Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Climate Literacy and Innovations in Climate Change Education pp 131–149Cite as

MOOCs—A Powerful Tool for Imparting Climate Literacy? Insights from Parleys with Students

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Climate Change Management ((CCM))

Abstract

Climate literacy is a key impetus for triggering individual behavioural and societal change. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), at first glance, entail a multiplier effect for climate literacy as they are recognized for offering non-formal learning opportunities to a wider audience. However, throughout the recent years MOOCs have been under manifold criticism from various corners challenging their educational value. A remedy for shedding light on the question whether MOOCs are a powerful tool for climate education is to bring in the students’ perspectives on and experiences with MOOCs. These findings disclose the recipients’ perceptions and give empirical evidence to assess the incorporation of non-formal learning into the students’ learning context. Empirically, the chapter is based on 35 interviews conducted with students who participated in an English-speaking MOOC about interdisciplinary perspectives on climate change. The interviewed students represent a variety of different nationalities and academic backgrounds. During the semi-structured interviews, the students revealed diverse reasons for their participation in the MOOC, multiple learning outcomes and manifold opinions regarding the use of the MOOC in their personal learning context. This allows concluding that, albeit MOOCs are a promising tool for climate change education, they require a deeper understanding by incorporating the students’ perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://cpo.noaa.gov/OutreachandEducation/ClimateLiteracy.aspx.

  2. 2.

    http://www.earthday.org/campaigns/education/global-environmental-climate-literacy-campaign/.

  3. 3.

    For example: http://www.uab.cat/web/study-abroad/mooc/plan-and-design-a-mooc/plan-the-course-1345668290863.html or https://uqx.uq.edu.au/content/educators.

References

  • Abeer, W., & Miri, B. (2014). Students’ preferences and views about learning in a MOOC. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 318–323. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., Ciganek, A. P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arndt, D., & LaDue, D. S. (2008). Applying concepts of adult education to improve weather and climate literacy. Physical Geography, 29(6), 487–499. doi:10.2747/0272-3646.29.6.487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baggaley, J. (2013). MOOC rampant. Distance Education, 34(3), 368–378. doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.835768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baggaley, J. (2014). MOOC postscript. Distance Education, 35(1), 126–132. doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.876142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, T. (2014). MOOCs: getting to know you better. Distance Education, 35(2), 145–148. doi:10.1080/01587919.2014.926803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, S., & Otto, D. (2016). Lernkulturen im (Klima-)Wandel. Digital Storytelling zur Kompetenzvermittlung in interkulturellen Lehr-Lernsettings. In O. Dörner, C. Iller, H. Pätzold, & S. Robak (Eds.), Differente Lernkulturen—regional, national, transnational (pp. 101–114). Opladen [u.a.]: Verlag Barbara Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S., Douce, C., Caeiro, S., Teixeira, A., Martín-Aranda, R., & Otto, D. (2017). Sustainability and distance learning: A diverse European experience? Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 32(2), 95–102. doi:10.1080/02680513.2017.1319638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyatt, R., Joy, M., Rocks, C., & Sinclair, J. (2014). What (Use) is a MOOC? In L. Uden, Y.-H. Tao, H.-C. Yang, & I.-H. Ting (Eds.), The 2nd International Workshop on Learning Technology for Education in Cloud (pp. 133–145). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7308-0_15.

  • Burch, S. L., & Harris, S. E. (2014). A massive open online course on climate change: The social construction of a global problem using new tools for connectedness. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(5), 577–585. doi:10.1002/wcc.300.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Langen, F., & van den Bosch, H. (2013). Massive open online courses: Disruptive innovations or disturbing inventions? Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 28(3), 216–226. doi:10.1080/02680513.2013.870882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diver, P., & Martinez, I. (2015). MOOCs as a massive research laboratory: Opportunities and challenges. Distance Education, 36(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebben, M., & Murphy, J. S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: A review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(3), 328–345. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.878352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel, E. J. (2013). Online education: MOOCs taken by educated few. Nature, 503(7476), 342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fidalgo-blanco, Á., Sein-echaluce, M. L., García-peñalvo, F. J., & Escaño, J. E. (2014). Improving the MOOC learning outcomes throughout informal learning activities. The Massive Open Online Courses. In The Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 611–617). https://doi.org/10.1145/2669711.2669963.

  • Fidalgo-blanco, Á., Sein-echaluce, M. L., García-peñalvo, F. J. (2016). From massive access to cooperation: Lessons learned and proven results of a hybrid xMOOC/cMOOC pedagogical approach to MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G. (2014). Beyond hype and underestimation: Identifying research challenges for the future of MOOCs. Distance Education, 35(2), 149–158. doi:10.1080/01587919.2014.920752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Peñalvo, F. J., Cruz-Benito, J., Borrás-Gené, O., & Blanco, Á. F. (2015). Evolution of the conversation and knowledge acquisition in social networks related to a MOOC course. In P. Zaphiris & A. Ioannou (Eds.), Learning and Collaboration Technologies: Second International Conference, LCT 2015, Held as Part of HCI International 2015, Los Angeles, CA, USA, August 2–7, 2015, Proceedings (pp. 470–481). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20609-7_44.

  • GCRP. (2009). Climate literacy: The essential principles of climate sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, J. (2008). Misconceptions: Barriers to improved climate literacy. Physical Geography, 29(6), 575–584. doi:10.2747/0272-3646.29.6.575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1–151).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, D., & Schuwer, R. (2015). Institutional MOOC strategies in Europe. Status report based on a mapping survey conducted in October–December 2014, Heerlen, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jona, K., & Naidu, S. (2014). MOOCs: Emerging research. Distance Education, 35(2), 141–144. doi:10.1080/01587919.2014.928970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, K. (2015). Massive open online course completion rates revisited: Assessment, length and attrition. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalil, H., & Ebner, M. (2014). MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention—A literature review. In J. Viteli & M. Leikomaa (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2014 (pp. 1305–1313). Tampere, Finland: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., Kang, J., & McKelroy, E. (2015). Examining learners’ perspective of taking a MOOC: Reasons, excitement, and perception of usefulness. Educational Media International, 52(2), 129–146. doi:10.1080/09523987.2015.1053289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louise Barriball, K., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: A discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(2), 328–335. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01088.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. De Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on networked learning 2010 (pp. 266–275). Lancaster: University of Lancaster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research: Qualitative Methods in Various Disciplines I: Psychology, 1(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey, M. S., & Buhr, S. M. (2008). Clarifying climate confusion: Addressing systemic holes, cognitive gaps, and misconceptions through climate literacy. Physical Geography, 29(6), 512–528. doi:10.2747/0272-3646.29.6.512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKernan, J. (1996). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, D. (2014). Letʼs Play! Using simulation games as a sustainable way to enhance students’ motivation and collaboration in open and distance learning. In U. M. Azeiteiro, W. Leal Filho, & S. Caeiro (Eds.), E-Learning and Education for Sustainability (pp. 73–82). Frankfurt a. M. [u.a.]: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-02460-9.

  • Otto, D. (2016). Understanding climate change negotiations: An international relations perspective. In S. Caeiro, P. Bacelar-Nicolau, B. Sara, & D. Otto (Eds.), “The heat is up!”—Cross-disciplinary perspectives on climate change (p. 9). Lisbon, PT: Universidade Aberta. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3848.9366.

  • Otto, D. (2017). Students’ interaction for enhancing learning motivation and learning success: Findings from integrating a simulation game into a university course. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), International Technology, Education and Development Conference (pp. 1316–1324). Barcelona, Spain: IATED Academy. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2017.0045.

  • Otto, D., Becker, S., Sander, K., & Bollmann, A. (2016). What students really want from MOOCs-a qualitative analysis of students’ individual motivation and learning goals. Journal of the International Conference on University Teaching and Innovation (CIDUI), 3, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pappano, L. (2012). The Year of the MOOC. The New York Times (pp. 1–7).

    Google Scholar 

  • Piontek, F., Müller, C., Pugh, T. A. M., Clark, D. B., Deryng, D., Elliott, J., et al. (2014). Multisectoral climate impact hotspots in a warming world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(9), 3233–3238. doi:10.1073/pnas.1222471110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, R. B., & Kirkpatrick, K. (2012). Playing with conflict: Teaching conflict resolution through simulations and games. Simulation & Gaming, 44(1), 51–72. doi:10.1177/1046878112455487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, O. (2013). The concept of openness behind c and x-MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). Open Praxis, 5(1), 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salgado, F. P., De Kraker, J., Boon, J., & Van der Klink, M. (2012). Competences for climate change education in a virtual mobility setting. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 6(1), 53–65. doi:10.1504/IJISD.2012.046053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sangrà, A., & Wheeler, S. (2013). New informal ways of learning: Or are we formalising the informal? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 10(1), 286–293. doi:10.7238/rusc.v10i1.1689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stromquist, N. P., & Monkman, K. (2014). Defining globalization and assessing its implications for knowledge and education, revisited. In N. P. Stromquist & K. Monkman (Eds.), Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures (Vol. 1, pp. 1–21). Lanham [u.a.]: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S., & Fletcher, J. D. (2012). Reflections on ‘a review of trends in serious gaming’. Review of Educational Research, 82(2), 233–237. doi:10.3102/0034654312450190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137:AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2016). A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013–2015. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448.

  • Wang, Y., & Baker, R. (2015). Content or platform: Why do students complete MOOCs? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiebe, E., Thompson, I., & Behrend, T. (2015). MOOCs From the Viewpoint of the Learner: A Response to Perna et al. (2014). Educational Researcher, 44(4), 252–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, S., Rosson, M. B., Shih, P. C., & Carroll, J. M. (2015). Understanding student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs. In CSCW’15: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1882–1895). https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675217.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Interdisciplinary Distance Studies of Environmental Sciences, FernUniversität in Hagen, Universitätsstraße 33, 58084, Hagen, Germany

    Daniel Otto

Authors
  1. Daniel Otto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Otto .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology & CESAM, Centre fo, University of Aveiro Department of Biology & CESAM, Centre fo, Aveiro, Portugal

    Ulisses M. Azeiteiro

  2. School of Science and Environment, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom

    Walter Leal Filho

  3. Dept. of Education and Distance Learning, Universidade Aberta , Porto, Portugal

    Luísa Aires

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Otto, D. (2018). MOOCs—A Powerful Tool for Imparting Climate Literacy? Insights from Parleys with Students. In: Azeiteiro, U., Leal Filho, W., Aires, L. (eds) Climate Literacy and Innovations in Climate Change Education. Climate Change Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70199-8_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70199-8_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70198-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70199-8

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation