Presented by Fereshte Goshtasbpour of the University of Leeds at The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK on 15 June 2017. This presentation formed part of the FutureLearn Academic Network section (FLAN Day) of the 38th Computers and Learning Research Group (CALRG) conference. For full details, see http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloudscape/view/3004
Basic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptx
What does educators' engagement with MOOC discussions look like?
1. What does educators’ engagement with
MOOC discussions look like?
Fereshte Goshtasbpour
University of Leeds
June 2017
2. Teaching on MOOCs is not easy!
Size (massiveness) Diversity (openness) Design complexities
(learning paths)
Evaluating learning
outcomes
Giving feedback Being active participants
in the learning process
3. What do we know about teaching on MOOCs?
Far too little attention is given to MOOCs from a teaching perspective (Oven-Lindsey et al.
2015; Nacu et al., 2014; Fournier, Kop, and Durand, 2014)
• A systematic review of 60 articles on MOOCs (2008-2014) by Raffaghelli et al. (2015):
- 4 out of 60 focused on teaching on MOOCs or educators
- mainly examined educators’ roles and experiences not their practices
• A more recent systematic analysis of the empirical studies published between 2013–
2015 by Veletsianos and Shepherdson (2016):
Noticeable absence of focus on teaching and educators from emerging research on MOOCs
4. Where can teaching happen in MOOCs?
• Steps ( learning material)
• Discussions
• Free-flowing discussions alongside the
course materials which promote “water-
cooler” type conversations about the course
content
• Flat-structured format ( not threaded or
nested)
• Participation scale
• Semi-synchronous nature
5. Research Questions
1. In what ways do educators contribute to MOOC discussions?
a. What types of contributions do educators make to discussions?
b. What is the level of educators’ contributions?
c. In what ways do the level and type of educators’ contributions change
over time?
2. Whether and in what ways do learners engage with educators’ contributions?
3. What outcomes do educators intend to achieve by contributing to discussions?
6. Research Design
Stage 1
Examining the exchanges between educators and learners in discussions
• Type: Content analysis of exchanges based on the Community of
Inquiry Framework
• Level: Number of exchanges educators contributed to
• Changes over time: variations in the type and level of educators’
contributions over the course of a MOOC
7. Community of Inquiry framework (CoI)
• Most widely adopted explanatory conceptual
framework associated with online and blended
education (Garrison, 2016; Joksimovic et al., 2014; Garrison and
Akyol, 2013 )
• Describes learning and teaching through the three
interdependent elements of:
• Cognitive Presence
• Social Presence
• Teaching Presence
(Garrison 2016: 58)
8. Community of Inquiry framework (CoI)
Cognitive presence:
• the extent to which meaning is constructed through communication and
collaboration
• 4 stages: triggering event, exploration, integration and resolution
Social presence:
• plays a mediating role between cognitive and teaching presences
• creates conditions for free and open communication, and allows personal
relationships to be developed over time to improve group cohesion
Teaching presence:
• The backbone of CoI and represents the leadership aspect of it
• 3 elements: Design and organisation, facilitating discourse and direct
instruction
9. Data overview
3 MOOCs
(Lead) educators and mentors engaged with 2,832 exchanges
818 exchanges sampled and analysed
History (lead educator + 4 educators +2 mentors)
Arts (lead educator + 5 mentors)
Business (lead educator + 3 educators + 6 mentors)
262 251
305
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Lead educators Educators Mentors
31%
37%
32%
10. Data overview
Beginning of the course Middle of the course End of the course
57%
26%
17%
Beginning of the course (1st third of the course)
Middle of the course (2nd third of the course)
End of the course (3rd third of the course)
11. Data overview
Short exchanges Medium exchanges Long exchanges
93%
6%
1%
Short exchanges (1-5 comment exchanges)
Medium exchanges (6-10 comment exchanges)
Long exchanges (11-16 comment exchanges)
12. Type of contributions
Social Presence
51%Teaching Presence
42%
Cognitive
Presence
7% Social Presence indicators
• Expressions of emotions
• Self-disclosure
• Use of humour
• Asking questions (non-task)
• Expressing (dis) agreement
• Complementing and expressing
appreciation
• Phatic, salutations and
greetings
• Vocatives
• Group reference
Teaching Presence indicators
• Seeking to reach consensus
• Encouraging or acknowledging
student contributions
• Setting climate for learning
• Drawing in participants, prompting
discussion
• Providing valuable analogies
• Offering useful illustrations
• Confirming understanding through
explanatory feedback
• Diagnosing misconceptions
• Supplying clarifying information
13. Type of contributions
Lead Educators Educators Mentors
Social Presence 41% 31% 54%
Teaching Presence 53% 60% 40%
Cognitive Presence 6% 9% 6%
14. Changes over time: Level of the contributions
64%
44%
64%
23%
28%
26%
13%
28%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Lead educators Educators Mentors
Beginning of the course Middle of the course End of the course
15. Changes over time: Type of the contributions
63%
51%
54%
22%
30%
25%
15%
19%
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Social Presence Teaching Presence Cognitive Presence
Beginning of the course Middle of the course End of the course
16. Summary
• Educators contribute most to the discussions at the beginning of MOOCs.
• They are mainly engaged in short exchanges with.
• Half of their contributions are of social nature while pedagogical contributions
are their second highest type of contributions.
• As a MOOC progresses, their engagement with discussions drops.
• Among three groups of lead educators, educators and mentors, educators have
the highest level of teaching and cognitive presence and the lowest level of
social presence. This might be the reason that learners engage with their
contributions more than mentors’ and lead educators’.
17. References
Fournier, H., Kop, R., & Durand, G. (2014). Challenges to research in MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 1-
15.
Garrison, D. (2016). Thinking Collaboratively: Learning in a Community of Inquiry. Oxon: Routledge.
Garrison, D., & Akyol, Z. (2013). The Community of Inquiry theoretical framework. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance
Education (3rd ed., pp. 104-120). New York: Routledge.
Nacu, D. C., Martin, C. K., Pinkard, N., & Gray, T. (2014). Analysing educators' online interactions: a framework for online
learning support roles. Learning, Media, Technology. doi:10.1080/17439884.2015.975722
Raffaghelli, J., Cucchiara, S., & Persico, D. (2015). Methodological approaches in MOOC research: Retracing the myth of
Proteus. British Journal of Educational Technologies and Learning Practices in Higher Education, 46(3), 488-509.
doi:10.1111/bjet.12279
Toven-Lindsey, B., Rhoads, R. A., & Lozano, J. (2015). Virtualy unlimited classrooms: Pedagogical practices in massive open
online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 24, 1-12.
Veletsianos, G. and Shepherdson, P. (2016). A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in
2013–2015. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, [S.l.]. 17 (2). Available at:
<http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2448. [accessed 15/05/2017]
Size Large number of learners
Diversity Age, language, motivation, learning background,
Design complexities Creating adaptive learning paths
Immediacy Lack of immediate response from learners
Feedback Giving feedback to Learners
Evaluation Evaluating learning outcomes
Size Large number of learners
Diversity Age, language, motivation, learning background,
Design complexities Creating adaptive learning paths
Immediacy Lack of immediate response from learners
Feedback Giving feedback to Learners
Evaluation Evaluating learning outcomes
Skrypnyk et al. (2015), Najafi et al. (2015) and Ross et al. (2014:63) also highlighted the noticeable absence of teaching from emerging MOOC research considering all the complexities that instruction on these courses involves. They believed “this is an area that would richly reward the attention of researchers” and can contribute to the enhancement and success of this new form of education as well as any other type of instruction at scale. Toven-Lindsey et al. (2015), Nacu et al. (2014) and Fournier, Kop and Durand (2014) arrived at the same conclusion that research about learning and teaching through MOOCs as a new educational phenomenon is in its infancy and is suffering from limited number of studies.
Most studies are economically oriented or technologically driven (Fischer, 2014)
discussion is prompted by interpreting the learning content
MOOC discussions differ from traditional discussion forums in their participation scale, semi-synchronous settings and structure. The last element can particularly affect learning in terms of the structural scaffold of learning.
In traditional discussion forums, the discussion is displayed in a threaded and tree interface where conversations expand and branch but they cannot be drawn together as a discourse in a meaningful way
utilisation of Web 2.0 tools in MOOCs enables chronological display of postings in a “flat-structured” format that allows all postings to be shown in a single level rather than in a threaded or nested structure
It describes learning and teaching through the three interdependent elements of cognitive, social and teaching presences, which allows a more contextualised view of online education where the teacher, learners and content are key elements of forming an educational community
Cognitive presence
The core of CoI is cognitive presence, which is the extent to which learners are able to construct meaning through communication and collaboration. It is operationalised through four not necessarily linear phases: “Triggering event” initiates the inquiry process and involves the identification of a problem. It is followed by “Exploration” where learners explore the problem by gathering and exchanging relevant information. Next, they try to incorporate this information to find possible solutions. This “Integration” phase is followed by the final stage of “Resolution” where they critically reflect on possible solutions and implement and test the best solution through practical application (Garrison, 2009).
