MOOCS: From Instructivism to Connectivism, the Learning Impacts

The following is a report I created in 2018 relating to the use of Massive Open Online Courses and how they impact pedagogy and student learning behaviour.

Abstract

Since their emergence in 2008 the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) has begun a trend of adoption and as the availability of courses grows, the Connectivist approaches to learning Pedagogy are argued as the next phase of human learning evolution.

"The only person who is educated is the one who has learned how to learn and change. Carl R. Rogers (1902-1987) Humanistic Psychologist"

The dream of open free learning has been the goal of many, and the MOOC is the provisioning factor to engage and fulfil such a dream. Connectivism embraces the principles of collaboration and sharing, with the truth of the knowledge freely accessible and open to discussion, debate and improvement. This epitomizing the influences of collaborative impacts and the delivery of social constructs to evolve the human condition.

"Alone we can do so little, together we can do so much Helen Adams Keller (1880 - 1968) Author, Lecturer"

The purity behind Connectivism is not simply to develop upon and complement existing pedagogical theories such as Constructivism, but to offer a unification and social bond within the realm of information sharing. The ethical implications for a cMOOC, the originator of the MOOC trend, do not only offer a profound sense of freedom of information, but also a humanitarian unwritten directive for providing free learning resources to those that have little, in a hope to better contribute to life's qualities.

The examination of MOOCs within this report, embarks on an analysis from a pedagogical perspective, and is driven towards, the knowledge, understanding and willingness of learners to engage in such open learning activities. Ultimately climaxing in the strategies and considerations to critically assess when attempting to deliver a Massive Open Online Course.

Introduction

The Theory of Learning and Pedagogical practices, through the centuries have been studied and derived through many psychological viewpoints. Quantified by the understanding of the human psyche and the paragon that knowledge must be earnt and learnt.

The initial prerequisites to this were founded on the belief that an instructor with experience in the studied field would convey and project this knowledge in manor understandable to the student. As a society our educational focus for an age was based on Instructivisit approaches and practices. Whilst somewhat replaced provisionally by newer methodologies such as Constructionism, to engage Learners in more self-driven knowledge acquisition. The practice of self-teaching is a process requiring discipline and motivation, and cannot always be easily adopted by those seeking new knowledge.

Technological advancements and accessibility to information enhance and simplify the action of data accumulation. Through teaching mechanism the delivery of this information, the presentation of its subject matter, and the interactions users may initiate to ingest the delivered material lay foundations for further investigation and study.

Cognitive science, and the science of Learning has been studied, debated and evaluated in countless books and articles. With neurological and psychological conclusions and the results of experiments determining the means by which the human brain, stores, formulates and retrieves information. However these theories fail to take into account individualism, circumstance and the person's ability to maximise their own learning potential.

Human cognitive architecture constitutes a natural information processing system whose evolution has been driven by another natural information-processing system, evolution by natural selection. Considering human cognition from an evolutionary perspective has considerable instructional consequences. [2]

Whilst eLearning has been evolving since the birth of the internet, social interaction has emerged as a contributing factor to the learning growth of individuals. This has paved the path of evolution for the Theory of Connectivism, published by George Siemens in 2004.

Connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks. [1]

If Connectivism relates to information networks, then social interaction is paramount to the successful execution of the theoretical practices implied through the learning lifecycle.

Internet courses at the time of inception were still striving to evolve and leverage the latest emerging technologies. Free Online courses were available by way of the Learning Management Systems or Learning Content Management Systems. However social interaction was limited to blogs and forums. There was a prevalent dream amongst some to provide free open access and available courses and learning solutions to engage the prevalent growth of the internet. Knowledge for all, without limitations.

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) were incepted via a discussion with Dave Cormier and George Siemens.

To the best of my knowledge, the term “MOOC” comes out of a skype chat conversation I had with George Siemens about what exactly he would call this thing he and Stephen Downes were doing so I could call it something for the ETT show we were planning on the subject. [3]

Shortly after in 2008, the first MOOC was delivered and offered by Stephen Downes and George Siemens with a focus on Connectivism and Connective Theory. Throughout the course duration a staggering number of individuals attended, more than one might comfortably fit in a large lecture theatre. Thus successfully demonstrating the capacity for a MOOC to captivate and engage an audience of learners and individuals seeking to attain new knowledge.

Given its strong links to Connectivism this MOOC was labelled a cMOOC, implying the Connectivist methods. The core principle being the growth of knowledge pertaining to the subject of the course, without a predefined and implicit set of criteria for successfully completing the course.

With as yet no formal certification or badges involved with cMOOCs gave rise to the xMOOC, structured similarly to standard University courses, however combing more Constructivist methods. The xMOOCs offer the means to engage with other students and learners, but limits knowledge expansion to the predefined assessment requirements of the course.

Further MOOC types and platforms are evolving. Assessing the direction, means for delivery, improving on drop out ratios and ensuring the quality and success of the MOOC are continued areas of study.

What are MOOCs?

Online courses are not a new concept, but the initial examples were limited to a set number of students. This was mainly due to the practical capacity an individual tutor may have to successfully cater the needs of large numbers of students and the implied limitations to the quality of attention offered to each learner. A Massive Open Online Course however challenges this limitation by offering free courses without restriction to student numbers.

MOOCs have been a researched addition to the distance learning processes and have been recognised as an eLearning Pedagogical practice, the first MOOC delivered specifically embodying Connectivism. The key requirement being direct engagement and interaction of learners via use of forums and other social mediums to facilitate the continued networking and growth of knowledge.

Since the emergence of MOOCs, 2 distinctive types have evolved and are recognized in the Learning Industry, the cMOOC and the xMOOC. Where the former is driven by pure Connectivism, the later was devised by institutions and follows more traditional teaching standards. The success of each type however has only marginally being researched, with limited practical assessment on their true effectiveness.

Whilst their usage and diversity have drawn interest from many academic institutions, they are seen as an extension to existing online learning approaches and not a replacement. The main drive is the large number of students who may engage with a single MOOC and the opportunity to connect and deliver quality learning content, or to drive knowledge growth in a specific field of study. This leads unfortunately to the pursuant of commercial gains, and the interest in venture capitalists to the MOOC wave, which then lends itself to a contradictory implication to the nature of why MOOCs exist and the definition of Open.

The Beginning: CMOOC

The first Massive Open Online Course to engage with the Connectivist practices was created by Stephen Downes and George Siemens in 2008, and was aptly titled Connectivism and Connective knowledge. This MOOC conveyed the theory of Connectivism through the context of a practical application and demonstration.

An article in 2013 has quoted George Siemens as saying; Connectivism is based on the idea that learning happens within a network, where learners use digital platforms such as blogs, wikis, social media platforms to make connections with content, learning communities and other learners to create and construct knowledge. [6]

The focal highlight to defining a cMOOC is that there are no students, nor professors as the sharing of knowledge is a unilateral requirement. And each professor becomes a student, each student a professor.

The definitions for a cMOOC course structure surround accumulation of material for the specified subject, without limitation and growth of the attained knowledge and the capacity to diverge into other information relevant to the field. Networking and communication is the underlying requirement of a cMOOC, however it does not account for personality and social ability, giving students cause to be left out or miss important facts

Without predetermined classifications for course completion criteria makes it difficult for cMOOCs to offer recognized accreditation and certification. Whilst many engage with courses for hobbyist reasons others may engage in MOOCs hoping for more academic type qualifications to aid in their working progress.

The Emergence of XMOOC

Whilst the cMOOC is a direct component to engaging with the Connectivism theory, an alternate MOOC format was created by academic institutions such as Harvard, Stanford and MIT. The format being altered to suit their more matured agendas for delivering high quality learning content, with formalized accreditation and certification equivalent to the courses being delivered via traditional means and on campus.

Labelled the xMOOC, these type of courses follow the more structured delivery mechanisms of the predominant learning strategies, allowing for the same quality of courses to be delivered on line, yet accommodating larger student volumes. They have however been criticized for not allowing the same student professor interactions as preceding smaller courses and lack continuous mediation of student interaction on communication networks.

The birth of new sites offering Free Open courses is flourishing, the predominant format being xMOOCs as they can more easily be maintained and structured. However not all xMOOCs guarantee a certification of proficiency or provide a credit system. Web sites such as Udacity, edX, Coursera and Udemy are prime examples offering easy sign up and free attendance to courses and quizzes, but at the time of investigation lack a formal recognized system that can be transferred to an individual's résumé.

Characteristics of MOOCS

The main characteristic of a Connective Massive Open Online Course is the capacity to share and collaborate. To be characterized as cMOOC the course would:

1. Be a course, first and foremost it is structured to engage Learners and provide information.
2. Be open, Massive Open Online Courses, are Open and for the most part Free which is the ultimate attractiveness, anyone, anywhere can participate in a MOOC. The only requirement being Internet access and some form of Digital Device.
3. Be participatory, without participants there can be no course, however participants are encouraged to engage rather than simply observe and actively help enhance the course and the material and subject being studied.
4. Be distributed, MOOCs can be accessed anytime anywhere, there should be no limitation, and the course content as it grows should be supplied on an open platform.
5. Have facilitators, those facilitators could also be proposed as Learners and in some aspects it may be possible to create a MOOC to help gain further knowledge within a field of your own study.
6. Have course material, as with all courses there is research and reading requirements, however dependant on the MOOC structure this could be accumulated throughout the lifecycle of the course and may differ each time the course is undertaken due to new found understanding or knowledge pertaining to the subject matter.
7. Has an End, everything has a beginning and an end, thus a MOOC will have a start and end date and specified time for completion.

Connectivism embraces freedom and expressiveness and encourages social interaction and networked learning. And whilst the approach has successful implications, does it facilitate the ultimate goal when engaging with any course? The acquisition of knowledge and the wisdom and satisfaction that the knowledge attained is objective and authentically validated by peers. Does it also cater for the process by which learners wish to engage in the knowledge acquisition task or are the courses successful for those more socially inclined?

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC) Teacher, Philosopher

This statement projects the perspective principles of a cMOOC, firstly to evaluate and understand your own knowledge in contrast to the knowledge of others in the same field. And to collaborate in the evolution of knew knowledge or forms of understanding.

"Knowledge is like money: to be of value it must circulate, and in circulating it can increase in quantity and, hopefully, in value." Louis L'Amour (1908 - 1988) Novelist

It is safe to assume that the desire to engage with social interactive learning has been prevalent throughout human history. Would Socrates have been the deliverer of the first cMOOC had the technology be available to engage with such vast numbers of individuals and project his own knowledge and wisdom.

"I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think." Socrates (399 BC) Philosopher

Comparing to an XMOOC

In a 2013 Article [5], the philosophy and practice of MOOCs were compared and outlined, the three key underlying dividers between a cMOOC and xMOOC are:

1. An xMOOC will have a specifically designed platform or medium for delivery, whereas cMOOCs can be delivered via various custom or social platforms when users can share and engage.
2. An xMOOC may make use of pre-recorded or set lectures engaging with specific information, whereas cMOOCs supply participant driven content, which is decided upon and contributed to by the participants themselves.
3. An xMOOC will provide formal tests, assessments and computer marking, in some instances allowing for immediate feedback or for more formal courses an end course Grade and certification, however this is not always provided. Unfortunately a cMOOC offers no formal assessment which contributes to the criticism it has gained and the perceived usefulness of the knowledge attained.

The Rhizomatic MOOC

An altering proposed strategy for the delivery of a MOOC is based on the philosophy of the Rhizome proposed by Deleuze and Guattari. [7]

According to Dave Cornier, Rhizomatic Learning is the journey through learning in a plentiful world of abundance. It approaches learning without the precursory knowledge of what will be learnt. [8]

The rMOOC proposed that the community is the curriculum and whilst this may replicate the prerequisites for a cMOOC, the rMOOC does not fully engage the Connectivist approach.

It is an image used by D&G to describe the way that ideas are multiple, interconnected and self-replicating. A rhizome has no beginning or end… like the learning process. [7]

Ultimately however as with the cMOOC there are no formal instructors, only dual purpose learner/teachers or facilitators, and the rMOOC is delivered with less structure, and encourages innovative thinking.

This philosophy lends to an abstract cycle of knowledge acquisition and can pertain that knowledge acquired may lack any real validity. The pedagogical idea for Rhizomatic Learning is not yet formerly recognized or adopted as a practice by institutions.

MOOC Usage and Growth

Since their inception, MOOC usage has seen exponential growth over several years and the availability of MOOCs across the varying disciplines continually increases. As the convenience of undertaking a MOOC continues to manifest so to do the student numbers that are willing to engage with this form of learning process multiply.

An article from 2017 [10] has evaluated the statistics from Class central measuring 58 million active MOOC users for the 2016 period. This in contrast to the figures listed for 2015 demonstrates the doubling effect and exponential growth.

When evaluating additional statistics from Class Central it is revealed that, in 2016 there were: [11]

The distribution of users across the main providers of MOOCs can be seen below, and presents a large gap between the top 2 providers and the next 3 providers.

To study the exponential grow of MOOCs the 2017 statistics provided by Class Central [13] demonstrate no failing increase in course availability and supplement that, as the user base for courses of this nature increases so too will the establishments wishing to offer such courses.

This exponential growth caters for the demand by the increasing number of active participants and students for the available courses.

A prediction for the end of 2018 may thus suggest the following figures for MOOC growth, however these estimates may be challenged when factual data is presented. Given however their current foot hold and steady gr0wth, it is unlikely that the interest in MOOCs will decline, but more so increase as new and better methods for delivery and collaboration emerge.

One might estimate the below figures as indicative to the current trend, however in reality they may be quite modest and not reflect the current interest in Open Free Learning.

Evaluating Student Interaction with MOOCS

Understanding how users interact with a Massive Open Online Course is crucial in catering for the individual needs, whilst maintaining collaborative techniques for course delivery. Figures provided by Statista for the period 2015, Fig 3 demonstrates the percentage users worldwide that successfully completed a MOOC, earning a specific competency level they would feel suited to include on a résumé. When analysing the data, 9% of their respondents actually participated in a MOOC, 11% of their respondent's earnt some form of competency badge or certification, and 19% said they would use this on their résumé.

These figures are indicative to the market capture as yet available, and as the population's confidence in Open Learning increases, so too will the engagement in such means for Learning.

The distribution across various courses is highlighted within the following results supplied from the reports for 2016 [12].

It is clearly demonstrated that Computer Sciences and Business offer the largest proportion of courses, this would likely be a result of the larger volumes of students that may wish to enrol in these subject types.

2017 demonstrated [13] little change in the distributed proportions of available courses. Fig. 5

The above figures show that the practical applications for a MOOC may be limited to certain fields of study, where the online nature of the course acts to complement the attentive needs for the student.

If one were to speculate why Computer Sciences and Business we popular subjects and attractive to students wishing to engage with distance learning. One might propose that students interested in Computing would already be competent in computer usage or have the motivation and drive to attain the necessary competency, and thus feel an eLearning solution would pose as an ideal challenge. For Business, similarly there may be a motivation to engage in computing technology, but not so on a technical level. Communication however and the ability to communicate over long distances can yield prominent successes and thus this type of Learning Pedagogy allows networks and connections to be built easily and with a certain level of assurance that the connections being generated are viable and genuine.

On line learning poses significant challenges for courses dealing with experimentation or practical projects. Specifically online courses in medicine, would have the capacity to engage a user up to a point, where digital interaction is insufficient to diagnose the competency level of a student. Engineering and Science likewise, whilst allowing for the theoretical knowledge to be transferred easily, do not allow the practical application of the knowledge and skills attained to be demonstrated without the student having adequate resources and equipment to hand.

MOOCs, Pedagogy and Learning

The cMOOC demonstrates and adopts the Theory of Connectivism and as a Learning Pedagogy it has been recognized for many years now.

In his original paper published in 2004 George Siemens states that: Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism are the three broad learning theories most often utilized in the creation of instructional environments. These theories, however, were developed in a time when learning was not impacted through technology. [6]

There is little fallacy in this statement since the development of Behaviorism Methodologies can be attributed to John B. Watson, B. F. Skinner and Ivan Pavlov at the first half of the twentieth century, whilst Cognitvism gained credence along with Constructivist theory for which Jean Piaget is attributed as the pioneer of, the during the mid-half of the century. All of which pre-date the advancements in computer technologies and the ability to communicate across the globe.

Ultimately when examining the practices within the differing Pedagogical Methodologies, one might suggest that all lay valid foundations for student growth, learning and understanding. Rather than oppose each other, they can be used in conjunction and the epoch of wisdom through transference via means that accommodate the individual.

Instructivism

As the inherent predominant pedagogical form for an age, and still continued to this day. Instructivism involves an authoritarian teacher that might transmit pre-defined information and knowledge either through theoretical demonstration and analysis or via practical examples. The tutor(s) being the fundamental source of knowledge and wisdom a student may aspire to absorb.

This pedagogy relies solely on the knowledge and experience of the instructor and the skills and abilities they have for projecting that knowledge and encouraging growth in their students. The learner’s abilities and skills thus being judged from a subjective view point. In a more academic environment, whilst the curriculum may be defined through a body of assessors, the course matter being projected is still limited to the professor, and what they define as the necessary material to convey and fulfil the curriculum requirements.

Assessments likewise would be written to reflect the subject matter delivered and fail to address or recognise areas of valid development and the additional knowledge and skills learners may possess relevant to the subject.

Communication and the internet have help advance this approach as students engage with more direct instructive courses, are still free to advance their own knowledge, investigate and research information pertaining to that course.

Behaviourism

The behaviourist pedagogy strives to understand and modify human behaviour and defines learning as a behaviour, that which demonstrates the ability of a learner to acquire new knowledge or develop new skills.

In behaviourist psychology learning has been evaluated as a process, this process involves the reaction to stimuli and the observation of responses to stimuli being noted, allowing for the modification of the supplied stimulus to promote alternate responses. However the limiting factor behind the behavourist psychology is that the human mind is a black box which cannot be accessed.

