., & Saidon, M. K. (2020). Memacu Pendidikan di Era Revolusi Industri 4.0: Penerapan Nilai-nilai Islam dan Inovasi dalam Pengajaran di Institusi Pengajian Tinggi. Islāmiyyāt, 42, 13-20.

Khalil, M., & Ebner, M. (2015, June). Learning analytics: principles and constraints. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 1789-1799). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Kovacs, G. (2016, April). Effects of in-video quizzes on MOOC lecture viewing.

In Proceedings of the third (2016) ACM conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 31-40).

KPT. (2020). Penangguhan Pendaftaran Secara Fizikal/Bersemuka Pelajar Ipt Kemasukan Oktober 2020. Retrieved from https://www.mohe.gov.my/en/media-mohe/press- statement/1376-penangguhan-pendaftaran-secara-fizikal-bersemuka-pelajar-ipt kemasukan-oktober-2020

KPT. (2021). Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2015-2025 (Pendidikan Tinggi).

Retrieved from https://Www.Mohe.Gov.My/En/Pppm-Pt

Lloyd-Jones, B. (2021). Developing Competencies for Emotional, Instrumental, and Informational Student Support During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Human Relations/Human Resource Development Approach. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 23(1), 41-54.

Mohammadian, A., Saed, A., & Shahi, Y. (2018). The effect of using video technology on improving reading comprehension of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(2), 17-23.

Murugan, A., Sai, G. T. B., & Lin, A. L. W. (2017). Technological Readiness of UiTM students in Using Mobile Phones in their English Language Classroom. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 51-67.

Nordin, N., Norman, H., & Embi, M. A. (2015). Technology Acceptance of Massive Open Online Courses in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 17(2).

Norman, H., Nordin, N., Din, R., Ally, M., & Dogan, H. (2015). Exploring the roles of social participation in mobile social media learning: A social network analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(4), 205-224.

Norman, H., Nordin, N., Yunus, M. M., Hashim, H., & Adnan, N. H. (2019). 16 Retention Rates in MOOCs. The Impact of MOOCs on Distance Education in Malaysia and Beyond, 38, 196.

(9)

Ryberg, T., & Christiansen, E. (2008). Community and social network sites as technology enhanced learning environments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(3), 207- 219.

Saleh, M. P., & Siraj, S. (2017). Analisis keperluan pembangunan model pengajaran M- Pembelajaran mata pelajaran Sejarah sekolah menengah. JuKu: Jurnal Kurikulum &

Pengajaran Asia Pasifik, 4(4), 12-24.

Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4), 289-306.

UNESCO. (2020). COVID-19 Impact on Education. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/covid19/ educationresponse

Vellukunnel, M., Buffum, P., Boyer, K. E., Forbes, J., Heckman, S., & Mayer-Patel, K. (2017, March). Deconstructing the discussion forum: Student questions and computer science learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 603-608).

Wang, Y., & Lu, H. (2021). Validating items of different modalities to assess the educational technology competency of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 162, 104081.

Wahid, F. N., Norman, H., Nordin, N., Baharudin, H., Aziz, R., & Ibrahim, R. (2019).

Designing an Online Quranic Recitation (Qirā’āt) Framework Using Massive Open Online Courses. Creative Education, 10(12), 3153-3162.

WHO. (2020). The World Health Organization, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.

Retrieved from https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019 Yu, T., & Richardson, J. C. (2015). Examining reliability and validity of a Korean version of

the Community of Inquiry instrument using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 45-52.

Zheng, B., Niiya, M., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Wikis and collaborative learning in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 357-374.