Social Presence
Social presence plays a mediating role between cognitive and teaching presence and has a dynamic nature as it develops over time (Garrison and Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison, 2016). It is most recently defined as “the ability of participants to identify with the group or course of study, communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop personal and affective relationships progressively by way of projecting their individual personalities” (Garrison, 2009:352), and serves three purposes. Firstly, it shapes the identity of the learner community based on the inquiry outcome. Secondly, it creates conditions for free and open communication, and finally, it allows personal relationships to be developed over time to improve group cohesion and open communication.
Teaching presence
This is the backbone the CoI (Garrison and Akyol, 2013) which represents the leadership dimension of the framework and is directly associated with learners’ perceived learning and satisfaction (Turbill, 2002; Kop et al., 2011; Garrison and Akyol, 2013; Arbaugh, 2014). It consists of three constructs of design, facilitation and direct instruction. Design is the first step in creating teaching presence, and is directed by decisions about the learning process. It is an ongoing process and requires adaptations based on learners’ evolving needs (Garrison, 2009, 2016). Facilitation is the key to providing support and guidance for learning and is essential in establishing and maintaining social and cognitive presences. The level of facilitation is an important consideration as too little or too much of it can impede learning (Murphy and Fortner, 2014). The third construct of teaching presence is direct instruction where a more direct guidance is required to provide subject knowledge, diagnose misconceptions or summarise the discussion (Garrison, 2009; Jones, 2011).
It must be noted that the concept of teachING and not teachER presence indicate the shared responsibility of leadership despite being mainly delivered by instructors.
It describes learning and teaching through the three interdependent elements of cognitive, social and teaching presences, which allows a more contextualised view of online education where the teacher, learners and content are key elements of forming an educational community
Cognitive presence
The core of CoI is cognitive presence, which is the extent to which learners are able to construct meaning through communication and collaboration. It is operationalised through four not necessarily linear phases: “Triggering event” initiates the inquiry process and involves the identification of a problem. It is followed by “Exploration” where learners explore the problem by gathering and exchanging relevant information. Next, they try to incorporate this information to find possible solutions. This “Integration” phase is followed by the final stage of “Resolution” where they critically reflect on possible solutions and implement and test the best solution through practical application (Garrison, 2009).
Social Presence
Social presence plays a mediating role between cognitive and teaching presence and has a dynamic nature as it develops over time (Garrison and Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison, 2016). It is most recently defined as “the ability of participants to identify with the group or course of study, communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop personal and affective relationships progressively by way of projecting their individual personalities” (Garrison, 2009:352), and serves three purposes. Firstly, it shapes the identity of the learner community based on the inquiry outcome. Secondly, it creates conditions for free and open communication, and finally, it allows personal relationships to be developed over time to improve group cohesion and open communication.
Teaching presence
This is the backbone the CoI (Garrison and Akyol, 2013) which represents the leadership dimension of the framework and is directly associated with learners’ perceived learning and satisfaction (Turbill, 2002; Kop et al., 2011; Garrison and Akyol, 2013; Arbaugh, 2014). It consists of three constructs of design, facilitation and direct instruction. Design is the first step in creating teaching presence, and is directed by decisions about the learning process. It is an ongoing process and requires adaptations based on learners’ evolving needs (Garrison, 2009, 2016). Facilitation is the key to providing support and guidance for learning and is essential in establishing and maintaining social and cognitive presences. The level of facilitation is an important consideration as too little or too much of it can impede learning (Murphy and Fortner, 2014). The third construct of teaching presence is direct instruction where a more direct guidance is required to provide subject knowledge, diagnose misconceptions or summarise the discussion (Garrison, 2009; Jones, 2011).
It must be noted that the concept of teachING and not teachER presence indicate the shared responsibility of leadership despite being mainly delivered by instructors.
Teaching presence is the highest for lead educators and educators- while educators have the highest TP
Mentors have the highest level of social presence and educators the lowest level.
Cognitive presence for LEDs and Ms are the same while it’s the highest for Eds
the level of engagement of lead educators and mentors with discussions drops as the course progresses while educators’ engagement remains the same from the middle to the end of a course although it still shows a slight decrease from the beginning to the middle of the course. It seems educators have a more stable presence throughout the course compared to the lead educators and mentors.
