skip to main content
10.1145/2908131.2908145acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebsciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Beyond the MOOC platform: gaining insights about learners from the social web

Authors Info & Claims
Published:22 May 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have enabled millions of learners across the globe to increase their levels of expertise in a wide variety of subjects. Research efforts surrounding MOOCs are typically focused on improving the learning experience, as the current retention rates (less than 7% of registered learners complete a MOOC) show a large gap between vision and reality in MOOC learning.

Current data-driven approaches to MOOC adaptations rely on data traces learners generate within a MOOC platform such as edX or Coursera. As a MOOC typically lasts between five and eight weeks and with many MOOC learners being rather passive consumers of the learning material, this exclusive use of MOOC platform data traces limits the insights that can be gained from them.

The Social Web potentially offers a rich source of data to supplement the MOOC platform data traces, as many learners are also likely to be active on one or more Social Web platforms. In this work, we present a first exploratory analysis of the Social Web platforms MOOC learners are active on --- we consider more than 320,000 learners that registered for 18 MOOCs on the edX platform and explore their user profiles and activities on StackExchange, GitHub, Twitter and LinkedIn.

References

  1. F. Abel, Q. Gao, G.-J. Houben, and K. Tao. Semantic enrichment of twitter posts for user profile construction on the social web. In The Semanic Web: Research and Applications, pages 375--389. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. C. Alario-Hoyos, M. Pérez-Sanagustín, C. Delgado-Kloos, M. Muñoz-Organero, A. Rodríguez-de-las Heras, et al. Analysing the impact of built-in and external social tools in a mooc on educational technologies. In Scaling up learning for sustained impact, pages 5--18. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Y. Bachrach, M. Kosinski, T. Graepel, P. Kohli, and D. Stillwell. Personality and patterns of facebook usage. In Web Science '12, pages 24--32, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Balasubramanian and E. L. Schwartz. The isomap algorithm and topological stability. Science, 295:7--7, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. D. Bamman, J. Eisenstein, and T. Schnoebelen. Gender identity and lexical variation in social media. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(2):135--160, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. A. Bermingham and A. F. Smeaton. On using twitter to monitor political sentiment and predict election results. IJCNLP 2011 Workshop, pages 2--10, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Coetzee, A. Fox, M. A. Hearst, and B. Hartmann. Should your mooc forum use a reputation system? In CSCW '14, pages 1176--1187, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. Coetzee, S. Lim, A. Fox, B. Hartmann, and M. A. Hearst. Structuring interactions for large-scale synchronous peer learning. In CSCW '15, pages 1139--1152, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. J. Cruz-Benito, O. Borrás-Gené, F. J. García-Peñalvo, Á. F. Blanco, and R. Therón. Extending mooc ecosystems using web services and software architectures. In Interacción '15, pages 52:1--52:7, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. L. Eldén. Matrix methods in data mining and pattern recognition, volume 4. SIAM, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. F. J. García-Peñalvo, J. Cruz-Benito, O. Borrás-Gené, and Á. F. Blanco. Evolution of the conversation and knowledge acquisition in social networks related to a mooc course. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies, pages 470--481. 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. P. J. Guo, J. Kim, and R. Rubin. How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of mooc videos. In L@S '14, pages 41--50, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. P. J. Guo and K. Reinecke. Demographic differences in how students navigate through moocs. In L@S '14, pages 21--30, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. B. Han, P. Cook, and T. Baldwin. Text-based twitter user geolocation prediction. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, pages 451--500, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. A. D. Ho, I. Chuang, J. Reich, and C. A. Coleman et al. Harvardx and mitx: Two years of open online courses fall 2012-summer 2014. SSRN 2586847, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. E. Hoerl and R. W. Kennard. Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics, 12(1):55--67, 1970.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. D. J. Hughes, M. Rowe, M. Batey, and A. Lee. A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2):561--569, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. S. Joksimović, N. Dowell, O. Skrypnyk, V. Kovanović, D. Gašević, S. Dawson, and A. C. Graesser. How do you connect?: Analysis of social capital accumulation in connectivist moocs. In LAK '15, pages 64--68, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. S. Joksimović, V. Kovanović, J. Jovanović, A. Zouaq, D. Gašević, and M. Hatala. What do cmooc participants talk about in social media?: A topic analysis of discourse in a cmooc. In LAK '15, pages 156--165, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. K. Jordan. Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1):133--160, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. K. R. Koedinger, A. T. Corbett, and C. Perfetti. The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36(5):757--798, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. D. Koller, A. Ng, C. Do, and Z. Chen. Retention and intention in massive open online courses. Educause Review, 48(3):62--63, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. J. Mahmud, J. Nichols, and C. Drews. Where is this tweet from? inferring home locations of twitter users. ICWSM, 12:511--514, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. D.-P. Nguyen, R. Gravel, R. Trieschnigg, and T. Meder. " how old do you think i am?" a study of language and age in twitter. ICWSM '13, pages 439--448, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. D. Preoţiuc-Pietro, V. Lampos, and N. Aletras. An analysis of the user occupational class through twitter content. pages 1754--1764. The Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. M. Sap, G. Park, J. C. Eichstaedt, M. L. Kern, D. Stillwell, M. Kosinski, L. H. Ungar, and H. A. Schwartz. Developing age and gender predictive lexica over social media. EMNLP '14, pages 1146--1151, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. G. Siemens. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. G. Silvestri, J. Yang, A. Bozzon, and A. Tagarelli. Linking accounts across social networks: the case of stackoverflow, github and twitter. In International Workshop on Knowledge Discovery on the WEB, pages 41--52, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. J. H. Tomkin and D. Charlevoix. Do professors matter?: Using an a/b test to evaluate the impact of instructor involvement on mooc student outcomes. In L@S '14, pages 71--78, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. L. Van der Maaten and G. Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(2579--2605):85, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. T. van Treeck and M. Ebner. How useful is twitter for learning in massive communities? an analysis of two moocs. Twitter & Society, pages 411--424, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. J. Yang, K. Tao, A. Bozzon, and G.-J. Houben. Sparrows and owls: Characterisation of expert behaviour in stackoverflow. In UMAP'14, pages 266--277. 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. S. Zheng, M. B. Rosson, P. C. Shih, and J. M. Carroll. Understanding student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in moocs. In CSCW '15, pages 1882--1895, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Beyond the MOOC platform: gaining insights about learners from the social web

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          WebSci '16: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science
          May 2016
          392 pages
          ISBN:9781450342087
          DOI:10.1145/2908131

          Copyright © 2016 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 22 May 2016

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          WebSci '16 Paper Acceptance Rate13of70submissions,19%Overall Acceptance Rate218of875submissions,25%

          Upcoming Conference

          Websci '24
          16th ACM Web Science Conference
          May 21 - 24, 2024
          Stuttgart , Germany

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader