Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 411–431 | Cite as

The nature and level of learner–learner interaction in a chemistry massive open online course (MOOC)

  • Andrew A. Tawfik
  • Todd D. Reeves
  • Amy E. Stich
  • Anila Gill
  • Chenda Hong
  • Joseph McDade
  • Venkata Sai Pillutla
  • Xiaoshu Zhou
  • Philippe J. Giabbanelli
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Similar to other online courses, massive open online courses (MOOCs) often rely on learner–learner interaction as a mechanism to promote learning. However, little is known at present about learner–learner interaction in these nascent informal learning environments. While some studies have explored MOOC participant perceptions of learner–learner interactions, research is still lacking regarding the content and level of such interactions. Using the interaction analysis model (IAM) as a theoretical framework and social network analysis methods, the present study investigates the nature and level of learner–learner interaction within a popular Chemistry MOOC from Coursera. Findings suggest that learner–learner interaction: was limited to lower phases of the IAM framework (e.g., sharing and comparing information); changed (decreased) over time; and was heavily dependent on a few highly-engaged learners. Potential implications for the design of future MOOCs are discussed.

Keywords

MOOCs Interaction analysis model STEM Online learning Computer supported collaborative learning Social network analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Funding

This study was not completed as a result of funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This study does not have any conflict of interests.

