Towards Full Engagement for Open Online Education. A Practical Experience from MicroMasters at edX

  • Rocael Hernández Rizzardini
  • Hector R. Amado-SalvatierraEmail author
Part of the Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies book series (LNDECT, volume 11)


This work presents an innovative framework with the aim to create full engagement for the learners on massive open online learning environments through a connectivist approach. The proposed framework relies on the importance of creating engaging experiences before, during and after the finish of a course to increase learners’ participation and reduce drop-out rates with the help of learning analytics. This work presents a compelling idea in the universe of MOOCs: It intends to expand the efforts of the learning design team to achieve pre and post-course engagement, where engagement takes the form of an ongoing community of learners. This research provides results from the first successful experiences in two MicroMasters “Professional Android Developer”, taught in English, and one specialization taught in Spanish: “E-Learning for teachers: create innovative activities and content” at the edX platform. The MicroMasters shows to be a great path for career advancement, especially for the under-employed.


Interaction Analytics Awareness MOOCs e-learning Engagement 



This work is partially supported by European Union through the Erasmus + programme—projects MOOC-Maker and ACAI-LA.


  1. Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Cormier, D., & Kloos, C. D. (2014). Proposal for a conceptual framework for educators to describe and design MOOCs. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 20(1), 6–23.Google Scholar
  2. Amado-Salvatierra, H. R., Hilera, J. R., Tortosa, S. O., Rizzardini, R. H., & Piedra, N. (2016). Towards a semantic definition of a framework to implement accessible e-Learning projects. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 22(7), 921–942.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, R. S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics. In Learning analytics (pp. 61–75). Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S. (2003). An introduction to the special issue: Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. The Information Society, 19(3), 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., et al. (2013). Understanding generation Y and their use of social media: A review and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 245–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, R., Malthouse, E. C., & Calder, B. J. (2010). Engagement with online media. Journal of Media Business Studies, 7(2), 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dey, A., & Abowd, G. (1999). Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. In Handheld and ubiquitous computing (pp. 304–307). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  10. Eichinger, R., & Lombardo, M. (1996). The career architect development planner. Minneapolis: Lominger Limited.Google Scholar
  11. Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5–6), 304–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2015). Methodological approach and technological framework to break the current limitations of MOOC model. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 21(5), 712–734.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, G. (2011). Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of participation. Interactions, 18(3), 42–53.Google Scholar
  14. Gütl, C., Rizzardini, R. H., Chang, V., & Morales, M. (2014). Attrition in MOOC: Lessons learned from drop-out learners. In International workshop on learning technology for education in cloud (pp. 37–48). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Hagel, J. (1999). Net gain: Expanding markets through virtual communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Halawa, S., Greene, D., & Mitchell, J. (2014). Dropout prediction in MOOCs using learner activity features. Experiences and best practices in and around MOOCs (Vol. 7).Google Scholar
  17. Hernández, R., & Amado-Salvatierra, H. R. (2017a). Towards full engagement for open online education: A practical experience for a micromaster. In European conference on massive open online courses (pp. 68–76). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  18. Hernández, R., & Amado-Salvatierra, H. R. (2017b). Full engagement educational framework: A practical experience for a micromaster. In Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 145–146). ACM.Google Scholar
  19. Hernández, R., Amado-Salvatierra, H. R., Guetl, C., & Smadi, M. (2012). Facebook for CSCL, Latin-American experience for professors. In IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 327–328). IEEE.Google Scholar
  20. Hernández, R., Morales, M., & Guetl, C. (2016). An attrition model for MOOCs: Evaluating the learning strategies of gamification. Formative assessment, learning data analytics and gamification, Chapter: 14 (pp. 295–310). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  21. Hlavac, R. (2014). Social IMC Social Strategies with Bottom-Line ROI. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar
  22. Irvine, V., Code, J., & Richards, L. (2013). Realigning higher education for the 21st century learner through multi-access learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 172.Google Scholar
  23. Jennings, C., & Wargnier, J. (2011). Effective learning with 70:20:10. CrossKonledge: The new frontier for the extended enterprise.Google Scholar
  24. Kloft, M., Stiehler, F., Zheng, Z., & Pinkwart, N. (2014). Predicting MOOC dropout over weeks using machine learning methods. In Proceedings of the EMNLP 2014 Workshop on Analysis of Large Scale Social Interaction in MOOCs (pp. 60–65).Google Scholar
  25. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together the learner success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE higher education report (Vol. 32, No. 5). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Malthouse, E. C., & Peck, A. (Eds.). (2011). Medill on media engagement. Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  27. Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL (pp. 323–329).Google Scholar
  28. Onah, D. F., Sinclair, J., & Boyatt, R. (2014). Dropout rates of massive open online courses: Behavioural patterns. In EDULEARN14 Proceedings, pp. 5825–5834.Google Scholar
  29. Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (2014). Learner engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Rivard, R. (2013). Measuring the MOOC dropout rate. Inside Higher Ed, 8.Google Scholar
  31. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.Google Scholar
  32. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Seven principles for cultivating communities of practice. In Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge (Vol. 4).Google Scholar
  33. LinkedIn (n.d.) Linkedin Social Network. Retreived from
  34. Meetup (n.d.) Meetup. Retreived from
  35. OneSignal (n.d.). OneSignal. Retreived from

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rocael Hernández Rizzardini
    • 1
  • Hector R. Amado-Salvatierra
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.GES DepartmentGalileo UniversityGuatemalaGuatemala

Personalised recommendations