Towards Full Engagement for Open Online Education. A Practical Experience for a MicroMaster

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10254)


This work explores on the different phases of the student’s participation in a MOOC. For this particular study three phases of a MOOC are defined: pre-MOOC, MOOC and post-MOOC. This work presents an innovative framework with the aim to create full engagement for the learners on massive open online learning environments. The proposed framework was prepared with the aim to increase the engagement and motivation of the student from the enrollment step to the start of the course, but the most important objective is to extend the interaction beyond the end of the course, the post-MOOC phase. This work explores the experience from two “MicroMaster” specializations in the edX platform: “Professional Android Developer” and one specialization taught in Spanish: “E-Learning for teachers: create innovative activities and content”.


MOOC experiences Engagement Motivation Community Lifelong learning 



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


  1. 1.
    Rivard, R.: Measuring the MOOC dropout rate. Inside High. Educ. (2013).
  2. 2.
    Kloft, M., Stiehler, F., Zheng, Z., Pinkwart, N.: 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 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Onah, D.F., Sinclair, J., Boyatt, R.: Dropout rates of massive open online courses: behavioural patterns. In: EDULEARN 2014 Proceedings, pp. 5825–5834 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Parslow, P., Williams, S.: Dropout: MOOC participants’ perspective (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halawa, S., Greene, D., Mitchell, J.: Dropout prediction in MOOCs using learner activity features. In: Experiences and Best Practices in and Around MOOCs, p. 7 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gütl, C., Rizzardini, R.H., Chang, V., Morales, M.: Attrition in MOOC: lessons learned from drop-out students. In: Uden, L., Sinclair, J., Tao, Y.-H., Liberona, D. (eds.) LTEC 2014. CCIS, vol. 446, pp. 37–48. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10671-7_4 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hernández, R., Morales, M., Guetl, C.: An attrition model for MOOCs: evaluating the learning strategies of gamification. In: Caballé, S., Clarisó, R. (eds.) Formative Assessment, Learning Data Analytics and Gamification, Chap. 14, pp. 295–310. Elsevier (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J. Buckley, J.A., Bridges, B.K., Hayek, J.C.: Piecing Together the Student Success Puzzle: Research, Propositions, and Recommendations: ASHE Higher Education Report, vol. 32, no. 5. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quaye, S.J., Harper, S.R.: Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. Routledge, Abingdon (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clark, R.C., Mayer, R.E.: E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. Wiley, Hoboken (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muntean, C.I.: Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL, pp. 323–329 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hernández, R., Guetl, C., Amado-Salvatierra, H.R.: Facebook for e-moderation: a Latin-American experience. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies, p. 37. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jennings, C., Wargnier, J.: Effective learning with 70:20:10. The New Front. Ext. Enterp. CrossKnowledge 1, 9–21 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eichinger, R., Lombardo, M.: The Career Architect Development Planner. Lominger Limited, Minneapolis (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hagel, J.: Net gain: expanding markets through virtual communities. J. Interact. Mark. 13(1), 55–65 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ardichvili, A., Page, V., Wentling, T.: Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. J. knowl. Manag. 7(1), 64–77 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barab, S.: An introduction to the special issue: designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Inf. Soc. 19(3), 197–201 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chiu, C.M., Hsu, M.H., Wang, E.T.: Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decis. Support Syst. 42(3), 1872–1888 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wenger, E.: Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Malthouse, E.C., Peck, A. (eds.): Medill on Media Engagement. Hampton Press, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bolton, R.N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Solnet, D.: Understanding generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research agenda. J. Serv. Manag. 24(3), 245–267 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davis, R., Malthouse, E.C., Calder, B.J.: Engagement with online media. J. Media Bus. Stud. 7(2), 39–56 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fischer, G.: Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of participation. Interactions 18(3), 42–53 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Irvine, V., Code, J., Richards, L.: Realigning higher education for the 21st century learner through multi-access learning. J. Online Learn. Teach. 9(2), 172 (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Cormier, D., Kloos, C.D.: Proposal for a conceptual framework for educators to describe and design MOOCs. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 20(1), 6–23 (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M.L., García-Peñalvo, F.J.: Methodological approach and technological framework to break the current limitations of MOOC model. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 21(5), 712–734 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Amado-Salvatierra, H.R., Hilera, J.R., Tortosa, S.O., Rizzardini, R.H., Piedra, N.: Towards a semantic definition of a framework to implement accessible e-learning projects. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 22(7), 921–942 (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W.M.: Seven principles for cultivating communities of practice. Cultiv. Communities Pract.: Guide Manag. Knowl. 4, 49–64 (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    LinkedIn Social Network.
  30. 30.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GES DepartmentGalileo UniversityGuatemalaGuatemala

Personalised recommendations