Research by Melissa Standbridge reports that: Behaviourism is primarily concerned with observable and measurable aspects of human behaviour. In defining behaviour, behaviourist learning theories emphasize changes in behaviour that result from stimulus-response associations made by the learner. Behaviour is directed by stimuli. [14]

The founding science behind behaviourism and the adoption throughout class rooms is for promoting rewards for expected behaviour, and positively or negatively reinforced punishments for behaviour which is undesired.

Whilst there are advocates of Behaviourist Pedagogy, it has been heavily criticized for ignoring the non-observable aspects of learning, these may include cognition and the effects of cognitive load which are examined heavily throughout neuro science and cognitive psychology, together with reflection and motivational drive.

Margaret Gredler (2009) in her book Learning Instruction, Theory into practice, supports George Siemens statements regarding Behaviourism. [6] [15]

1. Observable behaviour is more important than understanding internal activities
2. Behaviour should be focused on simple elements: specific stimuli and responses
3. Learning is about behaviour change

The research of Ivan Pavlov and the classical conditioning practices, serve as a stage for current learning theories and are the underlying principles adapted for classroom and learning environments. The effect from within an eLearning environment has yet to be effectively measured.

Cognitivism

In contrast to behaviourism, Cognitive psychology proposes that the human learning can be compared to the information processing systems of a computer, and that the black box of the mind should be opened and understood.

The key principles behind Cognitive Pedagogy are driven by understanding how people, students or children, learn. With an exploration into the thinking processes, research delves into memory storage, the capacity of a learner to think, and the undertaking of problem solving technics, whereby the result and means engaged by the student can be examined.

Jean Pageat Pioneered the Cognitive Learning Theory aiming at understanding the attributes of natural logic and the transformations from one form of reasoning to another.

Gredler (2009) states that; Intelligence is not a static trait that can be quantitatively assessed. Instead, intelligence is active, dynamic, and changing. A basic assumption of Piaget's theory is that human intelligence and biological organisms function in similar ways. [15]

These principles developed can be applied to various learning environments, and can be investigated through modern concepts and usage and the vast levels of knowledge that a student may attempt to ingest related to the field of study, or through natural inquisition. An article published on the eLearning Industry platform describes five ways to reduce cognitive load based on the Cognitive Load Theory which builds upon a widely accepted model of human information processing. [16]

The three types of cognitive load mentioned were first published in 1968 by R. Atkinson and R. Shiffrin.

An article on the eLearning Industry platform provides five ways in which cognitive load can be reduced whilst engaging in an eLearning Context. These are based on the findings of R. E. Mayer, & R. Moreno. [16] [18]

1. Human information absorption occurs through two distinct channels, and as with all processing systems, these can become overloaded with processing requirements. These channels represent visual and audio information transference processes and delivering learning material uniformly across both channels alleviates the processing burden imposed.
2. Information Chunking and Segmentation allows a realistic pace to be set by the learner. With complex information broken down, allowing information processing to occur more efficiently and at a more controlled speed.
3. Simplify Visual delivery of the content to the necessities, if there is a body of text to be memorized or learnt then any visual inference by user interface elements require incidental processing and increase extraneous loads. Any elements within the eLearning environment that do not support the instructional objectives should be ignored and the information required for retention extracted and viewed in an opaque visual environment.
4. Typography and word placement in relation to graphical elements can increase the requirement to scan the visual areas of the display and process the cognitive association. Alignment should facilitate minimal eye movement for more efficient retention. Similarly spacing of characters within the textual content should be consistent and allow the continuous flow of words when reading.
5. Duplicating information across visual and audio channels, as is the case when using narration, forces the user to both interpret the visual context of the narrative, and also the audio context, which is a replication of the same narrative. This causes11 the person to process the same information twice increasing redundancy.

Constructivism and Constructionism

The Constructivist Theory presented by Jean Piaget has heavily influenced the educational learning pedagogy and eLearning is heavily associated with adopting constructivism as it is one of the dominate theories utilized for learning delivery.

It is important to note that Constructivism does not specifically refer to a learning pedagogy. The educational pedagogy Constructionism developed by Seymour Papert [19] is the heavily adopted Paradigm which was inspired by the work of Piaget.

The advantages of using a constructivist approach for derived eLearning courses are as follows.

1. Constructivist courses offer a learner centred education, the typical role of the teacher cannot be easily maintained and students are forced into proactivity when engaging with learning objectives. Given the distribution of eLearning is across the internet, there is wide variety of choice, and for potential areas of achievement not previously accessible, easily allowing more users to engage.
2. The knowledge attained by students would be applied based on the individual experiences of the learner, mature students that actively work as professionals in a specific field would help enhance the contributions. Whereas younger students would have a wider accessibility to refined knowledge.
3. More responsibility is given to students to engage with the learning experience, the availability of new technological advances and platforms allows students to interact and immerse in digital material in a more diverse manor.
4. The learners are considered active participants in the learning experience and are not merely a sponge to absorb the knowledge conveyed by the tutor. The internet provides the means to venture forth and seek out infinite possibilities for knowledge advancements and the capacity to effortlessly connect to resources.
5. Social Constructivism sees engagement with individuals a critical need and the essential collaborative practices implicit in its practice. Without communication between learners, barriers are more easily placed between the learners experience and ability to build knowledge.

A number of possible factors must be considered when using constructivist pedagogy online.

1. Instructivist learning in the modern age is still actively engaged, the need for apprenticeships, skilled crafts men, seldom begin with constructivist collaborations and engaging with other socially. Practical skills need to be learnt and the application of which can be more easily taught via formal instruction. After building confidence in the student they will be able to reflect on their new skills and engage proactively in improving or sharing the knowledge they have acquired with others. The main weakness of the Constructivist theory is the necessity for students to learn, and how they should learn.
2. Whilst technology has advanced in some instance project work that may involve group interactivity can at time prove difficult when done virtually. Digital sciences can easily be demonstrated via online courses however more applied courses pose obvious constraints on the teaching model. Furthermore those with mild accessibility issues may prefer a more direct engagement with their learning provider or inherently prefer solitary work.
3. The assessment of distant learning specifics and the reasoning of why individuals seek out distance learning courses as opposed to more direct involvement in a class based course.
4. Instructionism is often a more efficient means of imparting standard knowledge. However, although a constructivist approach can be time-consuming, understanding may well be deeper.
5. The design of any learning experience should be based upon the perceived needs and experience of the student body and on the nature of the topic.

