Skip to main content
Log in

Promoting Learners’ Voice Productions Using Chatbots as a Tool for Improving the Learning Process in a MOOC

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The globally widespread instant messaging (IM) mobile applications such as WhatsApp or Telegram were not originally educational tools, but they have become platforms for peer to peer assessment (P2P). The IM applications offer “chatbots” or “virtual assistant bots” that help students by providing them a multitude of services in the form of text or voice dialogs. A new method for integrating P2P assessment using voice recordings with the help of a chatbot is proposed. By using this system we can effectively improve both the typical learning and the P2P evaluation process of a massive open on-line course (MOOC). After a 2-month experiment, with 77 students that recorded 737 voice answers with a Telegram based chatbot, we describe in detail how to use a chatbot and the way to design voice-based challenges to perform a new kind of assignment in a MOOC, with 90% of the learners encouraging us to use chatbots in future courses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See https://bitbucket.org/juananpe/retosmoocsbot/src/master/.

  2. See https://github.com/akalongman/php-telegram-bot.

References

  • Acosta, E. S., & Otero, J. J. E. (2014). Clasificación de medios de evaluación en los MOOC. Edutec Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2014.48.137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Admiraal, W., Huisman, B., & Van de Ven, M. (2014). Self-and peer assessment in massive open online courses. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(3), 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahn, J., Watson, P., Chang, M., Sundararajan, S., Ma, T., Mukhi, N., et al. (2017). Wizard’s apprentice: Cognitive suggestion support for wizard-of-Oz question answering. In E. André, R. Baker, X. Hu, M. M. T. Rodrigo, & B. du Boulay (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 630–635). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Al-lmari, L., Yang, J., & Pimlott, N. (2016). Peer-support writing group in a community family medicine teaching unit: Facilitating professional development. Canadian Family Physician Médecin de Famille Canadien, 62(12), 724–730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benotti, L., Martinez, M. C., & Schapachnik, F. (2018). A tool for introducing computer science with automatic formative assessment. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2017.2682084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bii, P. K., Too, J. K., & Mukwa, C. W. (2018/00/00). Teacher attitude towards use of chatbots in routine teaching. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(7), 1586–1597. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brixey, J., Hoegen, R., Lan, W., Rusow, J., Singla, K., Yin, X., Artstein, R., & Leuski, A. (2017). Shihbot: A facebook chatbot for sexual health information on hiv/aids. In Proceedings of the 18th annual SIGdial meeting on discourse and dialogue (pp. 370–373). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-5544

  • Briz-Ponce, L., & Juanes-Méndez, J. A. (2015). Mobile devices and apps, characteristics and current potential on learning. Journal of Information Technology Research, 8(4), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.4018/JITR.2015100102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briz-Ponce, L., Pereira, A., Carvalho, L., Juanes-Méndez, J. A., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). Learning with mobile technologies—Students’ behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 612–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerwall, P., & Lundvall, A. (2016). Ericsson mobility report on the pulse of the networked society. https://www.ericsson.com/assets/local/mobilityreport/documents/2016/ericsson-mobility-report-november2016.pdf. 23 May 2019.

  • Chao, T., Chen, J., Star, J. R., & Dede, C. (2016). Using digital resources for motivation and engagement in learning mathematics: Reflections from teachers and students. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 2(3), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-016-0024-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M., & Decary, M. (2019). Embedding health literacy tools in patient EHR portals to facilitate productive patient engagement. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 257, 59–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. A., Metcalf, S. J., & Tutwiler, M. S. (2014). Motivation and beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge within an immersive virtual ecosystems environment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conole, G. (2014). A new classification schema for MOOCs. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 65–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalipi, F., Imran, A. S., Idrizi, F., & Aliu, H. (2017). An analysis of learner experience with MOOCs in mobile and desktop learning environment. In J. I. Kantola, T. Barath, S. Nazir, & T. Andre (Eds.), Advances in human factors, business management, training and education (pp. 393–402). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42070-7_36.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubosson, F., Schaer, R., Savioz, R., & Schumacher, M. (2017). Going beyond the relapse peak on social network smoking cessation programmes: ChatBot opportunities. Swiss Medical Informatics, 33(00).

  • Elmasri, D., & Maeder, A. (2016). A conversational agent for an online mental health intervention. In International conference on brain and health informatics (pp. 243–251). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47103-7_24.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eranki, K. L. N., & Moudgalya, K. M. (2016). Comparing the effectiveness of self-learning Java workshops with traditional classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity 2002 (December). https://doi.org/10.1145/764008.763957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fryer, L. K., Nakao, K., & Thompson, A. (2019). Chatbot learning partners: Connecting learning experiences, interest and competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galiamova, K., Pavlov, Y., Smirnova, E., Zakharov, M., & Zverev, A. (2018). Psychological adaptation mechanism of the higher education engineering students: Artificial conversational entity usage for help. In Proceedings of INTED2018 (pp. 3472–3476).

  • Gallagher, S. E., & Savage, T. (2016). Comparing learner community behavior in multiple presentations of a massive open online course. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(3), 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9124-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González, C. (2010). What do university teachers think eLearning is good for in their teaching? Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graf, B., Krüger, M., Müller, F., Ruhland, A., & Zech, A. (2015). Nombot: Simplify food tracking. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia. ACM, New York, NY, USA, MUM’15 (pp. 360–363). https://doi.org/10.1145/2836041.2841208.

  • Güler, Ç. (2017). Use of WhatsApp in higher education: What’s Up with assessing peers anonymously? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(2), 272–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116667359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imran, A. S., & Kowalski, S. J. (2014). HIP—A technology-rich and interactive multimedia pedagogical platform. In P. Zaphiris & A. Ioannou (Eds.), Learning and collaboration technologies: Designing and developing novel learning experiences (pp. 151–160). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07482-5_15.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ismail MH (2015) ELISA: E-learning integrated short announcement. In Colloquium in computer and mathematical sciences education (pp. 110–114).

  • Kim, J., Glassman, E. L., Monroy-Hernández, A., & Morris, M. R. (2015). RIMES: Embedding interactive multimedia exercises in lecture videos. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, CHI’15 (pp. 1535–1544). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702186

  • Kim, T., My, Y., Bae, J., Ba, M., Lee, I., & Kim, J. (2017). Escape from infinite freedom: Effects of constraining user freedom on the prevention of dropout in an online learning context. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopfenstein, L. C., Delpriori, S., Malatini, S., & Bogliolo, A. (2017). The rise of bots: A survey of conversational interfaces, patterns, and paradigms. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on designing interactive systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, DIS’17 (pp. 555–565). https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064672

  • Kowatsch, T., Volland, D., Shih, I., Rüegger, D., Künzler, F., Barata, F., Filler, A., Büchter, D., Brogle, B., & Heldt, K. (2017). Design and evaluation of a mobile chat app for the open source behavioral health intervention platform mobilecoach. In International conference on design science research in information systems (pp. 485–489). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59144-5_36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L. M. T. M., Yong, G. B., Fiona, P. J. C., & Amin, S. B. M. (2011). Digital natives learning the periodic table via Microsoft network instant messaging. In I. C. Torres, L. G. Chova & A. L. Martinez (Eds.) 4th International conference of education, research and innovation (pp. 5459–5467).

  • Lisetti, C., Amini, R., & Yasavur, U. (2015). Now all together: Overview of virtual health assistants emulating face-to-face health interview experience. KI-Künstliche Intelligenz, 29(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-015-0357-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202–227. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maringe, F., & Sing, N. (2014). Teaching large classes in an increasingly internationalising higher education environment: Pedagogical, quality and equity issues. Higher Education, 67(6), 761–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meek, S. E., Blakemore, L., & Marks, L. (2017). Is peer review an appropriate form of assessment in a MOOC? Student participation and performance in formative peer review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 1000–1013. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1221052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, D. C., & Marroquin, E. (2010). Multimedia, hypermedia, and hypertext: Motivation considered and reconsidered. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osuna-Acedo, S., Frau-Meigs, D., Camarero-Cano, L., Bossu, A., Pedrosa, R., & Jansen, D. (2017). Intercreativity and interculturality in the virtual learning environments of the ECO MOOC project. In M. Jemni, Kinshuk, & M. K. Khribi (Eds.), Open education: From OERs to MOOCs (pp. 161–187). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52925-6_9.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Osuna-Acedo, S., & Quintana, J. G. (2017). The European ECO project. Breaking down barriers to access knowledge. Educación XX1, 20(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.15852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pengnate, S., & Sarathy, R. (2017). An experimental investigation of the influence of website emotional design features on trust in unfamiliar online vendors. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, J. (2016). Leveraging chatbots to improve self-guided learning through conversational quizzes. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality (pp. 911–918). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3012430.3012625.

