Promoting Innovative Thinking and Achievements in a Massive Open Online Course

Abstract

This chapter deals with the role of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in promoting innovative thinking skills and achievements among undergraduate students. The study compared two groups who studied the same course in different learning environments: 1. students who studied the course via MOOC (N = 91) and 2. students who studied the same via F2F course in the classroom (N = 66). The study applied the quantitative approach, collecting data via pre- and post-questionnaires and students’ grades in the different assignments in the course. Findings indicated that MOOC students promoted innovative thinking skills, emphasizing exploring and networking skills, as F2F students promoted innovative thinking skills, emphasizing asking questions that challenge the status quo. Findings also indicated a positive relationship between innovative thinking skills and achievements in the MOOC group.

1. Introduction

Advances in information and communication technologies (ICT) in the 21st century have changed learning and career opportunities and competencies needed in considerable ways. The changes are conveyed in the possibility of learning anywhere and anytime in online courses, especially in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) [1, 2]. The emergence of MOOCs has revolutionized education by making it accessible to anyone with an internet connection, regardless of their location, socioeconomic status, or prior education. MOOCs offer a diverse range of courses, from programming to humanities, and provide learners with the opportunity to learn at their own pace and on their own schedule. They often include video lectures, interactive quizzes, and discussion forums where learners can connect with other students and instructors from around the world [3, 4].

The emergence of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in the 21st century has had a significant impact on the development of skills needed for success in today’s knowledge-based economy [5, 6]. MOOCs offer a flexible and accessible way for learners to acquire new knowledge and skills, often in areas that were previously inaccessible due to geographical or financial constraints [7, 8, 9, 10]. In addition, MOOCs encourage learners to take an active role in their education and develop self-directed learning skills, which are crucial for success in a rapidly changing job market [11, 12].

MOOCs foster the development of 21st-century skills, such as critical thinking, computational thinking, systems thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and personal skills [5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. Learners in MOOCs are often required to participate in group discussions, peer reviews, and collaborative projects, which help to develop these essential skills [3, 4]. Moreover, many MOOCs incorporate interactive elements such as quizzes and simulations that require learners to think critically and solve complex problems [13, 18, 19].

Innovation is a vital 21st-century skill; it is a process of making changes to an existing product, process, or service by introducing something new [9, 20, 21, 22]. It can involve developing new ideas, products, or processes or improving the existing ones to create new values [23, 24]. Innovation is an important topic in the study of economics, business, and engineering. In economics, innovation is seen as a driver of economic growth, as it creates new markets, increases productivity, and leads to the development of new industries [25]. In business, innovation is crucial for success and sustainability, as it enables companies to create and maintain a competitive advantage [26, 27]. In engineering, innovation is vital for the development of new technologies and products, as it involves the use of scientific knowledge and engineering skills to create new solutions to complex problems [28, 29].

Innovative thinking is a higher mental function that results in innovative outcomes [24, 30, 31]. Innovative thinking process involves several key skills, such as the ability to identify and assess problems, to explore and develop solutions, and to successfully execute complex and challenging tasks [32, 33]. Innovative thinking is widely recognized as a critical skill for success in the 21st century, both in learning and in various professional fields [21, 25, 26, 27]. However, despite its importance, there is a significant research gap when it comes to understanding and promoting innovative thinking, particularly in the context of education [20, 21, 22]. While there have been numerous studies exploring the role of innovative thinking in industrial fields, such as business and engineering [25, 26, 27], there is limited research that focuses on innovative thinking in education [20, 21, 22, 30, 32]. This is a significant gap since education is a key area where innovative thinking can be developed and nurtured [20, 32].

Furthermore, with the increasing popularity of online learning environments, there is an urgent need to explore how innovative thinking can be fostered in these contexts [20, 21, 22, 30, 32]. Online learning has unique features and challenges that require new approaches to promoting innovative thinking [30, 32]. For example, online learners often lack face-to-face interaction with peers and instructors, which can limit opportunities for collaboration and creative problem-solving [1, 2, 3].

In conclusion, despite the increasing recognition of the importance of innovation and innovative thinking in the 21st century, there is a significant research gap in this area, particularly in the education field and online learning environments. More research is needed to understand how to foster innovative thinking in these contexts and to develop effective strategies for promoting innovative thinking skills in learners.

To bridge the research gap in innovative thinking in education, particularly in online environments, this chapter examined the role of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in promoting innovative thinking skills and achievements among undergraduate students. The study compared two groups who studied the same course in different learning environments: students who studied the course via MOOC and students who studied the same F2F course in the classroom.

2. Theoretical background

2.1 Innovation and innovative thinking

Innovation is an emerging concept in the 21st century. It is conceptualized as the process of making changes to something established by introducing something new [9]. Innovation can also be conceptualized as implementing a new or significantly improved idea, process, or method [30, 34]. In today’s global and changing world, a key factor to success is the ability to think innovatively, look beyond the obvious, and come up with creative and workable ideas [15, 20, 35].

Innovative thinking is the cognitive process that relates to innovation and results in innovative outcomes [20, 30, 36]. It includes the ability to identify and evaluate problems, to seek solutions, and to complete a challenging and workable task [32, 33]. Innovative thinking depends upon a person’s experience, knowledge, and ways of thinking. Dyer and colleagues [26, 31] identified four consistent behaviors that are the basis for generating innovative ideas: 1. questioning: asking challenging questions; 2. observing: intensely observing the world around while seeking new ideas; 3. experimenting: engaging in active experimentation to explore options and to generate novel designs; and 4. idea networking: creating networks of individuals with diverse backgrounds and perspectives that could lead to new ideas and insights. According to the researchers, individuals who follow the four behavioral patterns are most likely to develop innovative ideas.

Although innovation and innovative thinking are considered primary skills for the 21st century, there is confusion between innovation and two other concepts - creativity and entrepreneurship. Innovation refers to the generation of new ideas and their successful implementation into new products, processes, and procedures designed to be useful [36, 37]. Differently, creativity refers to generating new and useful ideas, a necessary precursor for innovation [37]. Creativity (idea generation) is the first stage in innovation and requires thinking “out of the box,” exploration, risk-taking, and tolerance of mistakes. As a result, creative people have to demonstrate a high level of initiative to bring new ideas to the implementation stage [38]. Differently, entrepreneurship is regarded as founding/starting a new business/venture [39]. Prior research has examined differences between entrepreneurs versus innovative entrepreneurs [26, 31, 40]. An entrepreneur is anyone who founds a new venture [40], while an innovative entrepreneur is the initiator of new ventures that offer a unique and novel value [26, 31].

Research has produced a wealth of knowledge about the characteristics of individuals, teams, and organizations related to innovation outcomes [20, 36]. However, only some of these studies focused on the effect of group configuration on the level of innovation [26, 41], showing that a group with a variety of cognitive types produces a higher level of innovation [41]. Additionally, innovation has rarely been discussed in the educational context. There is little empirical evidence for the promotion of innovative thinking in relation to student education and curricular programs.

The primary focus of research on innovation in the educational context was based on engineering education. This research can be classified into two main areas. The first area focuses on how engineering students perceive their own innovative abilities [20, 32, 42, 43]. The second area analyzes the innovation outcomes of students through their learning products, such as engineering projects [22, 32, 44]. With regard to the first area, a recent study, based on the work of Dyer and colleagues [26, 31], has presented a modified and validated self-report tool for assessing individual differences in innovative thinking. The researchers indicated that engineering students who possess a deeper understanding and knowledge of the subject area are more likely to score higher on the four behavioral constructs that are the basis for generating innovative ideas: questioning, observing, experimenting, and idea networking [20]. Usher and colleagues [32] examined higher education students’ innovation as expressed in their self-reports while comparing two formats of the same engineering course: an on-campus synchronous face-to-face (F2F) course and a fully online asynchronous course. Findings indicated that both F2F and online students self-reported similar levels of innovative behavioral constructs. Out of the four innovative behavioral constructs (questioning, observing, experimenting, and idea networking), students from both groups scored significantly higher on observing and experimenting and significantly lower on the behavioral construct of idea networking [32]. Similar results were indicated by Fila and colleagues [42] who examined how engineering students developed and utilized four behaviors commonly linked to innovativeness in an engineering context. They stated that engineering students tend to score higher on the component of experimenting and significantly lower on idea networking [42].

With regard to measuring innovation outcomes and outputs, Barak and Usher [44] examined the innovation level of engineering students’ team projects and the relationships between project innovation and team heterogeneity in two online environments. Results identified that innovation type, product necessity, STEM interdisciplinary, and market readiness were the central constructs used to assess the innovation level of students’ projects. The level of innovation in the projects was positively correlated with team heterogeneity in terms of academic discipline and academic level. However, heterogeneity in native language was found to be a hindering factor [44]. Usher and colleagues [32] examined engineering students’ innovation as expressed in their learning products while comparing between an on-campus synchronous face-to-face course and a fully online asynchronous course. Finding indicated that the F2F students received higher mean scores on innovation, compared with the online students, in both individual assignments and team projects [32].

To conclude, even though innovative thinking is considered one of the primary learning skills in the 21st century, studies show a vast research gap in the subject. Most of the studies were conducted in the context of industry. However, little is known about innovative thinking in the education field, especially in online environments.

2.2 Massive Open Online Courses

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are web-based learning environments where participants worldwide can acquire knowledge for free without any commitment or prior requirements. They provide high-quality learning materials from well-known lecturers from elite universities [1, 2]. Since they were first launched, MOOCs’ popularity has grown rapidly among adult learners. For example, in March 2013, there were three million enrollees on the Coursera platform. Ten years later, MOOC participants surpassed 220 million learners worldwide, and more than 19,000 MOOCs are offered through 950 global universities [45].

Many universities worldwide incorporated MOOCs through online learning in many academic programs [4, 46]. This way, the university enables its students to communicate with lecturers and experts worldwide to acquire knowledge and share thoughts and expertise [3, 4]. Previous research examined 21st-century skills via MOOCs, such as critical thinking, computational thinking, systems thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and personal skills [5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. However, few studies focused on innovative thinking in MOOCs among teacher education students [21].

3. Methodology

3.1 Research goal and participants

The goal of this study was to examine innovative thinking among undergraduate students who participated in the course “Approaches to Teaching Thinking,” as a MOOC for some and as a F2F course for others. This goal raised the following research questions:

1. Whether and how learning the “Approaches to Teaching Thinking” course as a MOOC promotes innovative thinking among undergraduate students?

2. Whether and how learning the “Approaches to Teaching Thinking” course as a F2F course promotes innovative thinking among undergraduate students?

3. What are the relationships between innovative thinking and achievement among MOOC and F2F students?

The research population (N = 157) included two samples of teacher education students who studied the same course titled “Approaches to Teaching Thinking” in different learning environments: (1) students who studied the course as a MOOC (N = 91) and (2) students who studied the same course as a F2F course in the classroom (N = 66). In both samples, around 92% were females, and most participants (about 90%) were between the ages of 21 and 35. The participants signed an informed consent form, indicating that participation is voluntary and that they could withdraw at any given time. The data were collected anonymously and analyzed in the aggregate to maintain the participants’ privacy.

3.2 Research setting

The study was conducted in the settings of the course titled “Approaches to Teaching Thinking.” The course was designed to advance instructional thinking among students. The course objective was to present education for thinking from different approaches: the skills approach, the dispositions approach, and the understanding approach. The course discusses key questions: what generates good thinking and how should we teach it to develop an awareness of effective, critical, and creative thinking?

The course was taught by the same lecturer to two different groups. The first group studied the course as a MOOC via the Campus IL platform (www.campus.gov.il). The second group studied a F2F course in the classroom. All the learning materials were identical in the two courses. Both courses were eight weeks long, with an estimated workload of 4–6 hours per week. Both courses included individual assignments, such as weekly quizzes, open-ended questions, and a final exam.

3.3 Methodology, tools, and data analysis

This study employed a quantitative research design in the form of an exploratory case study [32]. The quantitative data were collected using a close-ended questionnaire that included two sections. The first section included demographic questions, such as gender and age, and one question about the course learning method (MOOC or F2F course). The second section was based on the innovative thinking questionnaire. The innovative thinking questionnaire included 18 items on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) Likert-type scale, adapted from Dyer and colleagues [26, 31]. The original questionnaire was developed to examine innovations in business and industry, and it included 19 items. In this study, seven items were adapted to fit the educational field, and one item, “I am constantly asking questions to understand why products and projects underperform,” was removed because of its irrelevancy. Similar to the original version, the adapted questionnaire was divided into four categories:

1. Questioning (5 items): the tendency to recurrently ask questions, especially ones that challenge the status quo (e.g., “I regularly ask questions to check on the status quo.”)

2. Observing (4 items): the tendency to be a passionate observer, carefully watching the world and gaining insights and ideas for new ways of doing things (e.g., “I often acquire new ideas when I look closely at what people around me are doing.”)

3. Experimenting/exploring (5 items): searching for new information through experiments and explorations (e.g., “I like doing experiments to understand how things work and to create new ways to make things.”)

4. Idea networking (4 items): the tendency to create networks of individuals with diverse backgrounds and perspectives that could lead to new ideas and insights (e.g., “I have a network of individuals whom I trust and who bring new refined perspectives and ideas.”)