Analysing Learning Theories

In his paper of 2004 Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, George Siemens [6] addresses the limitations of the favoured pedagogical practices at the time. He proposes the centrality to all existing learning theories is the individuality of the learning and attaining individual achievement.

These theories do not address learning that occurs outside of people (i.e. learning that is stored and manipulated by technology). They also fail to describe how learning happens within organizations. [6]

Within his research the following questions are posed which relate to the behaviour of the applied pedagogies.

1. How are learning theories impacted when knowledge is no longer acquired in the linear manner?
2. What adjustments need to be made with learning theories when technology performs many of the cognitive operations previously performed by learners
3. How can we continue to stay current in a rapidly evolving information ecology?
4. How do learning theories address moments where performance is needed in the absence of complete understanding?
5. What is the impact of networks and complexity theories on learning?
6. What is the impact of chaos as a complex pattern recognition process on learning?
7. With increased recognition of interconnections in differing fields of knowledge, how are systems and ecology theories perceived in light of learning tasks?

The following comparative answers to fundamental questions, help evaluate the current theories.

By what means does learning occur?

What are the key factors that influence learning?

What role does memory play in the learning process?

How does transfer of experience and knowledge occur?

What types of learning interaction are best evoked?

These questions surmise the Learning Theories and their effective reach into content delivery.

The Theory of Connectivism

Connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on rapidly altering foundations. [6]

The proposition for the Connectivist pedagogy formulated by George Siemens is the underlying basis for the delivery of the first cMOOC.

Siemens has defined the following as the derivative aspects of the Connectivist Theory.

1. The diversity of opinions is a controlling factor in Learning and Knowledge acquisition.
2. Learning can be compared to networked computer that require connections to share, utilize and understand information.
3. Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
4. The ability to grow and learn more, are fundamentally more important than the knowledge already attained.
5. The continued nurturing of connections is paramount to maintain strong informational ties.
6. Connections can exist across fields and disciplines and the ability of a Learner to recognize and engage with these connections is a key skill.
7. Consistent accurate knowledge is the goal of Connectivism without setting limitations and acknowledging change.
8. Learning to learn and decision making are important to the learning process. An individual whilst making immediate decisions, can theoretically make no incorrect choice, as what may be correct for the present, may alter for the future.

When applying the same analytical questions to Connectivism.

By what means does learning occur?

What are the key factors that influence learning?

What role does memory play in the learning process?

How does transfer of experience and knowledge occur?

What types of learning interaction are best evoked?

Without the Social Interactions of Connectivist Theory, knowledge can be contrived as limited to the Subjective scope of the Learner and lacking the changing dialogue of information growth.

The notions of Connectivism whilst not formerly noted as an alternate Pedagogy where first included as part of Behaviourisn by Edward Thorndike in the early twentieth century and labelled under behaviourist Connectionism.

Thordike proposed three laws which were intrinsic to Connectionism and the later specifically, laying the basic foundation for the Connectivist Theory. [20]

1. The Law of effect, states that habitual situation responses are governed by the notion of rewarding successes to strengthen responses.
2. The Law of readiness, states that responses can be chained together to facilitate a larger goal, however if blocked causes problematic situations.
3. The Law of exercise, states that when engaging and practicing knowledge through connections, these connections will strengthen, however if left idle would weaken and dissipate, cease to exist.

Whilst typically dealing with similar principles, M. Gredler notes that: The theory is known as connectionism because the animal establishes connections between particular stimuli and self-initiated behaviours. [16]

Connectivism and MOOCs

In 2016 Stephen Downes the co-creator of the first cMOOC published a presentation entitled Connectivism in Moocs. [21]

In his presentation he elaborates on the various aspects of Connectivism based on Human cognitive experiences through interactions with the world as a network.

He emphasizes that the human brain works and delivers information via neurons and neural connections, with a single focal entry point of perception to link and connect to the global network which encompasses people, ideas and concepts, joined with unlimited connections and nodes.

The MOOC in effect represents this external global network, designed specifically for Learning and the acquisition of knowledge.

Elaborating on the critical literacies, Syntax, Cognition, Semantics, Context, Pragmatics and Change, Downes presents the correlating aspects which drive the Learning Pedagogy through natural perceptions.

He defines Syntax as being the network and connections in the world, defining organization and structure, representing the “Massive” and “Open” aspects of a MOOC. With access to unlimited nodes and connections, networks can grow exponentially or falter if left unattended.

Cognition in a MOOC allows for the recognition of achievements via demonstrated and open work, assessed by peers, and presents the challenges of Learning Analytics to effectively capture the uniqueness of a user's abilities.

Semantics engage with theories, truth, purpose and goal which MOOCs facilitate via the unification of a varying degree of perspectives with no implication that only certain perspectives are valid or true. The amassed body of knowledge being gained only by interaction. Which amplifies knowledge as being a puzzle, with many pieces contributing to the overall picture.

The worldwide web supplies the means to form unlimited connections across the planet, thus providing the MOOC Context for Learning. Allowing for advanced academic engagement or more informal learning.

The practical application of a MOOC defines, Pragmatics, a MOOC and open course networks allow learners to recount on past experiences, demonstrate models, concepts and processes, exchange ideas and alter perspectives. Learners actively may recruit others into the network, so that they can engage in the exploration, experimentation, discovery and creation of new ideas.

MOOCs are inferred as the driving force for Change, offering enhancements to existing pedagogical practices, whilst not limiting the future in terms of the importance of the present.

In a second presentation by Downes in the same year, Connectivism, MOOCs and Innovation. [22] He has defined cMOOC and xMOOC as the following:

1. xMOOCs are the large elite means for delivering a MOOC, that are defined by large institutions and provide a centralized collection of resources.
2. cMOOCs are purely based on the community, the cultural aspects that unify people and are openly distributed.

