Advertisement

Altogether Now! Mass and Small Group Collaboration in (Open) Online Courses: A Case Study

  • Sabrina C. EimlerEmail author
  • German Neubaum
  • Marc Mannsfeld
  • Nicole C. Krämer
Chapter
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 16)

Abstract

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) become more and more popular. These course formats are typically highly flexible and attract large groups of learners from heterogeneous backgrounds. So far research in this area concentrating on success factors for low dropout rates and high satisfaction on the side of the learners in MOOCs is scarce. In this chapter, we describe experiences of a large online course offered to students of two large German universities. Based on theory drawn from a social psychological perspective on the relevance of social interaction for learning, we describe the background, structure, and specific elements of the MOOC-like course. We outline evaluation results of both small group collaboration (in workshops) and mass interaction (via forum and wiki usage) as well as results of the general evaluation of the overall course concept. We argue that the specific mixture of small and large group interaction as well as teacher- and learner-generated content is especially promising with regard to satisfaction, learning outcomes, and course completion rates.

Keywords

Collaboration Mass collaboration Massive open online courses Collaborative learning Learning in groups Wikis Online forums 

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beran, T., Drefs, M., Kaba, A., Al Baz, N., & Al Harbi, N. (2015). Conformity of responses among graduate students in an online environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bremer, C., & Weiß, D. (2013). Massive open online courses: Kategorisierung und Analyse des Teilnehmerverhaltens am Beispiel der OPCOs 2011 und 2012. In T. Köhler & N. Kahnwald (Eds.), Online communities, enterprise networks, open education and global communication. 16. Workshop GeNeMe’13 (pp. 305–316). Dresden, Germany: TUD Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chukwunonso, F., Ibrahim, R. B., Selamat, A. B., Idama, A., & Gadzama, W. A. (2013). The impact of the internet and the world wide web on distance and collaborative learning. In J. Terzakis, C. Paleologu, & T. Gyires (Eds.), ICCGI 2013, The Eighth International Multi-Conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology (pp. 7–15). Wilmington, DE: International Academy, Research, and Industry Association.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 681–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y. (2004). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gordon, N. (2014). Flexible pedagogies: Technology-enhanced learning. York, England: The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  14. Halawa, S., Greene, D., & Mitchell, J. (2014). Dropout prediction in MOOCs using learner activity features. ELearning Papers, 37, 1–10.Google Scholar
  15. Hill, J. L. (1996). Psychological sense of community: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ho, S. H., & Huang, C. H. (2009). Exploring success factors of video game communities in hierarchical linear modeling: The perspectives of members and leaders. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 761–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holder, B. (2007). An investigation of hope, academics, environment, and motivation as predictors of persistence in higher education online programs. Internet & Higher Education, 10, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kay, J., Reimann, P., Diebold, E., & Kummerfeld, B. (2013). MOOCs: So many learners, so much potential …. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 28, 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community: Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 17–22). Boulder, CO: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kumar, M. P., Packer, B., & Koller, D. (2010). Self-paced learning for latent variable models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 23, 1189–1197.Google Scholar
  21. Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the conference on computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 72–81). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Michinow, N., & Primois, C. (2005). Improving productivity and creativity in online groups through social comparison process: New evidence for asynchronous electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 11–28.Google Scholar
  24. Neubaum, G., Wichmann, A., Eimler, S. C., & Krämer, N. C. (2014). Investigating incentives for students to provide peer feedback in a semi-open online course: An experimental study. Proceedings of The International Symposium on Open Collaboration, OpenSym’14. New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2641580.2641604.
  25. Oeberst, A., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2016). What is knowledge? Who creates it? Who possesses it? The need for novel answers to old questions. In U. Cress, J. Moskaliuk, & H. Jeong (Eds.), Mass Collaboration and Education. Cham, Switzerland: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  26. Ounnas, A., Davis, H. C., & Millard, D. E. (2009). A framework for semantic group formation in education. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 43–55.Google Scholar
  27. Piezon, S. L., & Donaldson, R. L. (2005). Online groups and social loafing: Understanding student-group interactions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter84/piezon84.htm.
  28. Rheingold, H. R. (1991). Virtual reality. New York, NY: Summit Books.Google Scholar
  29. Ritzmann, S., Hagemann, V., & Kluge, A. (2014). The training evaluation inventory (TEI)—Evaluation of training design and measurement of training outcomes for predicting training success. Vocations and Learning: Studies in Vocational and Professional Education, 7, 41–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rodriguez, O. (2013). The concept of openness behind c- and x-MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). Open Praxis, 5, 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rovai, A. P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 3, 285–297. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00037-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 620–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schulmeister, R. (Ed.). (2013). MOOCs—Massive open online courses. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  35. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2, 3–10.Google Scholar
  36. Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge-building. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 70–77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  37. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 7, 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Terras, M. M., & Ramsay, J. (2015). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Insights and challenges from a psychological perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 472–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer‐mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55, 828–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wellman, B. (1999). The network community: An introduction to networks in the global village. In B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village (pp. 1–48). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  44. Yang, D., Sinha, T., Adamson, D., & Rose, C. P. (2013). Turn on, tune in, drop out: Anticipating student dropouts in Massive Open Online Courses. Paper presented at NIPS Data-Driven Education Workshop, Lake Tahoe, NV. Retrieved from http://lytics.stanford.edu/datadriveneducation/papers/yangetal.pdf.
  45. Ziebarth, S., Neubaum, G., Kyewski, E., Krämer, N.C., Hoppe, H.-U., Hecking, T., & Eimler, S. C. (2015). Resource usage in online courses: Analyzing learner’s active and passive participation patterns. 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabrina C. Eimler
    • 1
    Email author
  • German Neubaum
    • 1
  • Marc Mannsfeld
    • 1
  • Nicole C. Krämer
    • 1
  1. 1.Social Psychology—Media and CommunicationUniversity of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations