Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 06 April 2017

This article has been updated

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.

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

Change history

  • 06 April 2017

    An erratum to this article has been published.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Brandes, U., & Erlebach, T. (2005). Network analysis: Methodological foundations. Springer.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Chen, Y.-H., & Chen, P.-J. (2015/8). MOOC study group: Facilitation strategies, influential factors, and student perceived gains. Computers & Education, 86, 55–70.

  • 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.

  • 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/.

  • Dennen, V. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Draper, D. C. (2015). Collaborative instructional strategies to enhance knowledge convergence. The American Journal of Distance Education, 29(2), 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 89–97

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education, 98, 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, S., Fitzhugh, S.M., & Warschauer, M. (2014). Social positioning and performance in MOOCs. In Workshop on Graph-Based Educational Data Mining (p. 14).

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Juwah, C. (2006). Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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, 35–50

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 574–582

  • 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.

  • Mackness, J., & Bell, F. (2015). Rhizo14: A rhizomatic learning cMOOC in sunlight and in shade. Open Praxis, 7(1), 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015/1). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.

  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 23(2), 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sinha, T. (2014). Supporting MOOC instruction with social network analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.5175.

  • Spector, J. M. (2014). Remarks on MOOCS and mini-MOOCS. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was not completed as a result of funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Technology, Research and Assessment, Northern Illinois University, 231 N. Annie Glidden Rd, Gabel Hall (Office 101G), Dekalb, IL, 60115, USA

    Andrew A. Tawfik

  2. Educational Technology, Research and Assessment, Northern Illinois University, 231 N. Annie Glidden Rd, Gabel Hall 204A, Dekalb, IL, 60115, USA

    Todd D. Reeves

  3. Department of Leadership, Educational Psychology and Foundations, Northern Illinois University, 231 N. Annie Glidden Rd, Graham Hall (GA 204A), Dekalb, IL, 60115, USA

    Amy E. Stich

  4. Educational Technology, Research and Assessment, Northern Illinois University, 231 N. Annie Glidden Rd, Dekalb, IL, 60115, USA

    Anila Gill, Chenda Hong & Xiaoshu Zhou

  5. Computer Science, Northern Illinois University, 231 N. Annie Glidden Rd, Dekalb, IL, 60115, USA

    Joseph McDade, Venkata Sai Pillutla & Philippe J. Giabbanelli

Authors
  1. Andrew A. Tawfik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Todd D. Reeves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amy E. Stich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anila Gill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chenda Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joseph McDade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Venkata Sai Pillutla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xiaoshu Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Philippe J. Giabbanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew A. Tawfik.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This study does not have any conflict of interests.

Additional information

The original version of this article was revised. The article title was incorrectly presented as: The nature and level of learner–learner in a chemistry massive open online course (MOOC) and has been corrected as: The nature and level of learner–learner interaction in a chemistry massive open online course (MOOC).

An erratum to this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9144-2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tawfik, A.A., Reeves, T.D., Stich, A.E. et al. The nature and level of learner–learner interaction in a chemistry massive open online course (MOOC). J Comput High Educ 29, 411–431 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9135-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9135-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation