Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of learners’ background and social network position on content-related MOOC interaction

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between an individual learner’s background, social network position, and interaction within a Massively Open Online Course (MOOC). Prior research has largely focused on the effects of background and social network position on quantitative features of interaction. This research considered qualitative features such as cognitive engagement level and sentiment polarity in interaction and the extent to which each of these factors influences interaction. We used a survey to collect demographic background information of MOOC users and then used social network analysis to examine the social network position of each MOOC user. We also used content analysis to evaluate the interaction on MOOC discussion forums. Background and social network positions were found to be associated with interaction differently within certain subgroups. The top and bottom 20% of learners who actively connected in social networks tended to engage in constructive cognitive activities, rather than active or interactive ones. The top 20% of threads showed a positive contribution of social network position diversity to interaction. Thread level diversity did not significantly impact the interaction level.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, T. (2004). Towards a theory of online learning. Theory and Practice of Online Learning, 2, 109–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atapattu, T., Thilakaratne, M., Vivian, R., & Falkner, K. (2019). Detecting cognitive engagement using word embeddings within an online teacher professional development community. Computers & Education, 140, 103594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balaji, H., Govindasamy, V., & Akila, V. (2016, May). Social opinion mining and concise rendition. In 2016 International Conference on Advanced Communication Control and Computing Technologies (ICACCCT) (pp. 641–645). IEEE.

  • Bayeck, R. Y., Hristova, A., Jablokow, K. W., & Bonafini, F. (2018). Exploring the relevance of single-gender group formation: What we learn from a massive open online course (MOOC). British Journal of Educational Technology, 49, 88–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David, A. (2008). Comparison of classification accuracy using Cohen’s Weighted Kappa. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(2), 825–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruff, D. (2013). Lessons learned from Vanderbilt’s first MOOCs. Retrieved October 17, 2013, from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/2013/08/lessons-learned-from-vanderbilts-first-moocs/.

  • Castaño-Muñoz, J., Kreijns, K., Kalz, M., & Punie, Y. (2017). Does digital competence and occupational setting influence MOOC participation? Evidence from a cross-course survey. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(1), 28–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaplot, D. S., Rhim, E., & Kim, J. (2015, June). Predicting student attrition in MOOCs using sentiment analysis and neural networks. In AIED Workshops.

  • Chi, M. T., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., Levy, R., Li, N., McEldoon, K. L., Stump, G. S., Wylie, R., Xu, D. L., & Wylie, R. (2018). Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cognitive science, 42(6), 1777–1832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, M. H., & Byun, M. K. (2017). Nonnative english-speaking students’ lived learning experiences with MOOCs in a regular college classroom. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 2892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). Interpretation and application of factor analytic results. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis, 2, 1992.

  • Conole, G. (2016). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. RED Revista de Educación a Distancia. https://doi.org/10.6018/red/50/2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crues, R. W., Bosch, N., Perry, M., Angrave, L., Shaik, N., & Bhat, S. (2018, June). Refocusing the lens on engagement in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the fifth annual ACM conference on learning at scale (pp. 1–10).

  • Darken, R. P., & Sibert, J. L. (1996). Navigating large virtual spaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 8(1), 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Lima, M., & Zorrilla, M. E. (2017). Social networks and the building of learning communities: An Experimental study of a social MOOC. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(1), 2630.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Seaton, D., & Breslow, L. (2013, June). Diversity in MOOC students’ backgrounds and behaviors in relationship to performance in 6.002 x. In Proceedings of the sixth learning international networks consortium conference (Vol. 4, pp. 16–19).

  • Gamage, D. (2021). Scaffolding Social Presence in MOOCs. In Asian CHI Symposium 2021 (Asian CHI Symposium 2021), May 8–13, 2021. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3429360.3468198

  • Galikyan, I., Admiraal, W., & Kester, L. (2021). MOOC discussion forums: The interplay of the cognitive and the social. Computers & Education, 165, 104133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massive open online course. Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmedna, B., El Mezouary, A., Baz, O., & Mammass, D. (2017). Identifying and tracking learning styles in MOOCs: A neural networks approach. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 19(2), 267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. (2014, October 5). MOOCs, participation, and the Long Tail. Retrieved from http://michelejackson.blogs.wm.edu/2014/10/05/moocs-participation-and-the-long-tail/

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q., & Baker, R. (2016). Understanding Engagement in MOOCs. In EDM (pp. 605–606).

