Abstract
Digital learning, and MOOCs specifically, increasingly benefit from learning-science-based design. In this study we present the redesign process that produces a new academic version (in Hebrew and Arabic) of the successful MOOC Learning How to Learn. During the design-based research we examined practices that implement evidence-based principles from the learning sciences in real-life digital learning, and created a course that not only teaches about learning but also practices what it preaches in its learning experience. Our digital practices address neural, cognitive-emotional, meta-cognitive and behavioral aspects of learning, and they include designing the course as a modular network, increasing embodiment in the media design, and presenting varied models of lifelong learners, which include the course team themselves. The redesign addressed pressing issues in online learning, such as international versus culturally-sensitive teaching, high MOOC drop-out rates, “transactional distance” and online versus blended formats. We present an array of techniques that create a model for a MOOC with maximal adequacy between the theoretical concepts it teaches and its design, applicable to digital learning in other areas.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data on MOOC enrolment and students’ achievements in the original LHTL is available at Coursera (presented here courtesy of Prof. Barbara Oakley). Data on MOOC enrolment and achievements in the Hebrew LHTL is available on the Campus IL platform for the MOOC’s administrators.
Change history
05 April 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11773-x
Notes
The course was developed at Tel Aviv University, with the Center of Innovation in Teaching and Learning, supported by the Council for Higher Education in Israel, and is presented in the national platform Campus IL < https://campus.gov.il/course/tau-acd-rfp5-howtolearn-he >
The Original LHTL on Coursera < https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn >
See more Examples of embodied typography in this video from a sub-unit on the Imposter Syndrome: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spbgLnEo3Ds >
References
Acee, T. W., Kim, H., Kim, H. J., Kim, J.-I., Chu, H.-N.R., Kim, M., Cho, Y. J., & Wicker, F. W. (2010). Academic boredom in under- and over-challenging situations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.08.002
Andersen, B. L., Na-songkhla, J., Hasse, C., Nordin, N., & Norman, H. (2018). Perceptions of authority in a massive open online course: An intercultural study. International Review of Education, 64, 221–239.
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.
Ariel, N. (2022). Don’t think before you speak: on the gradual formation of thoughts during speech. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 1–13.
Asikainen, H., Hailikari, T., & Mattsson, M. (2018). The interplay between academic emotions, psychological flexibility and self-regulation as predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(4), 439–453.
Bjork, R. A. (1988). Retrieval practice and the maintenance of knowledge. Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues, 1, 396–401.
Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society, 2(59–68).
Bruff, D. O., Fisher, D. H., McEwen, K. E., & Smith, B. E. (2013). Wrapping a MOOC: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 187–199.
Buchanan, J. (2012). Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning: A Teacher-as-learner-centred Approach. International Journal of Learning, 18(10), 345–356.
Chen, K. Z., & Oakley, B. (2020). Redeveloping a global MOOC to be more locally relevant: Design-based research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–22.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. john Wiley & sons.
Cleveland-Innes, M., & Campbell, P. (2012). Emotional presence, learning, and the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 269–292.
Conole, G. (2015). Designing effective MOOCs. Educational Media International, 52, 239–252.
de Freitas, S. I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 455–471.
de Moura, V. F., de Souza, C. A., & Viana, A. B. N. (2021). The use of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in blended learning courses and the functional value perceived by students. Computers & Education, 161, 104077.
Dillon, J., Bosch, N., Chetlur, M., Wanigasekara, N., Ambrose, G. A., Sengupta, B., & D'Mello, S. K. (2016). Student Emotion, Co-Occurrence, and Dropout in a MOOC Context. International Educational Data Mining Society.
Dörnyei, Z. (2000). Motivation in action: Towards a process-oriented conceptualisation of student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(4), 519–538.
Elson, M. (1989). The teacher as learner, the learner as teacher. In K. Field, B. J. Cohler, & G. Wool (Eds.), Learning and education: Psychoanalytic perspectives (pp. 789–808). International Universities Press.
