How Learners Participate in Connectivist Learning: An Analysis of the Interaction Traces From a cMOOC
ARTICLE
Zhijun Wang, Jiangnan University ; Terry Anderson, Li Chen
IRRODL Volume 19, Number 1, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press
Abstract
In this research paper, the authors analyse the collected data output during a 36 week cMOOC. Six-week data streams from blogs, Twitter, a Facebook group, and video conferences were tracked from the daily newsletter and the MOOCs’ hashtag (#Change 11). This data was analysed using content analysis and social network analysis within an interpretative research paradigm. The content analysis was used to examine the technology learners used to support their learning while the social network analysis focused on the participant in different spaces and their participation patterns in connectivist learning.The findings from this research include: 1) A variety of technologies were used by learners to support their learning in this course; 2) Four types of participation patterns were reveled, including unconnected floaters, connected lurkers, connected participants, and active contributors. The participation of learners displays the participation inequality typical of social media, but the ratio of active contributors is much higher than xMOOCs; 3) There were five basic structures of social networks formed in the learning; and 4) The interaction around topics and topic generation supports the idea of learning as network creation after the analysis of participation patterns that are based on some deep interactive topic. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the behaviors of learners in a cMOOC in an open and distributed online environment, so that future MOOCs designers and facilitators can understand, design and facilitate more effective MOOCs for learners.
Citation
Wang, Z., Anderson, T. & Chen, L. (2018). How Learners Participate in Connectivist Learning: An Analysis of the Interaction Traces From a cMOOC. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved March 28, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/182360/.
References
View References & Citations Map- Arnold, P., Kumar, S., Thillosen, A., & Ebner, M. (2014) Offering cMOOCs collaboratively: The COER13 experience from the convenor’s perspective, In U. Cress, & C.D. Kloos (Eds.),.Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2014 (pp. 184-188). Retrieved from
- Bozkurt, A., Honeychurch, S., Caines, A., Maha, B., Koutropoulos, A., & Cormier, D. (2016). Community
- Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3. Retrieved from http://wwwjime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/viewArticle/2012-18/html
- Downes, S. (2007). Learning networks in practice. Emerging Technologies for Learning, 2, 19-27.
- Fini, A. (2009). The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08 course tools. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/643/1402Continued
- Fournier, H., Kop, R., & Durand, G. (2014). Challenges to research in MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 1-15.
- Guanawardena, C.N., Lowe, X., Constance, A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global debate and the
- Hew, K.F. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology 47(2), 320-341.
- Hill, P. (2013). The four student archetypes emerging in MOOCs [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://mfeldstein.com/the-four-student-archetypes-emerging-in-moocs/
- Kop, R. (2010, June). The design and development of a personal learning environment: Researching the
- Levy, D. (2011). Lessons learned from participating in a connectivist massive online open course (MOOC). In Y. Eshet-Alkalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri, & Y. Yair, (Eds.), Proceedings of the Chais
- Mika, P. (2007). Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics. Web Semantics: science, Services and Agents on the WorldWide Web, 5(1), 5-15.
- Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning& Teaching, 9(2), 149-159.
- Nielsen, J. (2006). Participation inequality: Encouraging more users to contribute [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality
- Ostashewski, N., Howell, J., & Dron, J. (2016). Crowdsourcing MOOC interactions: Using a social media site cMOOC to engage students in university course activities [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/2528/PDF?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
- Riel, J. & Lawless, K.A. (2017). Developments in MOOC technologies and participation since 2012: Changes since “The year of the MOOC.” In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information
- Rodriguez, C.O. (2013). Two distinct course formats in the delivery of connectivist MOOCs. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 66-80.
- Saadatmand, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2014). Participants' perceptions of learning and networking in connectivist MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 16-30.
- Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform [Blog post]. ELearnspace. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/
- Siemens, G. (2013). Massive open online courses: Innovation in education? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/pub_PS_OER-IRP_CH1.pdf
- Siemens, G. (2014). Multiple pathways: Blending xMOOCs & CMOOCs [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2014/05/06/multiple-pathways-blending-xmoocs-cmoocs/
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References