I reckon each person’s intention in MOOCs is different, though the participation and engagement could likely fall into patterns similar to the four archetypes of MOOCs.
My proposition and assumptions relating to motivation and intention in participating and engaging with MOOCs include:
Psychological factors, Like/dislike of MOOCs (as public/commoditised/monetised goods), credentials achivement, & pedagogy used in MOOC as perceived by people could make a difference.
1. How would people’s perception impact on their intention to learn with MOOCs?
1.1 What factors would determine people’s intention to enroll into MOOCs?
– These students/participants intend to browse and audit the programs. These participants could include: (a) professors, educators and experts in their field or other fields who would like to have a sense of feel on what MOOCs are, and how they are run; (b) researchers and Master or PhD students who would like to conduct researches on MOOCs, as part their faculties requirements or qualification requirements; (c) participants who are life-long learners, who might have got a degree in the field, or in other fields, but are interested in the field of study. There might be some people who like the pedagogy, and others who dislike the pedagogy.
– These students/participants intend to engage and interact with part of the course content and or other participants with discussion boards. These participants could include those of the above, but with an intent to complete a few to most of the activities, assessments or examinations, but have no intention of getting credits or expecting credentials out of the MOOCs
– These students/participants intend to engage and interact fully with the course content and other participants with the LMS. These participants are more inclined to like the pedagogy adopted, though again there may be a minority of participants who dislike the approach, but not willing to disclose their emotions or feelings in open public. These sort of feelings towards courses are typical in learners attending most institution based courses. Feelings of loneliness, lack of interaction with others and professors, and lack of “support” that relate to motivation could be issues and concerns. Others include the messiness and frustration emerging from the participation in forum and discussion boards, when trolling and “tangential discussions”, negative criticisms are present in the forum postings, and the concerns of moderation.
1.2 What factors would determine people’s intention to like/dislike MOOCs?
1.3 How would such likes/dislikes translate into learning in MOOCs?
1.4 To what extent would learning styles impact on one’s motivation to learn in MOOCs (xMOOCs in particular)?
1.5 How would each of the factors, likes/dislikes and learning styles relate to the four archetypes of MOOCs – lurkers, passive learners, active learners and drop-ins?
2. Teaching, social and cognitive presence are often cited as the most important factors in successful online presence. To what extent are these presence contribute to the successful learning in xMOOCs?
3. What are the goals and motivation of xMOOCs participants?
It is noteworthy that:
Participation and performance do not follow the rules by which universities have traditionally organized the teaching enterprise: MOOCs allow free and easy registration, do not require formal withdrawals, and include a large number of students who may not have any interest in completing assignments and assessments.
This finding aligns with what have been found in previous research:
As our research on PLENK (cMOOCs) revealed, many participants of cMOOCs are putting assessment as (lowest) in priority. This is different from the xMOOCs where assessment is given a high priority by the instructors (professors), and may be some students, especially the undergraduate students who would like to use that to improve their performance with their own courses. Besides, there are lots of graduates and adult learners and educators in cMOOCs who are more interested in learning about the pedagogy, the different learning theories, and the emergent tools and technology. They may already have got their qualifications, or that they aren’t keen in being assessed, or being “instructed” under a “mastery learning approach”. There are also professors, experts, professionals who wish to know how MOOCs are designed and run, and how they might be used in their own fields. These all “contradict” to the initial design of xMOOCs, though could be easily accommodated in cMOOCs, as that is exactly what cMOOCs are designed for.
It should be stressed that over 90% of the activity on the discussion forum resulted from students who simply viewed preexisting discussion threads, without posting questions, answers, or comments.
This is not surprising at all, as such pattern of involvement in discussion forum has repeatedly appeared in previous cMOOCs (see Rita and her colleagues’ research publications on MOOCs). It is typical to note a highly active participation or posting on the discussion forum at the start of a MOOC followed by an exponential drop in the later part of the course. Such pattern of engagement may vary from cMOOCs to xMOOCs though as the xMOOCs have numerous assessment components (like homework, examinations) which may lead students to post questions in the discussion forum.
Discussions were the most frequently used resource while doing homework problems and lecture videos consumed the most time.
There are also differences in the cohort of students, with xMOOCs more likely consisting of younger students compared to that of those in cMOOCs. A more in-depth analysis of the student populations would be needed to compare the xMOOCs and cMOOCs students’ populations.
In xMOOCs, success has been defined by the research authors as the grades students earned. Measure of success as “achievement”.
In cMOOCs, success has yet to be defined, though many researchers and educators have proposed it to be defined as the achievement of personal goals as set forth whilst participating and engaging with cMOOCs.
“This is also noteworthy that majority of students (75.7%) did not work offline with anyone on the MITx material.” and that those who did work offline with others have achieved 3 points higher than those who didn’t. This again illustrates that many students of xMOOCs would likely learn on their own, without resorting to the “help” or “support” from others, especially with a technical course such as MITx- 6002x.
This pattern of online learning seems to coincide with the current mode of learning in an online learning environment, where most students are still learning on their own, with or without the use of PLE/PLN.
Would this pattern of engagement be typical for xMOOCs humanities courses?
These questions posted in the article are interesting for further exploration.
What are students’ goals when they enroll in a MOOC? How do those goals relate to the interaction with various modes of instruction or course components? What facilitates or impedes their motivation to learn during a course? How can course content and its delivery support students’ self-efficacy for learning? Similarly, how can online environments support students’ metacognition and self-regulated learning? Do interventions such as metacognitive prompts and guided reflection improve student achievement or increase retention?