  • Pereira, J. A., Sanz-Santamaría, S., Perurena, I., & Gutiérrez, J. (2012). Interactive speaking practice, assessment and exercise sharing with Babelium plug-in. In 1st Moodle research conference (MRC2012), Heraklion, Crete (pp. 107–114).

  • Peterson, R. (2013). Why do students drop out of MOOCs? Minding the Campus, 1.

  • Pimmer, C., Mateescu, M., & Gröhbiel, U. (2016). Mobile and ubiquitous learning in higher education settings. A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 490–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea11011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanou, B. (2016). ICT facts and figures 2016. Technical report. International Telecommunication Union.

  • Silva, S. (2016). The knowledge contained in oral tradition. E-Scrita-Revista Do Curso De Letras Da Uniabeu, 7(3), 335–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • So, S. (2016). Mobile instant messaging support for teaching and learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiteri, M., & Rundgren, S. N. C. (2018). Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’ use of digital technology. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1–14.

  • Sridharan, B., Tai, J., & Boud, D. (2018). Does the use of summative peer assessment in collaborative group work inhibit good judgement? Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0305-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stagg Peterson, S., & Dwyer, B. (2016). Research in Canada’s northern rural and indigenous communities: Supporting young children’s oral language and writing. The Reading Teacher, 70(3), 383–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suanpang, P., & Kalceff, W. (2004). Teamwork vs. individual student projects in an online course. Norfolk: Assoc Advancement Computing Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarighat, S., & Khodabakhsh, S. (2016). Mobile-assisted language assessment: Assessing speaking. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 409–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenório, T., Bittencourt, I. I., Isotani, S., & Silva, A. P. (2016). Does peer assessment in on-line learning environments work? A systematic review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toshalis, E., & Nakkula, M. J. (2012). Motivation, engagement, and student voice. The Education Digest, 78(1), 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ustalov, D. (2015). Teleboyarin. Mechanized labor for telegram. In Proceedings of the AINL-ISMW (pp. 195–197).

  • van Heerden, A., Ntinga, X., & Vilakazi, K. (2017). The potential of conversational agents to provide a rapid HIV counseling and testing services. In 2017 international conference on the frontiers and advances in data science (FADS) (pp. 80–85). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/fads.2017.8253198.

  • West, M., & Vosloo, S. (2013). UNESCO policy guidelines for mobile learning. Technical report. UNESCO.

  • Xiong, Y., & Suen, H. K. (2018). Assessment approaches in massive open online courses: Possibilities, challenges and future directions. International Review of Education, 64(2), 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Wosnitza, M., & Schroeder, U. (2015). A cluster analysis of MOOC stakeholder perspectives. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 12(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i1.2253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. (2016). Can MOOCs be interesting to students? An experimental investigation from regulatory focus perspective. Computers & Education, 95, 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by ECO European Project, registered in the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP-ICT-PSP.2013 Theme 2: Digital content, open data and creativity, Obj 2.3.a: Piloting and showcasing excellence in ICT for learning for all).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Osuna-Acedo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pereira, J., Fernández-Raga, M., Osuna-Acedo, S. et al. Promoting Learners’ Voice Productions Using Chatbots as a Tool for Improving the Learning Process in a MOOC. Tech Know Learn 24, 545–565 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09414-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09414-9

Keywords

Navigation