Advertisement

Dropping Out or Dropping In? A Connectivist Approach to Understanding Participants’ Strategies in an e-Learning MOOC Pilot

  • Dan Yngve Jacobsen
Original research

Abstract

Targeting faculties and external mentors in the teacher-training unit, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway opened up a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) pilot on digital learning in the fall of 2014. A main objective was to encourage these to use digital media more actively and hence, also to become role models for their own students’ future digital practice. However, research has shown that a main concern with MOOC programs is attrition. In line with those findings, and according to the course platform data, none of the MOOC participants completed the course material. As the course progressed, less and less pages were opened and obligatory assignments were only rarely submitted. The participants may thus be described as dropouts. Five of these participants were then interviewed about their MOOC experiences and activities. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed according to Grounded theory procedures. A general finding was that the informants would in fact put some of the material and ideas from the MOOC to use. Even if they dropped out, this indicates a gain from the course. In fact, some of the material that was introduced significantly changed these informants’ digital practices when they tested out new ideas in their own teaching. Frame-factors, such as lack of financial compensation or a nonstop flow of competing tasks, however, led the informants to down-prioritize the formal demands in the MOOC pilot. The informants selectively picked the material that suited their own purpose and therefore qualified as “drop-ins” rather than “drop-outs”. Rather than quitters who could not keep up with the pace in the MOOC we met media literate participants who remixed and redefined the MOOC content into a Web 2.0 resource and a stepping stone for self-directed online learning.

Keywords

MOOC Digital learning Connectivism Attrition Drop-out Drop-in Grounded theory Higher education Teacher training 

References

  1. Ashworth, Peter. (2004). Understanding as the transformation of what is already known. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(2), 147–158. doi: 10.1080/1356251042000195385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates, T. (2012). What’s right and what’s wrong about Coursera-style MOOCs? Retrieved from http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/05/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-about-coursera-style-moocs/.
  3. Bates, T. (2015). Teaching in the digital age. Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Chapter 5.3: Variations in MOOC designs. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/.
  4. Bruner, Jerome. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Clara, M., & Barberát, E. (2014). Three problems with the connectivist concept of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create each other. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture. Communication and cognition. Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Corbin, J., & Straus, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing Grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DiNucci, D. (1999). Fragmented future. Print 1999, 32, 221. Retrieved from http://darcyd.com/fragmented_future.pdf.
  11. Downes, S. (2007). What connectivism is. http://www.downes.ca/post/38653.
  12. Erstad, O. (2008). Trajectories of remixing: Digital literacies, media production, and schooling, In: C. Lankshear, & M. Knobel (Eds.) Digital literaciesConcepts, policies and practices (pp. 177–202). Peter Lang Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4331-0169-4.Google Scholar
  13. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. To be retrieved from http://www.anitacrawley.net/Articles/GarrisonClevelandInnes2005.pdf.
  14. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Nill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  15. Glaser, Barney, & Strauss, Anselm. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Greuytner.Google Scholar
  16. Gütl, C., Rizzardini, R. H., Chang, V., & Morales, M. (2014). Attrition in MOOC: Lessons learned from drop-out students. In: L. Uden, J. Sinclair, Y-H. Tao, D. Liberona (Eds) Learning technology for education in cloud. MOOC and Big Data. Proceedings from Third International Workshop, LTEC 2014, Santiago, Chile, September 2-5, 2014, 37–48. To be retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-10671-7_4.
  17. Haugsbakken, H., & Langseth, I. D. (2014). YouTubing: Challenging traditional literacies and encouraging self-organisation and connecting in a connectivist approach to learning in the K-12 system. Digital Culture and Education, 6(2), 133–151. To be retrieved from http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/volume-6/haugsbakken_langseth/.
  18. Hill, P. (2013). Emerging student patterns in MOOCs: A graphical view. e-Literate. Retrieved from http://mfeldstein.com/emerging_student_patterns_in_moocs_graphical_view/.
  19. Jacobsen, D. Y. (1997). Tutorial processes in a problem-based learning context; medical students’ reception and negotiations. Thesis for the degree of Doctor polit. NTNU. To be retrieved from http://www.svt.ntnu.no/psy/Dan.Jacobsen/Utlegg%20i%20PDF-format/Dissertation%20PBL.pdf.
  20. Jeffrey, L., Hegarty, B., Kelly, O., Penman, M., Coburn, D., & McDonald, J. (2011). Developing digital information literacy in higher education: Obstacles and supports. Journal of Information Technology Education 10, 383–413. To be retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol10/JITEv10p383-413Jeffrey1019.pdf.
  21. Langseth, I. (2012). Teknologi i et lærerstyrt undervisningsdesign for fremmedspråk. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 2, 86–99.Google Scholar
  22. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher—A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. O’Neill, B., & Hagen, I. (2009). Media literacy. In: L. Sonia, & L. Haddon (Eds.) Kids Online. Opportunities and risks for children. Bristol: The Policy Press. 229–239.Google Scholar
  24. Offenbartl, S. (2003). Distance learning: Learning on demand and just in time. In: U. Bernath, & E. Rubin (Eds) Reflections on teaching and learning in an online master program. A case sudy. Studien und Berichte der Arbeitsstelle Fernstudienforschung der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg Band 6: 267–276.Google Scholar
  25. Olson, M., & Hergenhan, B. R. (2016). An introduction to theories of learning (9th ed.). New York, ES: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  26. Overton, L., & Dixon, G. (2014). Using MOOCs to transform traditional training. The role of MOOCs in corporate training programmes. Towards Maturity. To be downloaded from http://www.towardsmaturity.org/article/2014/05/12/-focus-lessons-moocs-corporate-learning/.
  27. Rivard, R. (2013): Measuring the MOOC dropout rate. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/08/researchers-explore-who-taking-moocs-and-why-so-many-drop-out.
  28. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. In eLearnSpace. Retrieved from http://devrijeruimte.org/content/artikelen/Connectivism.pdf.
  29. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as network-creation. In eLearningSpace. Retrived from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/networks.htm.
  30. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. In: Review of educational research spring 2006 76: 93–135. Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at NTNU August 12 2016.
  31. Tapscott, D. (1998): Growing up digital—The rise of the net generation. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2012): Grounded theory. In: S. D. Lapan, M. Quartaroli, F. J. Riemer (Eds) Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and design. JOSSEY-BASS 2012.Google Scholar
  33. Tømte, C. E., & Olsen, D. S. (2013). IKT og læring i høyere utdanning: Kvalitativ undersøkelse om hvordan IKT påvirker læring i høyere utdanning. ISSN: 1892-2597. ISBN: 978-82-7218-939-5. Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning.Google Scholar
  34. Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture. Communication and cognition. Vygotskian Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wertsch, J. V., & Minic, N. (1990). Negotiating sense in the zone of proximal development. In C. A. Maher & N. S. Fagley (Eds.), Promoting cognitive growth over the life span. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Yang, D., Sinha, T., Adamson, D., & Rose, C. P. (2013): “Turn on, Tune in, Drop out”: Anticipating student dropouts in Massive Open Online Courses. In Proceedings of the 2013 NIPS Data-driven education workshop 11, 14. Retrieved from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~diyiy/docs/nips13.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNUCampus MoholtTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations