Engagement in Mathematics MOOC Forums
The research focuses on mathematics MOOC discussion forums, how affective instances emerge from written interactions and how they can be measured. Interactionist research, as well as the intertwining of affective and cognitive components in students’ interactions, represents the theoretical background of our investigations. In particular, we refer to engagement as the main affective element in discussion forums. The affective lens is paired with network analysis to examine how and to what extent forums may represent an occasion for a deeper understanding of mathematics for the students. This paper reports on a pilot phase of the research and considers two examples of discussion forums that involved around ten students each. The findings from a small scale analysis serve as a basis for first, general conclusions.
KeywordsConceptual and procedural Desires Motivation Online interactions Network analysis
- Bastian, M., Heymann, S. & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. https://gephi.org/
- Davis, B. (1996). Teaching mathematics: Toward a sound alternative. New York & London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
- Ernest, P. (1998). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- Goldin, G. A. (2017). Motivating desires for classroom engagement in the learning of mathematics. In C. Andrà, D. Brunetto, E. Levenson, & P. Liljedahl (Eds.), Teaching and learning in math classrooms—emerging themes in affect-related research: Teachers’ beliefs, students’ engagement and social interaction. Springer Nature. 219–229.Google Scholar
- Naidu, S. (in press). Open educational practice: Caveat emptor. In D. Singh (Ed.), Responsible leadership: Higher education. Globethics.net.
- Nicolini, M., & Ocenasek, C. (1998). Environmental impact assessment with public participation: The case of a proposed landfill site in the Austrian Pinzgau. In H. Weidner (Ed.), Alternative dispute resolution in environmental conflicts: Experiences in 12 countries (pp. 330–339). Berlin, DE, Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
- Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (1993). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Todo, Y., Matous, P., & Mojo, D. (2015). Effects of social network structure on the diffusion and adoption of agricultural technology: Evidence from rural Ethiopia (WINPEC Working Paper Series No. E 1505).Google Scholar
- Vertegaal, R., Van der Veer, G. C., & Vons, H. (2000). Effects of gaze on multiparty mediated communication. Proceedings of GI 2000. Montreal, CA, 95–102.Google Scholar