Downes formerly advocates the cMOOC as it presents free and open learning, a dream envisioned by many. Allowing individuals to grow and learn without the need for formal qualifications or any level of social standing. Which exemplifies the ethical aspects of cMOOC delivery, knowledge for all without limitation. This is also a direct promotion of Open Educational Resources (OER) and the Open Archive Initiative.

It is thus clear that Connectivism is more than simply a learning Pedagogy, but a drive to enhance human evolution and growth, the quality of life, the abundance of truth and the bridging of class driven gaps of equality and social segregation within learning environments.

MOOC Completion Rates

An article in the Training Journal in 2014 [23] discusses the ultimate challenges faced by MOOCs and discloses certain factors which in some instances are inevitable.

Given Massive Open Online Courses have a core designation as being attractive to large volumes of learners, the percentage ratios for users entering the course and then leaving abruptly seems exceptionally high. Aspects which pose as a causal effect of these statistics relates to MOOC delivery format not being suited for all types of learners and that casual learners may simply be engaging in an observatory fashion as a determination of their interest in the MOOC topic. Being Open and Free does offer actual stimulus for interaction to a wider audience, without the complication of obligation and cost.

Additional research done provides insight into the exponential drop-out rate, figures state only a staggering 46% of enrolees actually show up for the first day of the MOOC. In contrast to a course at a University, should attendance demonstrate such a vast absence of students, the establishment would surely steadily decline. These drop out figures do raise criticisms as to the quality of the MOOCs being delivered and the ease at which students can enter and engage with the material being presented and the contributions they may be able to make. A survey performed in 2013 accumulated statistics for 19 courses [25], and found that the completion rate was a mere 7%.

In contrast a Data Visualization Tool generated in 2015 [24] which accessed data across 60 Universities throughout the United States, extracted user related information and calculated an average 15% completion rate for MOOCs. These MOOC deliveries however are predominately centred around the xMOOC format thus the demonstrative success or failure of engagement of the cMOOC as yet lacks any real measured statistics.

An analysis of the completion rates of some newly formed MOOCs at the university of Glasgow in 2014 [25] has alarming implications. The findings demonstrated that a mere 11% of enrolees attained a valid form of certification with an enrolment number of 309, 628 students. Reporting that 275, 569 students did not successfully complete their chosen course.

Within the same research studies have revealed the reasons behind the lack of completion, with many students answering that:

1. Entered as an Observer, many students stated that they had no real intention of completing the course, but that they had enrolled to learn if the course and material would be of interest.
2. Time - Whilst motivated to engage many students found an absence of available time to fully interact with the MOOC.
3. Difficulties, certain users found the course difficult, and felt they did not receive adequate support, this is demonstrative of the current implications relating to the user's ability to self-learn. Whilst the practice seems logical, the ability to engage posing as a challenge to many.
4. Behaviour Moderation, certain users have accounted for this as their reasoning behind the lack of continuation, with such a large diversity of individuals there is bound to ultimately be clashes of personalities and culture.
5. Reviews, many student were not adept at engaging in peer reviews and the lack of an instructor for such requirements was off putting to some.
6. Late Starting, a portion of users did not manage to start the course on time, this added a barrier at the beginning as they inherently found it difficult to continue and progress without active guidance and direction as to the knowledge already exchanged.
7. Failed Expectations, a group felt that their expectations for the course had not been meet, and that the continuation of the course might end in a fruitless return.

When assessing this, it is unlikely that the situation will change. Given the exploratory nature of individuals and the desire to engage with new skills and concepts, the openness and free nature of MOOCs makes them subject to such drastic drop out figures.

This however hampers the results when statistically measuring MOOC success rates, as in many instances, the quality of the course, or the delivery mechanism used may not be a precursory drop out factor. Any measurements taken must account for human behaviour in course selection psychology.

The Web, Self-Directed Learning and Social Interaction

Independent study and the ability to research is a skill not abundant or prevalent within all individuals. Through various social ideologies, many individuals still believe that the source of all truth relating to a specific subject can only be passed down from Instructor to Learner. Regardless of the availability of information on a global scale, not all learning environments propose that students should engage with self-evaluation and knowledge modelling.

In a paper by R. Kop, The Challenges to Connectivist Learning on Open Online Networks, the study of student interaction with a specific MOOC course was undertaken. Student responses to course structure and stimuli, were: [28]

I am not a typical course student and I do not want anything from the facilitators. It is enough that they offer the structure and the platform (Moodle). I am ready to study “alone” and find my way. All depends on the time I can and want to use for finding new friends, trying new tools, checking materials, etc. I see no difference between students and facilitators, we have more than 55+ students who have much to give to others.

Another student stated that:

If one is highly socially sensitive and he or she feels included, accepted, and empowered, does that necessarily mean that participation in a collaborative work will result in creative and/or complex problem-solving and thinking? If one feels threatened, he or she might flee or fight back... or not. For example, one might decide to ignore provocation, reserve judgment, ask for clarification, take on the point of view of the other so as to understand the argument better, or just let that pony run and get on with life.

Which highlights the scepticism which may be found in all users based on collaborative integration and social learning.

In Teaching and Learning with Technology: Beyond Constructivism [27] it is noted that, Koory (2003) found that the attendance and engagement of students to an online version of an English subject had consistently better learning outcomes than the traditional version taught on campus.

The studies of Clark (2002) are also noted, stating that web enhanced courses demonstrated an increase in student grades, whilst lecture material was not previously available on line, the apparent availability of such material allowed students to print, modify and add additional notes to, allowing them to engage with this material internally within the learning environment, and externally, anywhere, from park to bus. [29]

Also noted in this book is research by L.Russell (1999) who compiled 50 years of research comparing the varying degrees of student performance based on the delivery mechanism for the Learning Instruction. His studies found no significant differences were apparent when analysing the learning outcomes based on the delivery method. This research was done however on the cusp of the Digital eLearning revolution and based on users with limited knowledge of the technological innovations that are prevalent in present times.

MOOCs and the LMS

One might consider that a MOOC is a platform, and whilst the main providers of MOOCs do offer a platform for delivery, the concept and defining differences between a MOOC and a Learning Management System are highlighted in the tables below.

In comparison to the above the definitions for a Learning Management System can be evaluated below.

As the popularity of MOOCs rises, more Learning Management Systems and platforms will no doubt adapt and offer improved social engagement opportunities via additional technological solutions.

However the aspect of Analytics and the ability to accurately depict a learners' competence from within a MOOC environment is a struggling concept continually being researched by institutions such as IMS Global. A white paper from 2013, Learning Measurement for Analytics Whitepaper states that: [29]

This interest, coupled with the more recent surge of the MOOCs and other online-only program offerings driving highly scaled online curriculum delivery, has caused the edtech ecosystem to explore and motivate a call to action to apply “Big Data” Analytics to education to drive a more efficient and informed online learning environment.

This acknowledging the acceptance of MOOCs in the educational learning lifecycle however the paper also states that:

Given this state, it is difficult to establish a unified and consistent view of measured learning activity within and across curriculum, independent of the delivery context;

Which amplifies the difficulties such standardization poses which thus embraces the question pertaining to the usefulness of a MOOC, if the future analytical drive will be fraught with barriers and limitations.

MOOCs and Social Media

Since the emergence of Facebook in the 2004, global social interaction has grown exponentially, with alternate social networks flourishing via Twitter, Google+, Instagram and LinkedIn. It is now common place that many individuals may have accounts on several of these sites with a diverse social network spanning every continent and a multitude of countries.

Over the past years many aspects of Social Media and the eLearning experience have been combined, there is the ability to engage with MOOC courses within a Social platform providing instant connectivity to thousands of users in an environment comforting to the participant.

Social platforms facilitate the four main processes identified for Connectivism by R. Kop [28] in her 2011 study.

A recent study entitled The Role of Social Media in MOOCs [33] presented at the annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale, validates Facebook's effectiveness for student engagement.

Researchers conducted a study using three MOOCs on the Coursera platform comparing student's use of Facebook groups to discussion forums within the Coursera site [33]. The research identified that student engagement in Social Platforms exceeded that of standard forums when participating with the MOOC. They found platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to be more responsive to Social needs with access and information polling occurring immediately facilitating that sense of community.

This can only be attributed to the fact that Facebook is the most used Social Networking site globally and there are no hurdles to participation. Users are more willing to engage with peers. Thus prefer to engage via this context rather than on a designated MOOC platform.

Additional reasoning and logic can be applied when evaluating further responses to this research.

The measurements recorded in the research done in 2016 [33], demonstrates the frequency of posts done via a course hosted on a social network, against the same course hosted on one of the Coursera learning platforms. Fig. 6

Without ambiguity these figures demonstrate the active differences between social interaction such as commenting, and the interactions based around voting on a topic or liking which is a common place practice in today's digital social communities.

When reflecting on Social commenting, it is negligent not to reflect on the Subjective nature of comments, and the invalid material that can sometimes be posted, which at the point of publishing may have instilled firm beliefs in its validity.

Likewise the above figures demonstrate the vast proportion of likes done via Facebook as opposed to Coursera. This then raises the implications that the “like” syndrome has be endowed upon many individuals, the concept second nature, thus the quality of the like and the certainty that the user has fully grasped, when specifically dealing with learning content, the concepts being projected could be lead to speculation.

Continued observation and research is affluent in providing valued facts relating to student engagement between the varying platforms. A study from 2013, Determining the effect of using social media as a MOOC tool [32] demonstrated the results of an analysis geared towards the specifics of a learners engagement with learning content on a social platform. This also accommodated for user preferences and observations as to their own performance when participating in a social climate.

It is without a doubt, that as the quality of the MOOCs being delivered across social platforms increases, more users are likely to engage, and it may become detrimental to the growth of current Learning Platforms and closed Learning Systems.

However many of the new platforms are being delivered with integration to the top Social Media Sites such as Google+, Twitter and Facebook via the Graph API, these API technologies have been available for many years and the seamless integration between learning and social platforms only enhances the capacity for learners to embrace social learning at all levels.

Considerations when Designing a MOOC

When developing a Massive Open Online Course, the first obvious necessity is the decisiveness as to the type of MOOC being delivered.

If one wishes to deliver and be a facilitator of a cMOOC, then it's critical that the course and its content effectively be delivered using eLearning and Connectivist mechanisms and practices. The technology being used must facilitate the social interactions expected, yet support the resource repository necessities so that the information, course agenda and scope can be easily accessed by all attendees.

Guidelines from a teacher's perspective [37], offer insightful questions to teachers and instructors wishing to plan and execute their courses. These guidelines can be expanded upon somewhat and directed towards delivery via a MOOC.

1. Is there adequate consideration being devoted to communication, conferencing engaging with content and the community, is there enough wisdom in the platform being selected to facilitate these requirements.
2. Are the materials being discussed within the boundaries of any licensing agreements, can they be freely distributed, what actions would be taken to ensure the course material does not infringe upon any copyrights.
3. As the instructor, if this is to be deployed as an xMOOC, or the facilitator for an cMOOC, there is a necessity for active involvement and a willingness for social interaction and collaboration. With a willingness to acknowledge alternate content which may be of benefit to the syllabus.
4. How will interaction be enforced and what means will be engaged to drive interactions between participants.
5. What method for assessment would be employed if any, and how will these be undertaken throughout the community. Can they be engaged in a secure manor to guard against any plagiarism.
6. Will there be a diverse selection of assessment types, and will they cater for the volume of individuals that may attend the MOOC. How will these assessments reflect on the learner's knowledge, will they explore fixed expectations or be expandable.
7. Is there enough technological understanding for the means by which the MOOC will be engaged.
8. Given the large user base, what is being done to moderate the user behaviour and ensure a specific etiquette is used and all communication ethical.
9. How will any connections be established and the modes that will be made available to students' for communication within the group.
10. What level of monitoring will be done for the project. What level of drop outs will be measured and what will be done to understand the reasons for leaving.
11. How will the learning content support the learning community and provide aspects for discussion, analysis, debate and acceptance.
12. Are learning analytics to be used to help adapt the learning profile of the course and the content being provided to maximise the impact and learning opportunities for students.
13. Is the performance of students who did not complete the course able to be utlized in any metrics of information specifically designated towards students who interact with most of the course content yet, did not engage with the final steps.
14. How will the connections between users and their interactions to the content be measured and help improve the MOOC delivery and performance.