  • Liu, S., Liu, S., Liu, Z., Peng, X., & Yang, Z. (2022). Automated detection of emotional and cognitive engagement in MOOC discussions to predict learning achievement. Computers & Education, 181, 104461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z., Mu, R., Liu, S., Peng, X., & Liu, S. (2021, June). Modeling temporal association of cognition-topic in MOOC discussion to track learners' cognitive engagement dynamics. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 319–322).

  • Loizzo, J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). MOOCocracy: The learning culture of massive open online courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(6), 1013–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubis, F. F., Rosmansyah, Y., & Supangkat, S. H. (2016). Experience in learners review to determine attribute relation for course completion. Paper presented at the 32–36.

  • Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on networked learning 2010 (pp. 266–275). University of Lancaster.

  • Martinez, M. (2003). High attrition rates in e-learning: Challenges, predictors, and solutions. The eLearning Developers Journal, 2(2), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice (CC attribution). Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf.

  • Pillutla, V. S. S. (2017). Helping users learn about social processes while learning from users: Developing a positive feedback in social computing. Northern Illinois University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, G. (2000). E-Moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, J., Huynh, B., O'Donovan, J., Hollerer, T., Xia, Y., & Lin, S. (2016). An analysis of student behavior in two massive open online courses. Paper presented at the 380–385. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1844114461?accountid=13158

  • Seaton, D. T., Bergner, Y., Chuang, I., Mitros, P., & Pritchard, D. E. (2014). Who does what in a massive open online course? Communications of the ACM, 57(4), 58–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, C., & Kuo, C. (2015). Learning in massive open online courses: Evidence from social media mining. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 568–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinnerton, B., Hotchkiss, S., & Morris, N. P. (2017a). Comments in MOOCs: Who is doing the talking and does it help? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(1), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinnerton, B. J., Morris, N. P., Hotchkiss, S., & Pickering, J. D. (2017b). The integration of an anatomy massive open online course (MOOC) into a medical anatomy curriculum. Anatomical Sciences Education, 10(1), 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takaffoli, M., & Zaïane, O. R. (2012). Social network analysis and mining to support the assessment of online student participation. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 13(2), 20–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tawfik, A. A., Reeves, T. D., Stich, A. E., Gill, A., Hong, C., McDade, J., Pillutla, V. S., Zhou, X., & Giabbanelli, P. J. (2017). The nature and level of learner–learner interaction in a chemistry massive open online course (MOOC). Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(3), 411–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tong, T., & Li, H. (2018). Demand for MOOC: An application of big data. China Economic Review, 51, 194–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Yang, D., Wen, M., Koedinger, K., & Rosé, C. P. (2015). Investigating how student’s cognitive behavior in MOOC discussion forums affect learning gains. International Educational Data Mining Society, 2015, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanstreet, C. E. (2006). Interaction in online learning environments: A review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(4), 399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wei, X., Lin, H., Yang, L., & Yu, Y. (2017). A convolution-LSTM-based deep neural network for cross-domain MOOC forum post classification. Information, 8(3), 92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen, M., Yang, D., & Rose, C. (2014, July). Sentiment analysis in MOOC discussion forums: What does it tell us? Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2014) (pp. 130–137).

  • Wu, T., Yao, Y., Duan, Y., Fan, X., & Qu, H. (2016). NetworkSeer: Visual analysis for social network in MOOCs. In IEEE Conferences (pp. 194–198). https://doi.org/10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2016.7465269

  • Zawacki-Richter, O., Bozkurt, A., Alturki, U., & Aldraiweesh, A. (2018). What research says about MOOCs–An explorative content analysis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1), 3356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Skryabin, M., & Song, X. (2016). Understanding the dynamics of MOOC discussion forums with simulation investigation for empirical network analysis (SIENA). Distance Education, 37(3), 270–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Boston University, Boston, USA

    Qiyuan Li

  2. Pennsylvania State University, State College, USA

    Priya Sharma

Authors
  1. Qiyuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Priya Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qiyuan Li.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Q., Sharma, P. The effects of learners’ background and social network position on content-related MOOC interaction. Education Tech Research Dev 71, 973–990 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10221-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10221-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation