This document discusses learner participation and engagement in massive open online courses (MOOCs). It presents research on factors that influence learner motivation and engagement in MOOCs. The author compares the design and results of two different MOOC formats: an e-learning MOOC and a blended learning MOOC. Personal factors like work-life balance and learning preferences, as well as the MOOC design, were found to impact learner engagement and completion rates.

1. Learner participation in a
massive open online course
Wilfred Rubens
http://www.wilfredrubens.com

2. EMMA
• Providing multilingual access
to European MOOCs
• Project, supported by EU
• System for delivery of MOOCs
in multiple languages from
different European universities
2
#EUMoocs
http://europeanmoocs.eu/

3. Content
• Motivation research
• Hypotheses
• Engagement in MOOCs
• Interview
• Personal factors
• Engagement MOOC e-learning
• Design MOOCs and results
• Discussion
3

4. Foto: Audrey Watters

5. Quality
issue:
research input
for improving
concept
Foto: Audrey Watters

6. Motivation research
• Clow (2013): funnel of
participation caused by
open and online nature of
MOOCs
5
Enrollments
Completion

7. Motivation research
• Clow (2013): funnel of
participation caused by
open and online nature of
MOOCs
5
Enrollments
Completion
Drop out?
Intentions learners differs
Specific learning needs
Permissiveness MOOC

8. Hypotheses
• More complex
• Personal factors
• Design MOOC
• Process MOOC
• Content MOOC
Engagement in MOOC
6

9. Engagement learners in MOOCs
• Shortcomings currents definitions
• Time investment
• Amount of activities
• Activities outside MOOC
• Depth of study activities
7

10. 8

11. Design MOOCs
MOOC e-learning MOOC blended learning
9
Turn around time 17 weeks 8 weeks
Workload Max. 120 hours Max. 64 hours
Group assignments No Yes
Set up Masterclasses, study
tasks, progress
sessions, resources
Orientation, live
session, weekly,
deepening, end-task,
resources
Certification Via learning track, €285 Directly, € 49,95

12. Methodology
• Questionnaire
• Activity streams
10

13. Personal factors
• Ability to combine work, private, MOOC
(important barrier MOOC e-learning)
• Mental barriers: e.g. poor family culture, low
aspirations, self esteem (added value own
contribution)
11

14. Personal factors: intentions
• Minority: certificate
• Continuous professional development
• Specific learning needs
• Curiosity
12

15. Personal factors: Learners
preferences
• Ghosts (21,3%)
• Tourists (23,7%)
• Explorer (15,6%)
• Philosopher (22,3%)
• Professor (17,1%)
• Student (1,3%)
• Politician (0,9%)
13

16. Personal factors: Learners
preferences
• Ghosts (21,3%)
• Tourists (23,7%)
• Explorer (15,6%)
• Philosopher (22,3%)
• Professor (17,1%)
• Student (1,3%)
• Politician (0,9%)
13
Typologies
have been
criticized

17. Engagement MOOC e-learning
• 226 respondents: 80% started
• 40% stopped after 3 weeks, then gradually
• > 82%: did not (at all) study intensively, 6% did
study (very) intensively

18. Engagement MOOC e-learning (2)
• Lot of content used, relatively low degree of
interaction
• 88,5% less intensive than planned, 9,6% as much as
planned (intention-behaviour gap)
• 23 participants logged in 3 weeks after closure

19. Engagement MOOC e-learning (3)
• 51,4% added own thoughts and ideas to
content MOOC
• 29% searched for additional information
• 58,7% discussed content with others
• 35,5% made notes
• Other activities: 0-13,8%
16

20. MOOC e-learning MOOC blended learning
17
(week 6)
Number of participants 890 1180
Learners active in
interaction
17% 50%
Post per learner 0,94 1,52
Post and replies per
learner
1,61 2,68

21. Results analysis MOOC e-learning
• Attractiveness design influences invested
time spend
• Needs more analyses
18

22. Discussion and impact
• MOOC ≠ regular course (permissiveness)
• Motivation learners MOOC differ from
learners regular course
• Different preferences learners
• Engagement can be influenced by design
• Compared with CSCL: larger groups needed

23. 20

24. Contact
• wilfred.rubens@ou.nl
• wilfred@wilfredrubens.com
• http://www.wilfredrubens.com
• @wrubens