Eradze, M., León Urrutia, M., Reda, V., & Kerr, R. (2019). Blended learning with MOOCs. European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit, 53–58.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2012). Teachers as Learners. Harvard Education Press.
Firmansyah, M., & Timmis, S. (2016). Making MOOCs meaningful and locally relevant? Investigating IDCourserians—an independent, collaborative, community hub in Indonesia. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11, 1–23.
Ford, S., Forlizzi, J., & Ishizaki, S. (1997). Kinetic typography: Issues in time-based presentation of text. CHI '97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems Looking to the Future - CHI '97, 269–270. https://doi.org/10.1145/1120212.1120387
Gigi, Moti, Naor Ron, Sigal & Razi, Tami (2022). Diversifying the Ivory Tower: First Generation Students Writing. Pardes (Hebrew).
Gluck, M. A., & Bower, G. H. (1988). Evaluating an adaptive network model of human learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(2), 166–195.
Gordon, D. G., & Wiltrout, M. E. (2021). A framework for applying the learning sciences to MOOC Design. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 5, p. 500481). Frontiers Media SA.
Gross, M., & Latham, D. (2012). What’s skill got to do with it?: Information literacy skills and self-views of ability among first-year college students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 574–583.
Gruenbaum, E. A. (2012). Common literacy struggles with college students: Using the reciprocal teaching technique. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(2), 109–116.
Hadi, S. M., & Gagen, P. (2016). New model for measuring MOOCs completion rates. Research Track, 95.
Hagenauer, G., Gläser-Zikuda, M., & Moschner, B. (2018). University students’ emotions, life-satisfaction and study commitment: A self-determination theoretical perspective. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(6), 808–826.
Hartikainen, S., Rintala, H., Pylväs, L., & Nokelainen, P. (2019). The concept of active learning and the measurement of learning outcomes: A review of research in engineering higher education. Education Sciences, 9(4), 279, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040276
Harvey, A., & Kamvounias, P. (2008). Bridging the implementation gap: A teacher-as-learner approach to teaching and learning policy. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 31–41.
Hayes, S. (2015). MOOCs and quality: A review of the recent literature. Gloucester, UK: QAA. Available online: http://publications.aston.ac.uk/26604/1/MOOCs_and_quality_a_review_of_the_recent_literature.pdf. Accessed on 11 Jan 2023.
Hew, K. F. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47, 321–341.
Hidi, S. E., & Renninger, K. A. (2020). On educating, curiosity, and interest development. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 99–103.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Ho, A., Chuang, I., Reich, J., Coleman, C., Whitehill, J., Northcutt, C., ... & Petersen, R. (2015). HarvardX and MITx: Two years of open online courses fall 2012-summer 2014. Available at SSRN 2586847.
Hoeft, M. E. (2012). Why university students don’t read: What professors can do to increase compliance. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060212
Islam, M., Chen, G., & Jin, S. (2019). An overview of neural network. American Journal of Neural Networks and Applications, 5(1), 7–11.
Jardin, T., & Gaisch, M. (2014). Extending the MOOCversity: A multi-layered and diversified lens for MOOC research. EMOOCS, 73–79
Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006
Kuzu, E. B., & Ceylan, B. (2010). Typographic properties of online learning environments for adults. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 879–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.253
Lackner, E., Ebner, M., & Khalil, M. (2015). MOOCs as granular systems: design patterns to foster participant activity. eLearning Papers, 42(3), 28–37.
Lau, N. M., & Chu, V. H. (2015). Enhancing children’s language learning and cognition experience through interactive kinetic typography. International Education Studies, 8(9), 36–45.
Leach, M., & Hadi, S. M. (2017). Supporting, categorising and visualising diverse learner behaviour on MOOCs with modular design and micro-learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(1), 147–159.
Litman, J. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition & Emotion, 19(6), 793–814.
Mayer, R. E. (2016). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Medaglia, J. D., Lynall, M. E., & Bassett, D. S. (2015). Cognitive network neuroscience. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(8), 1471–1491.
