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

IF 2.8 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Rebecca M. Quintana,Juan D. Pinto,Yuanru Tan
{"title":"What We Learned When We Compared Discussion Posts from One MOOC Hosted on Two Platforms","authors":"Rebecca M. Quintana,Juan D. Pinto,Yuanru Tan","doi":"10.24059/olj.v25i4.2897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":54195,"journal":{"name":"Online Learning","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Online Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i4.2897","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.
对比两个平台上同一个MOOC的讨论帖,我们学到了什么
我们比较了两个平台上的数据科学伦理MOOC的讨论帖子。我们将一个平台描述为“开放的”,因为学习者可以在观看和回应他人的同时回应讨论提示。我们将其他平台描述为“锁定的”,因为学习者必须在他们可以查看和回应其他人之前对讨论提示做出回应。我们的目标是确定这些平台差异是否有影响,是否有可能影响学习。我们分析了对八个模块课程中模块二和模块六中两个模块的两个讨论提示的直接反应。我们使用传统的内容分析直接从数据中获得代码。“开放”平台上的帖子的特点是未能完全解决提示问题,并显示出说服策略和反思活动的证据。在“被锁定”的平台上,帖子的特点是明显有完成任务的意图和自信的语气。“锁定”平台上的帖子也通过大量的回复显示出了想法的多样性。我们的研究结果表明,MOOC平台界面可以导致讨论帖子的质的差异,从而有可能影响学习。我们的研究揭示了“开放”和“锁定”平台设计如何影响学习者对mooc讨论提示的回应方式。我们的研究为教师在选择MOOC平台和学习体验中的活动时提供了指导。我们使用传统的内容分析直接从数据中获得代码。“开放”平台上的帖子的特点是未能完全解决提示问题,并显示出说服策略和反思活动的证据。在“被锁定”的平台上,帖子的特点是明显有完成任务的意图和自信的语气。“锁定”平台上的帖子也通过大量的回复显示出了想法的多样性。我们的研究结果表明,MOOC平台界面可以导致讨论帖子的质的差异,从而有可能影响学习。我们的研究揭示了“开放”和“锁定”平台设计如何影响学习者对mooc讨论提示的回应方式。我们的研究为教师在选择MOOC平台和学习体验中的活动时提供了指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Online Learning
Online Learning EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
15.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信