References

  1. Adams, C., Yin, Y., Madriz, L. F. V., & Mullen, C. S. (2014). A phenomenology of learning large: the tutorial sphere of xMOOC video lectures. Distance Education, 35(2), 202–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alario-Hoyos, C., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Delgado Kloos, C., Parada, G., et al. (2016). Who are the top contributors in a MOOC? Relating participants’ performance and contributions. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 32(3), 232–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49–60.Google Scholar
  4. Barba, P. G., Kennedy, G. E., & Ainley, M. D. (2016). The role of students’ motivation and participation in predicting performance in a MOOC Motivation and participation in MOOCs. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 32(3), 218–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanco, Á.F., García-Peñalvo, F.J., & Sein-Echaluce, M. (2013). A methodology proposal for developing adaptive cMOOC. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Technological Ecosystem for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 553–558). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Brandes, U., & Erlebach, T. (2005). Network analysis: Methodological foundations. Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13–25.Google Scholar
  9. Brinton, C. G., Chiang, M., Jain, S., Lam, H., Liu, Z., & Wong, F. M. F. (2014). Learning about social learning in MOOCs: From statistical analysis to generative model. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(4), 346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooks, C. D., & Jeong, A. C. (2006). Effects of pre-structuring discussion threads on group interaction and group performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Distance Education, 27(3), 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chai, C. S., & Tan, S. C. (2009). Professional development of teachers for computer-supported collaborative learning: A knowledge-building approach. Teacher Knowledge Records, 111(5), 1296–1327.Google Scholar
  12. Chen, Y.-H., & Chen, P.-J. (2015/8). MOOC study group: Facilitation strategies, influential factors, and student perceived gains. Computers & Education, 86, 55–70.Google Scholar
  13. Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B., Bennett, A., Woods, D., & Emanuel, E. J. (2013). The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why? Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2350964.
  14. Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2012(3). Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/article/view/2012-18/sirjohn.ca/.
  15. Dennen, V. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dillahunt, T. R., Wang, B. Z., & Teasley, S. (2014). Democratizing higher education: Exploring MOOC use among those who cannot afford a formal education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dowell, N.M., Skrypnyk, O., Joksimović, S., Graesser, A.C., Dawson, S., Gašević, D., Hennis, T.A., de Vries, P., & Kovanović, V. (2015). Modeling learners’ social centrality and performance through language and discourse. In Submitted to the 8th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2015).Google Scholar
  18. Draper, D. C. (2015). Collaborative instructional strategies to enhance knowledge convergence. The American Journal of Distance Education, 29(2), 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fritz, J. (2011/3). Classroom walls that talk: Using online course activity data of successful students to raise self-awareness of underperforming peers. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 89–97Google Scholar
  20. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Joksimovic, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Where is research on massive open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC research initiative. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gillani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goggins, S. P., Galyen, K. D., Petakovic, E., & Laffey, J. M. (2016). Connecting performance to social structure and pedagogy as a pathway to scaling learning analytics in MOOCs: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 32(3), 244–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodyear, P., Jones, C., & Thompson, K. (2014). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Instructional approaches, group processes and educational designs. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 439–453). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001.Google Scholar
  27. Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education, 98, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jiang, S., Fitzhugh, S.M., & Warschauer, M. (2014). Social positioning and performance in MOOCs. In Workshop on Graph-Based Educational Data Mining (p. 14).Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). Cooperation and the use of technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 659–670). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1651.
  32. Juwah, C. (2006). Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  33. Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C., & Chen, Z. (2013). Retention and intention in massive open online courses: In depth. Educause Review, 48(3), 62–63.Google Scholar
  35. Kop, R., & Fournier, H. (2011). New dimensions to self-directed learning in an open networked learning environment. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 7(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  36. Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A.E., Schroder, K.E.E., & Belland, B.R. (2014/1). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50Google Scholar
  37. Laffey, J., Amelung, C., & Goggins, S. (2009). A context awareness system for online learning: Design based research. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(3), 313–330.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lu, J., Lajoie, S. P., & Wiseman, J. (2010). Scaffolding problem-based learning with CSCL tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lucas, M., Gunawardena, C., & Moreira, A. (2014/1). Assessing social construction of knowledge online: A critique of the interaction analysis model. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 574–582Google Scholar
  41. Lucas, M., & Moreira, A. (2010). Knowledge construction with social web tools. In M. D. Lytras et al. (Eds.), 1st International conference on reforming education and quality of teaching, CCIS 73 (pp. 278–284). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-13166-0_4078-284.
  42. Mackness, J., & Bell, F. (2015). Rhizo14: A rhizomatic learning cMOOC in sunlight and in shade. Open Praxis, 7(1), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015/1). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.Google Scholar
  44. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  46. Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, 33(1), 5–30.Google Scholar
  47. Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 23(2), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Padilla-Rodriguez, B. C., & Armellini, A. (2015). Expanding the interaction equivalency theorem. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2085
  49. Phan, T., McNeil, S. G., & Robin, B. R. (2016). Students’ patterns of engagement and course performance in a massive open online course. Computers & Education, 95, 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., Kirschner, P. A., Erkens, G., & Jaspers, J. (2010). Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Computers in Human Behavior, In Press. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.024.Google Scholar
  51. Pursel, B. K., Zhang, L., Jablokow, K. W., Choi, G. W., & Velegol, D. (2016). Understanding MOOC students: motivations and behaviours indicative of MOOC completion. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 32(3), 202–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rabbany, R., Elatia, S., Takaffoli, M., & Zaïane, O. R. (2014). Collaborative learning of students in online discussion forums: A social network analysis perspective. In A. Peña-Ayala (Ed.), Educational data mining (pp. 441–466). New York: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reeves, T. D., & Pedulla, J. J. (2011). Predictors of teacher satisfaction with online professional development: Evidence from the USA’s e-Learning for Educators initiative. Professional Development in Education, 37(4), 591–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student–instructor and student–student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102–120.Google Scholar
  55. Sinha, T. (2014). Supporting MOOC instruction with social network analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.5175.
  56. Spector, J. M. (2014). Remarks on MOOCS and mini-MOOCS. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2006, 409–426.Google Scholar
  58. Stich, A. E., & Reeves, T. D. (2017/1). Massive open online courses and underserved students in the United States. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 58–71.Google Scholar
  59. Sullins, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2014). The relationship between cognitive disequilibrium, emotions and individual differences on student question generation. International Journal of Learning Technology, 9(3), 221–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136.Google Scholar
  61. van Aalst, J. (2013). Assessment in collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 280–296). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Veletsianos, G., Collier, A., & Schneider, E. (2015). Digging deeper into learners’ experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of MOOCs, notetaking and contexts surrounding content consumption. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 570–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development (M. LopezMorillas, Trans.). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Waite, M., Mackness, J., Roberts, G., & Lovegrove, E. (2013). Liminal participants and skilled orienteers: Learner participation in a MOOC for new lecturers. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 200–215.Google Scholar
  65. Wang, Y., & Baker, R. (2015). Content or platform: Why do students complete MOOCs? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching/MERLOT, 11(1), 17.Google Scholar
  66. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yap, K. C., & Chia, K. P. (2010). Knowledge construction and misconstruction: A case study approach in asynchronous discussion using Knowledge Construction—Message Map (KCMM) and Knowledge Construction—Message Graph (KCMG). Computers & Education, 55(4), 1589–1613.Google Scholar
  68. Zheng, S., Rossen, M.B., Shih, P.C. & Carroll, J.M. (2015). Understanding student motivation, behaviors, and perceptions in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 1882–1895.Google Scholar
  69. Zhenghao, C., Alcorn, B., Christensen, G., Eriksson, N., Koller, D., & Emanuel, E. J. (2015). Who’s benefiting from MOOCs and why? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/09/whos-benefiting-from-moocs-and-why.
  70. Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 152–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew A. Tawfik
    • 1
  • Todd D. Reeves
    • 2
  • Amy E. Stich
    • 3
  • Anila Gill
    • 4
  • Chenda Hong
    • 4
  • Joseph McDade
    • 5
  • Venkata Sai Pillutla
    • 5
  • Xiaoshu Zhou
    • 4
  • Philippe J. Giabbanelli
    • 5
  1. 1.Educational Technology, Research and AssessmentNorthern Illinois UniversityDekalbUSA
  2. 2.Educational Technology, Research and AssessmentNorthern Illinois UniversityDekalbUSA
  3. 3.Department of Leadership, Educational Psychology and FoundationsNorthern Illinois UniversityDekalbUSA
  4. 4.Educational Technology, Research and AssessmentNorthern Illinois UniversityDekalbUSA
  5. 5.Computer ScienceNorthern Illinois UniversityDekalbUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options