Mon-Lin, M. K., Hall, A., & Goldman, S. R. (2022). Making teacher and researcher learning visible: Collaborative design as a context for professional growth. Cognition and Instruction, 40(1), 27–54.
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Wadsworth.
Murayama, K., FitzGibbon, L., & Sakaki, M. (2019). Process account of curiosity and interest: A reward-learning perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 875–895.
Najafi, H., Rolheiser, C., Håklev, S., & Harrison, L. (2017). Variations in pedagogical design of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) across disciplines. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 5(2), 47–64.
Näykki, P., Kontturi, H., Seppänen, V., Impiö, N., & Järvelä, S. (2021). Teachers as learners–a qualitative exploration of pre-service and in-service teachers’ continuous learning community OpenDigi. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(4), 495–512.
Newton, P. M. (2015). The Learning Styles Myth is Thriving in Higher Education. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01908
O’regan, K. (2003). Emotion and e-learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 78–92.
Oakley, B., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2019). What we learned from creating one of the world’s most popular MOOCs. NPJ Science of Learning, 4(1), 1–7.
Oakley, B., Poole, D., & Nestor, M. (2016). Creating a sticky MOOC. Online Learning, 20, 1–12.
Petrou, M., Tabacchi, M. E., & Piroddi, R. (2010). Networks of concepts and ideas. The Computer Journal, 53(10), 1738–1751.
Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The Myth of Learning Styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(5), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2010.503139
Sfard, A. (2009). 1.3 Metaphors in education. Educational Theories, Cultures and Learning: A Critical Perspective, 39.
Shearer, R., Gregg, A., Joo, K. P., & Graham, K. (2014). Transactional distance in MOOCs: A critical analysis of dialogue, structure, and learner autonomy.
Shroff, R. H., Vogel, D. R., & Coombes, J. (2008). Assessing individual-level factors supporting student intrinsic motivation in online discussions: A qualitative study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(1), 111.
Thomas, L. E., & Lleras, A. (2009). Swinging into thought: Directed movement guides insight in problem solving. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(4), 719–723.
Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. Ballantine Books.
Ward, L., Siegel, M. J., & Davenport, Z. (2012). First-generation college students: Understanding and improving the experience from recruitment to commencement. Wiley.
Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2018). Technology matters – The impact of transactional distance on satisfaction in online distance learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3).
Weinstein, Y., Sumeracki, M., & Caviglioli, O. (2018). Understanding how we learn: A visual guide. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203710463
Westby, C. (2019). The myth of learning styles. Word of Mouth, 31(2), 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048395019879966a
Wexler, B. E., Iseli, M., Leon, S., Zaggle, W., Rush, C., Goodman, A., Esat Imal, A., & Bo, E. (2016). Cognitive priming and cognitive training: Immediate and far transfer to academic skills in children. Scientific Reports, 6, 32859. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32859
Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (2017). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults. John Wiley & Sons.
Acknowledgements
We thank Prof. Barbara Oakley for her generous collaboration and thoughtful comments.
We thank the Center of Innovation in Teaching and Learning at Tel Aviv University and Campus IL for their kind support. We thank the anonymous readers of this work for their comments that enabled us to enhance our arguments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
This is a collaborative research. NA is the chief investigator in the DBR process. MMA is the researcher and developer of media design. OKF is the researcher and developer of the academic writing section.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no conflicting interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
We confirm that all the authors have approved the manuscript for submission. We also confirm that the content of the manuscript has not been published, or submitted for publication, elsewhere.
The original online version of this article was revised: The author name “Kimchi-Feldhorn” was incorrectly listed as “Kimchi Feldhorn” in the original publication of this article.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ariel, N., Millikovsky-Ayalon, M. & Kimchi-Feldhorn, O. “Watching the backstage of your mind”: Redesigning Learning How to Learn. Educ Inf Technol 28, 9709–9730 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11580-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11580-4