What We Learned When We Compared Discussion Posts from One MOOC Hosted on Two Platforms

Abstract

We compared discussion posts from a data science ethics MOOC that was hosted on two platforms. We characterized one platform as “open” because learners can respond to discussion prompts while viewing and responding to others. We characterized the other platform as “locked” because learners must respond to a discussion prompt before they can view and respond to others. Our objective is to determine whether these platform differences are consequential and have the potential to impact learning. We analyzed direct responses to two discussion prompts from two modules located in modules two and six of an eight module course. We used conventional content analysis to derive codes directly from the data. Posts on the “open” platform were characterized by failure to completely address the prompt and showed evidence of persuasion tactics and reflective activity. Posts on the “locked” platform were characterized by an apparent intent to complete the task and an assertive tone. Posts on the “locked” platform also showed a diversity of ideas through the corpus of responses. Our findings show that MOOC platform interfaces can lead to qualitative differences in discussion posts in ways that have the potential to impact learning. Our study provides insight into how “open” and “locked” platform designs have the potential to shape ways that learners respond to discussion prompts in MOOCs. Our study offers guidance for instructors making decisions on MOOC platform choice and activities situated within a learning experience.We used conventional content analysis to derive codes directly from the data. Posts on the “open” platform were characterized by failure to completely address the prompt and showed evidence of persuasion tactics and reflective activity. Posts on the “locked” platform were characterized by an apparent intent to complete the task and an assertive tone. Posts on the “locked” platform also showed a diversity of ideas through the corpus of responses. Our findings show that MOOC platform interfaces can lead to qualitative differences in discussion posts in ways that have the potential to impact learning. Our study provides insight into how “open” and “locked” platform designs have the potential to shape ways that learners respond to discussion prompts in MOOCs. Our study offers guidance for instructors making decisions on MOOC platform choice and activities situated within a learning experience.

Predicting Cognitive Presence in At-Scale Online Learning: MOOC and For-Credit Online Course Environments

“…For example, an instructor can use social modeling cues (e.g., calling a student by name), graded discussion assignments, discussion prompts, facilitation techniques (e.g., questioning), modest feedback (e.g., posting less often but in a meaningful way) and protocol prompts with structured goals and roles in a specific deadline. Beyond these strategies, the purposeful design of online platform interfaces (Quintana, Pinto, & Tan, 2021;Zhu et al, 2018) and implementation of instructional strategies to improve students' cognitive engagement (Garrison & Akyol, 2015;Kilis & Yildirim, 2019) have been shown to enhance successful and engaging online learning.…”

OLJ March 2022 (26)1

“…For example, an instructor can use social modeling cues (e.g., calling a student by name), graded discussion assignments, discussion prompts, facilitation techniques (e.g., questioning), modest feedback (e.g., posting less often but in a meaningful way) and protocol prompts with structured goals and roles in a specific deadline. Beyond these strategies, the purposeful design of online platform interfaces (Quintana, Pinto, & Tan, 2021;Zhu et al, 2018) and implementation of instructional strategies to improve students' cognitive engagement (Garrison & Akyol, 2015; have been shown to enhance successful and engaging online learning.…”

Systematic Mapping of the Social Construction of Learning (2015-2020): Challenges for Online Learning Environments

“…This dynamic of social learning benefits when in the learning community there are processes of active collaboration, communication and community interaction (Lin & Hsia, 2019;Michailidis et al, 2018). In addition, a smaller percentage of studies highlighted learning located in the social construction of learning, from a social interaction that promotes, crucially, the participation and learning of students (Tegos & Demetriadis, 2017) by engaging in levels of activity that could not be managed individually (Yulianto et al, 2016) and that, critical moments such as the COVID-19 pandemic emphasized the urgency of preparing for online learning, cultivating relationships, and the importance of interaction (Ensmann et al, 2021b;Long & Koehler, 2021;Quintana et al, 2021). Consequently, the dynamics of learning are significantly influenced by the active social participation of the student within the learning community (Ensmann et al, 2021a) for which the importance of connections with others stands out.…”

“…According to the International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (IESALC-UNESCO, 2021), the offer of training of higher education must be socially relevant and aim to form knowledge societies that are inclusive, diverse, and multidisciplinary. Furthermore, they must generate authentic correspondence among academic and social groups and create host spaces for dialogue, discussion (Quintana et al, 2021), and dissemination, focusing on sustainable human development with social vision, relevance, research and innovation (Cajiao, 2017). Therefore, eLearning must use a humanistic model with responsible interactions as an essential element of learning (García-Peñalvo & Seoane Pardo, 2015).…”