A Social Learning Space Grid for MOOCs: Exploring a FutureLearn Case

  • Kalpani Manathunga
  • Davinia Hernández-Leo
  • Mike Sharples
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10254)

Abstract

Collaborative and social engagement promote active learning through knowledge intensive interactions. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are dynamic and diversified learning spaces with varying factors like flexible time frames, student count, demographics requiring higher engagement and motivation to continue learning and for designers to implement novel pedagogies including collaborative learning activities. This paper looks into available and potential collaborative and social learning spaces within MOOCs and proposes a social learning space grid that can aid MOOC designers to implement such spaces, considering the related requirements. Furthermore, it describes a MOOC case study incorporating three collaborative and social learning spaces and discusses challenges faced. Interesting lessons learned from the case give an insight on which spaces to be implemented and the scenarios and factors to be considered.

Keywords

Collaborative learning Social learning MOOC 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness under RESET (TIN2014-53199-C3-3-R), the Maria de Maeztu Programme (MDM-2015-0502) and the RecerCaixa CoT project.

References

  1. 1.
    Dillenbourg, P.: Orchestration Graphs. EPFL Press, Switzerland (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J.I., Dimitriadis, Y., Villasclaras-Fernández, E.D.: Generating CSCL scripts. From a conceptual model of pattern languages to the design of real scripts. In: Goodyear, P., Retalis, S. (eds.) Technology-Enhanced Learning, Design Patterns and Pattern Languages. Series Technology Enhanced Learning, pp. 49–64. Sense Publishers (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura, A.: Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Manathunga, K., Hernández-leo, D.: Has research on collaborative learning technologies addressed massiveness? A literature review. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18(4), 357–370 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C.: Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In: Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, pp. 97–118 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosé, C.P., Carlson, R., Yang, D., Wen, M., Resnick, L., Goldman, P., Sherer, J.: Social factors that contribute to attrition in MOOCs. In: First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale, pp. 197–198 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Siemens, G., Gasevic, D., Dawson, S.: Preparing for the digital university: a review of the history and current state of distance, blended and online learning (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferguson, R., Sharples, M.: Innovative pedagogy at massive scale: teaching and learning in MOOCs. In: Rensing, C., Freitas, S., Ley, T., Muñoz-Merino, P.J. (eds.) EC-TEL 2014. LNCS, vol. 8719, pp. 98–111. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11200-8_8 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alario-Hoyos, C., Perez-Sanagustin, M., Delgado-Kloos, C., Parada, G., Munoz-Organero, M.: Delving into participants’ profiles and use of social tools in MOOCs. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 7(3), 260–265 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferguson, R., Clow, D., Beale, R., Cooper, A.J., Morris, N., Bayne, S., Woodgate, A.: Moving through MOOCS: pedagogy, learning design and patterns of engagement. In: Conole, G., Klobučar, T., Rensing, C., Konert, J., Lavoué, É. (eds.) EC-TEL 2015. LNCS, vol. 9307, pp. 70–84. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24258-3_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saadatdoost, R., Sim, A.T.H., Jafarkarimi, H., Mei Hee, J.: Exploring MOOC from education and Information Systems perspectives: a short literature review. Educ. Rev. 67, 505–518 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knox, J.: Digital culture clash: “massive” education in the E-learning and Digital Cultures MOOC. Distance Educ. 35(2), 164–177 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beaven, T., Hauck, M., Comas-Quinn, A., Lewis, T., Arcos, B.: MOOCs: striking the right balance between facilitation and self-determination. MERLOT J. Online Learn. Teach. 10, 31–43 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Manathunga, K., Hernández-Leo, D.: PyramidApp: scalable method enabling collaboration in the classroom. In: Verbert, K., Sharples, M., Klobučar, T. (eds.) EC-TEL 2016. LNCS, vol. 9891, pp. 422–427. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45153-4_37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hernández-Leo, D., Villasclaras-Fernández, E.D., Asensio-Pérez, J.I., Dimitriadis, Y., Jorrín-Abellán, I.M., Ruiz-Requies, I., Rubia-Avi, B.: COLLAGE: a collaborative Learning Design editor based on patterns. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 9, 58–71 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kalpani Manathunga
    • 1
  • Davinia Hernández-Leo
    • 1
  • Mike Sharples
    • 2
  1. 1.ICT DepartmentUniversitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Institute of Educational TechnologyThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations