Who is the Learner in the DelftX Engineering MOOCs?
4 Discussion and Conclusions
The aim of this paper was to take a critical look at who is the learner of the first generation of DelftX MOOCs. The data for this description were collected from the first five MOOCs; a mixed-method approach was used to look at the data from different angles and problematize demographic characteristics and their relationship to performance, and learning, in MOOCs.
First, we observe that students of different age groups demonstrate differing patterns in performance. We hypothesize that students taking and completing MOOCs, of 30 years old and younger, tend to be more motivated by clear markers of performance (certificate of completion). On the contrary students over 30 years old that complete MOOCs tend to be more interested in mastering the subject, or just learn relevant bits of the subject matter. Although such analysis needs to be replicated for more courses, we believe that the qualitative interviews with course participants can provide more insights as to whether the motivation attitudes for younger and older learners diverge.
Secondly, the number of female students is low in all courses; they are generally younger than male students;
their overall performance (grades) is lower than male students. Both female students and students without prior experience are more likely to disengage from the course early on. Finally, despite the overwhelming presence of all continents and many diverse countries, most of the students taking DelftX MOOCs come from India and the US, and generally the South East Asian cluster (including India) and the Anglo cluster (including the US) are among four top cultural groups to complete a MOOC at Delft. However, we have found that these two groups differ in their preferences for learning with others. English speaking students, students of Germanic culture, and Eastern Europe tend to prefer to work alone, while students from South East Asia, Middle East and African cultures prefer to work together with others.
This analysis allowed us to pinpoint a sequence of characteristics that can be considered a start in profiling the learner in our MOOCs. Most importantly, the paper points us in several relevant research directions, such
151 as i) the role of gender in MOOC participation and performance, ii) the variety of attitudes towards learning in relation to student demographics and performance, iii) the potential impact of assessment placement and design on less committed students, and iv) attitudes and preferences towards working with other students in relation to culture.
A bit of caution should be applied here though, because the term Massive is also to interpret as the massive variety of the student population and the kind of MOOCs, which makes it difficult to derive explicit conclusions despite the abundance of the sources. Reich states (2014) that due to the variety in MOOCs the numbers of MOOCs for analysis need to be much larger to come to general conclusions concerning teaching and learning. Therefore, it should be reiterated that the analysis reported here are to be used and interpreted with caution, since the MOOC context clearly differs from what Higher Education has experienced so far.
Distance education, of which MOOCs are a part, has had a tradition of serving non-traditional learners, i.e.
the ones that are not the usual audience of on-campus bachelor level courses, and could be characterized as working adults in need of up-skilling. Our analysis shows the diversity and potential vulnerability of some groups of learners, if the pedagogical approaches do not accommodate to their diverse needs. In other words, if a MOOC provider focuses on delivering knowledge in rigid classroom like approaches, without certain learner-centeredness, such course may resemble their usual university bachelor provisions, and may not be suitable for a diversity of adult learners that subscribe to take it. We believe that approaching MOOC populations as adult learners, and treating MOOCs as provisions in adult education, rather than formal university education, allows embracing these diversity behind learner populations. It also allows building on the existing body of research and practice developed in andragogy. Despite of age, gender, culture, etc., adult learners are defined as individuals whose social roles are characteristic of adult status and who undertakes systematic and sustained learning activities for the purpose of bringing about changes in knowledge, attitudes, values and skills (Myers et al., 2014, p. 4). Such definition places emphasis on the social role of the adult, rather than persons or demographic, and is extended to the learners of younger age, whose major social role is not that of an adult, but who similarly to other adult learners face conflicting obligations and the need for self-directed learning skills.
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States, 2013. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved on, 3(5), 2014.
Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design, AACE Journal, 16(2), 137-159.
Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical implications. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 217- 226.
DeBoer, J., Ho, A. D., Stump, G. S., & Breslow, L. (2013). Changing “Course”: Reconceptualizing Educational Variables for Massive Open Online Courses (No. September 2013). Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://tll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/library/Changing_Course.pdf
De Vries, P., Hennis, T., Skrypnyk, O. (2015). TU Delft Online Learning Research Working Paper #6: The first Year of Delftx MOOCs (2013-2014). Delft. TU Delft Online Learning. ISBN 9789461864611.
Dillenbourg, P., Fox, A., Kirchner, C., Mitchell, J., Wirsing, M., Dillenbourg, P., Wirsing, M. (2014). Massive Open Online Courses: Current state and perspectives (Dagstuhl Perspectives workshop 14112). Dagstuhl Manifestos$}$, 4, 1–
27.
Edinburgh, U. (2013). MOOCs @ Edinburgh 2013 – Report # 1 (p. 42). Edinburgh.
152
Gaševic, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Let’s not forget : Learning Analytics are about Learning. TechTrends.
Haggard, S. (2013). The Maturing of the MOOC: Literature Review of Massive Open Online Courses and Other Forms of Online Distance Learning. BIS Research Paper.
Harrison, L. (2013). Open UToronto MOOC Initiative: Report on First Year of Activity.
Hill, P. (2013) “The Four Student Archetypes Emerging in MOOCs” [Online] e-Literate blog post 02/03/13.
Ho, A., Reich, J., Nesterko, S., Seaton, D., Mullaney, T., Waldo, J., & Chuang, I. (2013). HarvardX and MITx : The First Year of Open Online Courses. HarvardX and MITx Working Paper #1.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301–320. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5
Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). Why do Institutions Offer MOOCs? Online Learning: Official Journal of the
Online Learning Consortium, 18(3). Retrieved from
http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/jaln/article/view/464
Jordan, K. (2013) A quick look at gender differences in MOOCs. Retrieved from http://moocmoocher.word- press.com/2013/08/06/a-quick-look-at-gender-differ- ences-in-moocs/
Macleod, H., Haywood, J., Woodgate, A., & Alkhatnai, M. (2015). Emerging patterns in MOOCs: Learners, course designs and directions. TechTrends, 59(1), 56–63. doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0821-y
Mensah, Y., & Chen, H.-Y. (2013). Global Clustering of Countries by Culture - An Extension of the GLOBE Study (No.
4) (Vol. 4, p. 51).
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2012). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide.
Wiley. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ffaKVcPVC84C
Mohamed, A., Yousef, F., Chatti, A., & Schroeder, U. (2014). What Drives a Successful MOOC ? An Empirical Examination of Criteria to Assure Design Quality of MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2014, (pp. pp. 44–48.). Retrieved from http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/mt/node/160644
Mullaney, T. (2014). Making Sense of Moocs: A Reconceptualization of HarvardX Courses and Their Students.
Available at SSRN 2463736.
Myers, K., Conte, N., & Rubenson, K. (2014). Adult Learning typology: Adult Learning and Returns to Training Project (No. April). Social Research and Demonstration Corporation.
Knowles, M.S. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: from Pedagogy to Andragogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Cambridge, 1980.
Reich, J. (2014). Rebooting MOOC Research: Improve assessment, data sharing, and experimental design. In:
sciencemagorg 2014 SCIENCE Vol xxx, p.1-2.
Sweeney, A., Weaven, S., & Herington, C. (2008). Multicultural influences on group learning: a qualitative higher education study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 119–132. doi:10.1080/02602930601125665
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Christopher Davies, Stefano Bocconi, Pascal Gemke and Rick Slangen for their assistance with data collection, preparation and analysis.