The questionnaire’s validity was established by three experts in education, reaching 100% consent. The reliability of the questionnaire, established by Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, was 0.93. For questioning, it was 0.77; for observing, 0.83; for experimenting/exploring, 0.86; and for idea networking, 0.77. These results show high Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values, indicating the research tool’s reliability. The questionnaire was administered twice, at the beginning and the end of the course.

4. Results

This section includes three parts, each answering one of the research questions. The first part presents the analysis of innovative thinking among MOOC students. The second part presents the analysis of innovative thinking among F2F students. Finally, the third part describes the relationship between innovative thinking and achievement among MOOC and F2F students.

4.1 Examining the level of innovative thinking among MOOC students

To examine undergraduate students’ levels of innovative thinking before and after completing the MOOC, a t-test was conducted for all research variables as shown in Table 1.

Innovative Thinking	Pre-test		Post-test		t value
Categories	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
Questioning	3.46	0.77	3.58	0.73	−0.80
Observing	3.89	0.80	4.11	0.73	−1.61
Experimenting	3.79	0.81	4.10	0.72	−2.40^*
Idea networking	3.47	0.74	3.84	0.78	−2.87^**
Innovative thinking	3.63	0.70	3.89	0.68	−2.06^*
On a scale of 1-to-5

Table 1.

Mean and standard deviation of students’ innovative thinking before and after participating in “Approaches to Teaching Thinking” as a MOOC (N = 91).

Table 1 shows significant differences in the levels of innovative thinking among MOOC students before and after they completed the MOOC. The MOOC participants displayed higher levels of innovative thinking after completing the course (M = 3.89, SD = 0.68) than before commencing it (M = 3.63, SD = 0.70). These differences are statistically significant (t(90) = 2.06, p < 0.05). Similarly, the participants who completed the MOOC displayed higher levels of “Experimenting” after completing the course (M = 4.10, SD = 0.72) than before commencing it (M = 3.79, SD = 0.81). These differences are statistically significant (t(90) = 2.40, p < 0.05). Likewise, the MOOC students displayed higher levels of idea networking after completing the course (M = 3.84, SD = 0.78) than before commencing it (M = 3.47, SD = 0.74). The statistical difference was calculated at (t(90) = 2.87, p < 0.05). As for the other skills (questioning and observing), results show that they did not differ before and after participating in the MOOC.

4.2 Examining the level of innovative thinking among F2F students

To answer the second research question, “Whether and how does learning ‘Approaches to Teaching Thinking’ course as a F2F course promotes innovative thinking among undergraduate students?,” a t-test was conducted for all research variables as shown in Table 2.

Innovative thinking categories	Pre-test		Post-test		t value
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
Questioning	3.34	0.73	3.68	0.76	−3.16^**
Observing	4.07	0.75	4.09	0.60	−0.14
Experimenting	3.93	0.82	4.06	0.72	−1.17
Idea networking	3.68	0.85	3.76	0.79	−0.73
Innovative thinking	3.73	0.71	3.88	0.66	−1.56
On a scale of 1-to-5

Table 2.

Mean and standard deviation of students’ innovative thinking before and after participating in “Approaches to Teaching Thinking” as a F2F course (N = 66).

Table 2 shows that the participants who completed the F2Fcourse displayed higher levels of “Questioning” after completing the course (M = 3.68, SD = 0.76) than before commencing it (M = 3.3.4, SD = 0.73). These differences are statistically significant (t(90) = 2.06, p < 0.05). However, the level of innovative thinking in the posttest of the students who studied the F2F course did not differ from the level of innovative thinking in the pretest. Similar results were indicated for the other skills (observing, experimenting, idea networking), showing that they did not differ before and after participating in the MOOC.

4.3 The relationship between students’ innovative thinking and their achievement in MOOC and F2F course

To examine the relationship between the innovative thinking components and level of achievement of MOOC students and F2F students, the Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for innovative thinking components and level of achievement for each research group, as shown in Table 3.

Research group	Innovative thinking categories	Achievement level (grades)
MOOC students (N = 91)	Questioning	0.09
	Observing	0.32^*
	Experimenting	0.14
	Idea networking	0.31^*
	Innovative thinking	0.22
F2F students (N = 66)	Questioning	0.05
	Observing	0.02
	Experimenting	0.03
	Idea networking	0.03
	Innovative thinking	0.02

Table 3.

Pearson correlation coefficient for innovative thinking categories and the level of achievement for each research group.

The results of Table 3 show that there is a statistically significant positive relationship between achievement level (grades) and innovative thinking components such as observing (r = 0.53, p < 0.05) and idea networking (r = 0.38, p < 0.05) among MOOC students. However, the results demonstrate no relationship between achievement level and innovative thinking components among students who study the course F2F in the classroom.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to examine innovative thinking among undergraduate students who participated in the course “Approaches to Teaching Thinking” as a MOOC for some and as a F2F course for others. Studies on innovative thinking are not new [25, 26, 27]. However, these studies based their findings on the industrial or engineering realm or in a classroom environment. The current study purposefully examined innovative thinking, especially in the education realm and MOOC environments. Although MOOCs were examined through the lens of quality standards, they are yet questioned by pedagogical professionals regarding their outcomes related to innovative thinking skills from students’ perspectives. The main findings of this study are summarized and discussed in the following paragraphs.

This study found that students who studied the course “Approaches to Teaching Thinking” as a MOOC expressed higher means of innovative thinking after completing the MOOC than before commencing it. In contrast, students who studied the same course as a F2F course in the classroom expressed similar means of innovative thinking before and after completing the course. This indicates that learning via MOOCs promotes innovative thinking among undergraduate students. These findings correspond with extant research [5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19], which reported that learning via MOOCs enhances 21st-century skills such as critical thinking, computational thinking, systems thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and personal skills. For example, Gamage and colleagues [16] state that critical thinking was prompted by MOOCs, which contained peer reviews and opened spaces to provide different solutions. This leads to believe that MOOC participation encourages critical thinking skills. Otto and colleagues [18] explored the impact of MOOCs on learning about climate change. Their study included participants from two climate change MOOCs provided by two distance learning universities in Germany and Portugal. The results indicated that participating in either MOOCs increased participants’ competencies to think critically and engage in the climate change debate. Zimmermann and Höfler [19] presented in their study a didactical model for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) to support the acquisition of 21st-century skills in Business Education.

Furthermore, deeper insights indicated that students who studied the course “Approaches to Teaching Thinking” as a MOOC expressed higher means of “Experimenting” and “Idea networking” after completing the MOOC than before commencing it. In contrast, students who studied the same course as a F2F in the classroom expressed higher means of “Questioning” after completing the course than before commencing it. The MOOC includes students from different disciplines, such as science education, mathematics education, Arabic education, and early childhood care. This allows the students to present and share their ideas on the different forums, as they rely on the support of their colleagues in the course, with little or no role played by the lecturer in supporting the students. As Saadatmand and Kumpulainen [47] present in their study, MOOC “learners participate in the flow and generation of knowledge and create and share their own content and digital artifacts through social technologies,” resulting in a more connected environment where sharing of ideas takes place.

Our results also demonstrate that the more diverse the academic disciplines or levels in the team, the more innovative was the project. This finding corresponds with similar results from Barak and Usher [22], whose research concluded that team diversity in both academic disciplines and levels were strong predictors of innovation. Conversely, with reference to language, the more diverse the team, the lower was innovation [22]. In the F2F course, the lecturer played a central role in facilitating the development of questioning skills among students through their explanations of the material, answers to students’ questions, and encouragement of question-asking during class discussions. These findings suggest that fostering diversity and promoting a supportive learning environment can contribute to developing innovative thinking.

The results of our analysis indicate a statistically significant positive correlation between academic achievement, as measured by grades, and the innovative thinking components of observing (r = 0.53, p < 0.05) and idea networking (r = 0.38, p < 0.05) among massive open online course (MOOC) students. However, no such relationship was found among students who took the course face-to-face in a traditional classroom setting. This finding suggests that the opportunity for peer interaction and idea exchange afforded by the online course format may have contributed to the enhanced innovative thinking and subsequent academic performance of MOOC students. Further research is needed to confirm and expand upon these findings.

6. Conclusion

Based on the findings of this study, it is clear that Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) can be an effective learning environment for promoting innovative thinking, particularly in the areas of experimenting and idea networking. However, further research should be conducted to explore the potential for fostering innovative thinking in blended learning environments, which combine both online and face-to-face instruction.

In light of these findings, we recommend that educators consider incorporating MOOCs or blend learning approaches into their teaching, particularly when seeking to promote innovative thinking among students. Additionally, further research is needed to identify and understand the specific factors contributing to these approaches’ success in fostering innovative thinking. This could include examining the role of instructor support, peer interaction, and technology in facilitating the development of innovative thinking skills.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.