Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Reconceptualising Learning in the Digital Age pp 57–77Cite as

Massive Numbers, Diverse Learning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Education ((BRIEFSODE))

Abstract

MOOCs provide education for millions of people worldwide. Though it is not clear whether everyone can learn in a MOOC. Building on the typology of MOOC participants introduced is in Chap. 3, and we explore the claim that MOOCs are for everyone. We trace the different reasons people participate in MOOCs and the ways they learn. MOOCs tend to be designed for people who are already able to learn as active, autonomous learners. Those with low confidence may be inactive. However, even learners who are confident and able to regulate their learning experience difficulties if they don’t comply with the expectations of the course designers or their peers. For example, if a learner chooses to learn by observing others, rather than contributing, this behaviour can be perceived negatively by tutors and by peers. This indicates that MOOCs sustain the traditional hierarchy between the educators (those that create MOOCs and technology systems) and the learners (those who use these courses and systems). Although this hierarchy is not always visible, since it is embedded within the algorithms and analytics that power MOOC tools and platforms.

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   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alario-Hoyos, C., Perez-Sanagustin, M., Cormier, D., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Proposal for a conceptual framework for educators to describe and design MOOCs. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 20(1), 6–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balakrishnan, G., & Cooetzee, D. (2013). Predicting student retention in Massive Open Online Courses using Markov models (Report No. UCB/EECS-2013-109). Berkley, CA: University of California at Berkeley. Retrieved from https://www2.eecs.berkley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2013/EECS-2013-109.pdf.

  • Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. (1993). Being concerned with well-being and with learning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 149–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2011, September 21). Six provocations for big data. SSRN. Paper presented at A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society, Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford, UK. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1926431.

  • Buckingham-Shum, S., & Deakin-Crick, R. (2012, April 29–May 2). Learning dispositions and transferable competencies: pedagogy, modelling and learning analytics. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 92–101). New York, NY: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J., Gibbs, A., Najafi, H., & Severinski, C. (2014). A comparison of learner intent and behaviour in live and archived MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 234–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., & Bower, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Research, 28(2), 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colvin, K., Champaign, J., Liu, A., Zhou, Q., Fredericks, C., & Pritchard, D. (2014). Learning in an introductory physics MOOC: All cohorts learn equally, including an on-campus class. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(4), 263–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Waard, I., Abajian, S., Gallagher, M., Hogue, R., Keskin, N., Koutropoulos, A., et al. (2011). Using mLearning and MOOCs to understand chaos, emergence, and complexity in education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 94–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays on meaning and learning networks. Ottawa, Canada: National Research Council Canada. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4718/ee3c1930820e094552f0933cbc3b86548dbc.pdf.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESMA. (2016, December 19). European Supervisory Authorities consult on big data. European Securities and Markets Authority. Retrieved from https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/european-supervisory-authorities-consult-big-data.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillani, N., Yasserie, T., Eynon, R., & Hjorth, I. (2014). Structural limitations of learning in a crowd: Communication vulnerability and information diffusion in MOOCs. Scientific Reports, 4, 6447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–41). New York, NY: MacMillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K., & Paavola, S. (2007, February). From monological and dialogical to trialogical approaches to learning. Paper presented at the international workshop “Guided Construction of Knowledge in Classrooms”, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. (2014). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS? British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 320–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, N., Littlejohn, A., & Milligan, C. (2015). Context counts: How learners’ contexts influence learning in a MOOC. Computers & Education, 91, 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, S., Williams, A. E., Warschauer, M., He, W., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2014). Influence of incentives on performance in a pre-college biology MOOC. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 133–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, S., Booth, S., & Oliver, K. (2014). A social network perspective on peer supported learning in MOOCs for educators. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 265–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C., & Chen, Z. (2013). Retention and intention in massive open online courses: In depth. EduCause Review Online, 48(3), 62–63. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/6/retention-and-intention-in-massive-open-online-courses-in-depth.

  • Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(7), 74–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y. L., Lin, H. W., & Hung, T. T. (2015). Value hierarchy for massive open online courses. Computers in Human Behaviour, 53, 408–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milligan, C. (2012). Change 11 SRL-MOOC study initial findings. Blog Learning in the workplace Researching learning among knowledge workers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2016). How health professionals regulate their learning in massive open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 113–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 149–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mor, Y., Ferguson, R., & Wasson, B. (2015). Learning design, teacher inquiry into student learning and learning analytics: A call for action. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 221–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morozov, E. (2014, October 13). The planning machine. The New Yorker. Retrieved from www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/13/planning-machine.

  • Muñoz-Merino, P., Ruiperez-Valiente, J., Alario-Hoyos, C., Perez-Sanagustin, M., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2015). Precise effectiveness strategy for analyzing the effectiveness of students with educational resources and activities in MOOCs. Computers in Human Behaviour, 47, 108–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The Knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 1(1), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. (1997). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In B. Biddle, T. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.), The International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1223–1296). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rayyan, S., Seaton, D., Belcher, J., Pritchard, D., & Chuang, I. (2013, October). Participation and performance in 8.02x Electricity and Magnetism: The first physics MOOC from MITx. Paper presented at Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, Portland, Oregon, US. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3173.

  • Rienties, B., & Rivers, B. A. (2014). Measuring and understanding learner emotions: Evidence and prospects. Learning Analytics Review, 1, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 26(1), 65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education. Cambridge, UK: Polity Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, T., Li, N., Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014, October 25). Capturing “attrition intensifying” structural traits from didactic interaction sequences of MOOC learners. Paper presented at the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Workshop on Modeling Large Scale Social Interaction in Massively Open Online Courses, Doha, Qatar (pp. 42–49). Taberg, Sweden: Taberg Media Group AB. Retrieved from https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W14/W14-41.pdf.

  • Skrypnyk, O., de Vries, P., & Hennis, T. (2015, May 18–20). Reconsidering retention in MOOCs: The relevance of formal assessment and pedagogy. Paper presented at the Third European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit, Université catholique de Louvain, Mons, Belgium. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37666738/Papers.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1503231269&Signature=IrKy647r03CIxal0L%2BVnXQFNlkQ%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DDesign_intent_and_iteration_The_HumanMOO.pdf#page=166.

  • Tabba, Y., & Medouri, A. (2013). LASyM: A learning analytics system for MOOCs. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 4(5), 113–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vale, K., & Littlejohn, A. (2014). Massive open online course: A traditional or transformative approach to learning. In A. Littlejohn & C. Pegler (Eds.), Reusing open resources: Learning in open networks for work, life and education (pp. 138–153). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vu, D., Pattison, P., & Robins, G. (2015). Relational event models for social learning in MOOCs. Social Networks, 43, 121–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & Baker, R. (2015). Content or platform: Why do students complete MOOCs? MERLOT, 11(1), 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in Web 2.0. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, B. (2015, April 15–17). Cognitive computing and data analytics in the classroom. Paper presented at British Sociological Association Annual Conference 2015, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/11968853/Cognitive_computing_and_data_analytics_in_the_classroom.

  • Yang, D., Wen, M., Kumar, A., Xing, E., & Rosé, C. (2014). Towards an integration of text and graph clustering methods as a lens for studying social interaction in MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 214–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Vicky Murphy of The Open University for comments and for proofing this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Allison Littlejohn

  2. University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Nina Hood

Authors
  1. Allison Littlejohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nina Hood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allison Littlejohn .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Littlejohn, A., Hood, N. (2018). Massive Numbers, Diverse Learning. In: Reconceptualising Learning in the Digital Age. SpringerBriefs in Education(). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8893-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8893-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8892-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8893-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation