You are here:

Interactions in MOOCs: The Hidden Part of the Iceberg

, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Paris-Saclay

IRRODL Volume 19, Number 5, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press


Interactions that take place between MOOC users outside of discussion forums, and out of the reach of course designers, have received little attention from the scientific community despite their potential influence on learner retention. Based on an online survey, we found that MOOCs are often used as an activity among friends and family, and not exclusively in the academics or in the workplace. Interactions between course users may continue beyond of the boundaries of the course, and sometimes into other MOOCs. These various interactions include collaborative tasks, as well as tasks which should be performed individually, such as assessments. This work illustrates the mismatch that can appear between prescribed and actual tasks, and the potential importance of interactions between users, to address the isolation that contributes to low retention rates for online learners.


Cisel, M. (2018). Interactions in MOOCs: The Hidden Part of the Iceberg. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved December 19, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technologyenabled learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 98–118. Http://
  2. Bulger, M., Bright, J., & Cobo, C. (2015). The real component of virtual learning: motivations for face-to-face MOOC meetings in developing and industrialized countries. Information,
  3. Kizilcec, R.F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J.J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies
  4. Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C., & Chen, Z. (2013). Retention and intention in massive open online courses. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved from
  5. Kolowich, S. (2013). The professors behind the MOOC hype [Blog post]. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
  6. Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J.S.F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support
  7. Lamb, A., Smilack, J., Ho, A., & Reich, J. (2015). Addressing common analytic challenges to randomized experiments in MOOCs: Attrition and zero-inflation. In Proceedings of the
  8. Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 21–30). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
  9. Rovai, A.P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research
  10. Rovai, A.P. (2003). In search of higher persistance rates in distance education online programs.
  11. Seaton, D.T., Bergner, Y., Chuang, I., Mitros, P., & Pritchard, D.E. (2014). Who does what in a massive open online course? Communications of the ACM, 57(4), 58–65.
  12. Thomas, S.L. (2000). Ties that bind: A social network approach to understanding student integration and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 591–615.
  13. Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 53(6), 687–700.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact