Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Beyond Boundaries: The Role of Learning Types in Shaping MOOC Learner Engagement and Progression Cover

Beyond Boundaries: The Role of Learning Types in Shaping MOOC Learner Engagement and Progression

Journal of Interactive Media in Education
Volume 2024 (2024): Issue 1
By: Hannah John,  John Kerr and  Guillaume Andrieux  
Open Access
|Sep 2024

References

  1. 1Aljawarneh, S, Alnsour, A and Muhsen, ZF. 2010. E-learning tools and technologies in education: A perspective. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266078239_E-learning_Tools_and_Technologies_in_Education_A_Perspective. ResearchGate: MIT LINC 2010. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1017.9847
    Back to article
  2. 2Badali, M, Hatami, J, Banihashem, SK, Rahimi, E, Noroozi, O and Eslami, Z. 2022. The role of motivation in MOOCs’ retention rates: a systematic literature review. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17(1). DOI: 10.1186/s41039-022-00181-3
    Back to article
  3. 3Baldwin, JR, Pingault, J-B, Schoeler, T, Sallis, HM and Munafò, MR. 2022. Protecting against researcher bias in secondary data analysis: Challenges and potential solutions. European Journal of Epidemiology, [online] 37(1): 1–10. DOI: 10.1007/s10654-021-00839-0
    Back to article
  4. 4Borup, J, West, RE and Graham, CR. 2012. Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3): 195–203. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001
    Back to article
  5. 5Boud, D. 2000. Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, [online] 22(2): 151–167. DOI: 10.1080/713695728
    Back to article
  6. 6Boud, D and Soler, R. 2015. Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3): 400–413. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133
    Back to article
  7. 7Bowen, P, Rose, R and Pilkington, A. 2017. Mixed methods- theory and practice. Sequential, explanatory approach. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, 5(2): 10–27.
    Back to article
  8. 8Conole, G. 2014. A new classification schema for MOOCs. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning (INNOQUAL). Available at: https://moodle2.units.it/pluginfile.php/99466/mod_folder/content/0/conole.pdf?forcedownload=1.
    Back to article
  9. 9Creswell, JW. 2015. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Los Angeles: Sage.
    Back to article
  10. 10Diwanji, P, Simon, BP, Marki, M, Korkut, S and Dornberger, R. 2014. Success factors of online learning videos. 2014 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL2014). DOI: 10.1109/IMCTL.2014.7011119
    Back to article
  11. 11Dobrian, F, Sekar, V, Awan, A, Stoica, I, Joseph, D, Ganjam, A, Zhan, J and Zhang, H. 2011. Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 41(4): 362. DOI: 10.1145/2043164.2018478
    Back to article
  12. 12Erzberger, C and Prein, G. 1997. Triangulation: Validity and empirically-based hypothesis construction. Quality and Quantity, 31(2): 141–154. DOI: 10.1023/A:1004249313062
    Back to article
  13. 13Evers, K. 2018. Breaking barriers with building blocks: Attitudes towards learning technologies and curriculum design in the ABC curriculum design workshop. Erudito, 2(4).
    Back to article
  14. 14Fielding, NG. 2012. Triangulation and mixed methods designs. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2): 124–136. DOI: 10.1177/1558689812437101
    Back to article
  15. 15Garrison, DR and Arbaugh, JB. 2007. Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3): 157–172. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
    Back to article
  16. 16Gilbert, PK and Dabbagh, N. 2004. How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1): 5–18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.x
    Back to article
  17. 17Harrison, T. 2019. How distance education students perceive the impact of teaching videos on their learning. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 35(3): 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2019.1702518
    Back to article
  18. 18Ho, AD, Chuang, I, Reich, J, Coleman, CA, Whitehill, J, Northcutt, CG, Williams, JJ, Hansen, JD, Lopez, G and Petersen, R. 2015. HarvardX and MITx: Two years of open online courses Fall 2012-Summer 2014. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2586847
    Back to article
  19. 19Ivankova, NV, Creswell, JW and Stick, SL. 2006. Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1): 3–20. DOI: 10.1177/1525822X05282260
    Back to article
  20. 20Jaggars, SS and Xu, D. 2016. How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Education, 95: 270–284. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.014
    Back to article
  21. 21Jayashanka, R, Hewagamage, KP and Hettiarachchi, E. 2018. Improving blended learning in higher education through the synergy between learning design and learning analytics. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Mumbai, India, 2018, 227–228. IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/ICALT.2018.00120
    Back to article
  22. 22Keengwe, J and Kidd, TT. 2010. Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in higher education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2): 533–541.
    Back to article
  23. 23Kerr, J, Dale, V and Gyurko, F. 2019. Evaluation of a MOOC Design Mapping Framework (MDMF): Experiences of academics and learning technologists. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 17(1): 38–51.
    Back to article
  24. 24Kerr, J, Lorena, A, Schön, S, Ebner, M and Wittke, A. 2021. Open tools and methods to support the development of MOOCs: A collection of how-tos, monster assignments and kits. eMOOCs 2021.
    Back to article
  25. 25Khalil, H and Ebner, M. 2014. MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention – A literature review. Proceedings of EdMedia 2014—World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, [online] 2014(1): 1305–1313. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/147656/.
    Back to article
  26. 26Koumi, J. 2006. Designing video and multimedia for open and flexible learning. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.
    Back to article
  27. 27Laurillard, D. 2012. Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York, NY: Routledge.
    Back to article
  28. 28Liyanagunawardena, T, Williams, S and Adams, A. 2013. The impact and reach of MOOCs: a developing countries’ perspective. eLearning Papers, 33: 1–8. ISSN 1887-1542.
    Back to article
  29. 29Loibl, K and Rummel, N. 2013. The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students’ inventions and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 42(3): 305–326. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9282-5
    Back to article
  30. 30Martin, F and Bolliger, DU. 2018. Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, [online] 22(1): 205–222. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
    Back to article
  31. 31Mingers, J. 2004. Real-izing information systems: Critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for information systems. Information and Organization, 14(2): 87–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2003.06.001
    Back to article
  32. 32Moen, KC. 2021. The impact of multi-media presentation format: Student perceptions and learning outcomes. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 7(4). DOI: 10.1037/stl0000265
    Back to article
  33. 33Moon, K and Blackman, D. 2014. A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conservation Biology, [online] 28(5): 1167–1177. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12326
    Back to article
  34. 34Morgan, DL. 2007. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, [online] 1(1): 48–76. DOI: 10.1177/2345678906292462
    Back to article
  35. 35Rao, K, Edelen-Smith, P and Wailehua, C-U. 2015. Universal design for online courses: Applying principles to pedagogy. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 30(1): 35–52. DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2014.991300
    Back to article
  36. 36Saunders, M, Lewis, P and Thornhill, A. 2019. Research methods for business students. 8th ed. Pearson Education.
    Back to article
  37. 37Savin-Baden, M. 2004. Understanding the impact of assessment on students in problem-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(2): 221–233. DOI: 10.1080/1470329042000208729
    Back to article
  38. 38Shé, CN, Farrell, O, Bruton, J, Costello, E, Trevaskis, S, Donlon, E and Eccles, S. 2020. DCU case study: Using ABC to design an online teaching course for open online educators. Dublin City University (DCU), Erasmus+ ABC to VLE project partner. Available at: https://doras.dcu.ie/24427/1/DCU%20Case%20Study_%20Using%20ABC%20to%20Design%20an%20Online%20Teaching%20Course%20for%20Open%20Online%20Educators.pdf (Last accessed 24 January 2024).
    Back to article
  39. 39Stamov Roßnagel, C, Fitzallen, N and Lo Baido, K. 2020. Constructive alignment and the learning experience: Relationships with student motivation and perceived learning demands. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(4): 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1787956
    Back to article
  40. 40Subedi, D. 2016. Explanatory sequential mixed method design as the third research community of knowledge claim. American Journal of Educational Research, [online] 4(7): 570–577. DOI: 10.12691/education-4-7-10
    Back to article
  41. 41Toyon, MAS. 2021. Explanatory sequential design of mixed methods research: Phases and challenges. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147–4478), 10(5): 253–260. DOI: 10.20525/ijrbs.v10i5.1262
    Back to article
  42. 42University of Glasgow. 2022. Learning & teaching funding. [online] www.gla.ac.uk. Available at: https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/news/newsarchive/2022/31january2022/headline_832721_en.html (Last accessed 21 January 2024).
    Back to article
  43. 43Venkatesh, V, Brown, SA and Bala, H. 2013. Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, [online] 37(1): 21–54. DOI: 10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.1.02
    Back to article
  44. 44Watkins, DC. 2022. Secondary data in mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
    Back to article
  45. 45Young, C and Perović, N. 2016. Rapid and creative course design: As easy as ABC? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228: 390–395. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.058
    Back to article
  46. 46Young, C and Perović, N. 2020. Part 1. Introducing ABC learning design: This series of guides together with accompanying videos and workshop resources form the ABC to VLE Toolkit (ABC LD Toolkit 2020 Erasmus+ project ABC to VLE: Beyond Curriculum Design). [online] http://abc-ld.org Available at: https://abc-ld.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Part-1.-Introducing-ABC-Learning-Design-July-20.pdf.
    Back to article
  47. 47Yousef, AMF, Chatti, MA, Schroeder, U and Wosnitza, M. 2014. What drives a successful MOOC? An empirical examination of criteria to assure design quality of MOOCs. 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Athens, Greece, 2014, 44–48. DOI: 10.1109/ICALT.2014.23
    Back to article
  48. 48Zachariadis, M, Scott, S and Barrett, M. 2013. Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3): 855–879. DOI: 10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.3.09
    Back to article
  49. 49Zhao, P, Sintonen, S and Kynäslahti, H. 2015. The pedagogical functions of arts and cultural-heritage education within online art galleries and museums. International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era, 4(1): 103–120. DOI: 10.1260/2047-4970.4.1.103
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.890 | Journal eISSN: 1365-893X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Jan 31, 2024
Accepted on: May 20, 2024
Published on: Sep 20, 2024
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Massive Open Online Courses,
online course design,
learner engagement,
learner progression

© 2024 Hannah John, John Kerr, Guillaume Andrieux, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 2024 (2024): Issue 1Next article