Advertisement

Exploring the Problems Experienced by Learners in a MOOC Implementing Active Learning Pedagogies

  • Paraskevi TopaliEmail author
  • Alejandro Ortega-Arranz
  • Erkan Er
  • Alejandra Martínez-Monés
  • Sara L. Villagrá-Sobrino
  • Yannis Dimitriadis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11475)

Abstract

Although Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have been reported as an effective educational tool offering numerous opportunities in online learning, the high dropout rates and the lack of learners’ motivation are factors concerning researchers and instructors. The one-size-fits-all instructional approach that most courses follow, failing to address the individual needs of learners, has been seen as their weakest point. Recent efforts focus on the inclusion of active learning pedagogies in MOOCs to stimulate the interaction among the participants and to keep them engaged. However, taking into account that in these massive contexts the learners face several issues while trying to keep up with the course, the incorporation of active learning strategies may introduce additional problems to the learning process. This study explores the problems that learners experienced in a MOOC implementing collaboration and gamification strategies. As the results reveal, the introduction of collaborative learning activities can generate additional problems to learners and for that reason, a careful design and a proper scaffolding is needed in an early stage to overcome the problems that will occur. No significant problems were reported regarding the implementation of gamification elements.

Keywords

MOOC Learners’ problems Active learning Gamification Collaboration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been partially funded by the European Regional Development Fund and the National Research Agency of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovations and Universities under project grants TIN2017-85179-C3-2-R and TIN2014-53199-C3-2R, by the European Regional Development Fund and the Regional Ministry of Education of Castile and Leon under project grant VA257P18, and by the European Commission under project grant 588438-EPP-1-2017-1-EL-EPPKA2-KA. The authors thank the rest of the GSIC-EMIC and Canvas Network team for their support. Special thanks to Juan I. Asensio-Pérez (Universidad de Valladolid) for his valuable ideas and his constant guidance conducting this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Onah, D., Sinclair, J., Boyatt, R.: Dropout rates of massive open online courses: behavioural patterns MOOC dropout and completion: existing evaluations. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, pp. 1–10 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferguson, R., Sharples, M.: Innovative pedagogy at massive scale: teaching and learning in MOOCs. In: Rensing, C., de Freitas, S., Ley, T., Muñoz-Merino, Pedro J. (eds.) EC-TEL 2014. LNCS, vol. 8719, pp. 98–111. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11200-8_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonwell, C.C., Eison, J.A.: Active Learning : Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. No. 1. Washington, DC (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hew, K.F.: Promoting engagement in online courses: what strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 47, 320–341 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chung, J.C.C., Chow, S.M.K.: Promoting student learning through a student-centred problem-based learning subject curriculum. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 41, 157–168 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khalil, H., Ebner, M.: MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention - a literature review. In: Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Media, Hypermedia Telecommunications 2014, pp. 1305–1313 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henderikx, M., Kreijns, K., Kalz, M.: To change or not to change? That’s the question… on MOOC-success, barriers and their implications. In: Delgado Kloos, C., Jermann, P., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Seaton, D.T., White, S. (eds.) EMOOCs 2017. LNCS, vol. 10254, pp. 210–216. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59044-8_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gütl, C., Rizzardini, R.H., Chang, V., Morales, M.: Attrition in MOOC: lessons learned from drop-out students. In: Uden, L., Sinclair, J., Tao, Y.-H., Liberona, D. (eds.) LTEC 2014. CCIS, vol. 446, pp. 37–48. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10671-7_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nawrot, I., Doucet, A.: Building engagement for MOOC students. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web - WWW 2014 Companion, pp. 1077–1082 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hone, K.S., El Said, G.R.: Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: a survey study. Comput. Educ. 98, 157–168 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Loizzo, J., Ertmer, P.A., Watson, W.R., Watson, S.L.: Adult MOOC learners as self- directed: perceptions of motivation, success, and completion. Online Learn. 21, n2 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henderikx, M., Kreijns, K., Kalz, M.: A classification of barriers that influence intention achievement in MOOCs. In: Pammer-Schindler, V., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Drachsler, H., Elferink, R., Scheffel, M. (eds.) EC-TEL 2018. LNCS, vol. 11082, pp. 3–15. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98572-5_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eriksson, T., Adawi, T., Stöhr, C.: “Time is the bottleneck”: a qualitative study exploring why learners drop out of MOOCs. J. Comput. High. Educ. 29, 133–146 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shapiro, H.B., Lee, C.H., Wyman Roth, N.E., Li, K., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., Canelas, D.A.: Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: an examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Comput. Educ. 110, 35–50 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Creswell, J.W.: Research Design Qualitative quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guba, E.G.: Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educ. Commun. Technol. 29, 75 (1981)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saldana, J.: An Introduction to Codes and Coding. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sanz-Martínez, L., Martínez-Monés, A., Bote-Lorenzo, M.L., Dimitriadis, Y.: Validating performance of group formation based on homogeneous engagement criteria in MOOCs. In: Proceedings of the Learning Analytics Summer Institute Spain 2018, León, Spain (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paraskevi Topali
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alejandro Ortega-Arranz
    • 1
  • Erkan Er
    • 1
  • Alejandra Martínez-Monés
    • 1
  • Sara L. Villagrá-Sobrino
    • 1
  • Yannis Dimitriadis
    • 1
  1. 1.GSIC-EMIC Research GroupUniversidad de ValladolidValladolidSpain

Personalised recommendations