Additional factors when considering the creation of a MOOC course are referenced from Creating Mooc Guidelines Based on Best Practices. [34]

This paper emphasizes the need to make up the virtual learning environment. Ensuring that the course is compliant with most common place strategies such as dividing the course into semesters. This proposes the even distribution of course material over set periods as is done with lectures, allowing learners to adequately absorb the supplied material without the risk of cognitive overload. Setting up a coordinated learning environment is paramount to the success of students feeling a sense of belonging.

A minimized but continuous course structure also ensures that the learner is not overloaded, this will dramatically impact the construction of new knowledge. The principles of modularization should be directly followed allowing for a level of granularity and the precise communication of the objectified teaching goals. It is crucial not to engage with the random division of course content and ignore the natural semantics and flow.

The effective combination of the media within the content will aid in the cognitive experience, a picture can tell a thousand words, and the distribution of content via audio, video, typographical and virtual channels will enhance the users learning experience. A well planned and designed course would ensure enforced practices when delivering the learning content. If the course is a cMOOC, then learners should be provided examples and guidelines of how to deliver their contributions in a unified manor.

A MOOC specifically designates the learner as being the subject, and thus in a Massive Open Online Course Environment, the environment should be developed and attuned to support users who are at different levels or within different modes of their studies.

Delivering a MOOC via EPUB

Whilst social media and other learning platforms offer the means of collaboration and sharing, there is one limitation imposed. The user is required to have internet access and connect to a network to access the information and resources.

It would be theoretically possible to extend the reach of the MOOC beyond the connected online experienced. So that the resources shared can be centrally documented in an online location but facilitate “checking out” much like a Git repository.

The EPUB 3.0 standard for eBook delivery may be perfectly adept at achieving this. If engaging with a cMOOC, where course content has the prospect of being updated or rewritten. The utilization of the EPUB format could allow for the learner to visually see new additions and be-able to download the updated content, suggest revisions or contribute updates. This facility would still require the online connectivity, but can allow a more diverse interaction between the online and offline experience of users.

The study and usage of an EPUB in such circumstances has yet to be undertaken, and the effectiveness and willingness of the users to participate in content driven publications complicated.

Conclusions

In reflection of the report context, MOOCs are a valued asset to the learning cycle of individuals, the social interactive learning experience has taken a foot hold in our society. As the experience of users improves and the delivery of MOOCs advances, it is expected that this type of learning interaction will overtake traditional means.

The conditioning of the human social constructs enlightens new learners with the capacity to self-learn. However when analysing student attentiveness to self-learning it can be concluded that a student's competency to learn, where not impaired by other difficulties, can be derived from the following three factors; Motive, and the reason for the student to engage in the learning activities; Agenda, and the underlying outcomes that are desired by the learner; Determination, the will and drive to succeed regardless of obstacles, challenges and difficulties.

There are countless individuals who have undertaken this MAD approach to learning, and developing countries which lack the facilities and advancements of the more modern cultures are obvious locations and examples of where MOOCs can be most beneficial.

Whether the delivery mechanism is via an xMOOC , cMOOC, rMOOC or other, Massive Open Online Courses will continue to be criticized for not ensuring that recognition for achievements will be accepted as valid enhancements to an individual's growth. The continued research into more prominent analytical means is an existing frontier that needs to be crossed.

Resources

[1] S. Downes (2012) Connectivism and Connective Knowledge.

[2] A. Karmilof-Smith (1995) Beyond Modularity: a developmental perspective on cognitive science (2014) EPub3

[3] D. Cormier (2008) The CCK08 MOOC - Connectivism course, 1/4 way Available from: http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/10/02/the-cck08-mooc-connectivism-course-14-way/

[4] W. H. Walters (2014) What is the Difference Between xMOOCs and cMOOCs? Available from: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

[5] T. Bates (2013) Comparing xMOOCs and cMOOCs: philosophy and practice Available from: https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/13/comparing-xmoocs-and-cmoocs-philosophy-and-practice/

[6] G. Siemens (2004) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Available from: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

[7] Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari (19980) A Thousand Plateaus: Rhizomes http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

[8] D. Cormier (2011) Rhizomatic Learning - Why we teach? Available from: http://davecormier.com/edblog/2011/11/05/rhizomatic-learning-why-learn/

[9] F. Mud (2015) MOOC Types: The xMOOC, cMOOC and rMOOC Available from: http://teachingandlearning.org.za/mooc-types-the-xmooc-cmooc-and-rmooc/

[10] N.Marsh (2017) MOOC users reach 58 million globally. Available from: https://thepienews.com/news/edu-tech/mooc-users-reach-58-million-globally/

[11] D. Shah (2016) By The Numbers: MOOCS in 2016. Available from: https://www.class-central.com/report/mooc-stats-2016/

[12] D. Shah (2018) By The Numbers: MOOCS in 2017. Available from: https://www.class-central.com/report/mooc-stats-2017/

[13] Statista (2018) Share of global students who have interacted with massive open online courses (MOOC) and CBE in the past year as of April 2015. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/548153/mooc-student-access-worldwide/

[14] M. Standridge, M. Orey (2010) Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Available from: http://textbookequity.org/Textbooks/Orey_Emergin_Perspectives_Learning.pdf

[15] M. Gredler (2009) Learning Instruction, Theory into practice.

[16] M. Guyan (2013) 5 Ways To Reduce Cognitive Load In eLearning. Available from: https://elearningindustry.com/5-ways-to-reduce-cognitive-load-in-elearning

[17] R. Colvin Clark, F. Nguyen, J. Sweller (2006) Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load

[18] R. E.Mayer, R. Moreno (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist.

[19] S. Papert (1980). Mindstorms. Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic books.

[20] Connectionism (Edward Thorndike) Available from: http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/connectionism/

[21] S. Downes (2016) Connectivism in Moocs. Available from: https://www.slideshare.net/Downes/learning-and-connectivism-in-moocs

[22] S. Downes (2016) Connectivism, MOOCs and Innovation. Available from: https://www.downes.ca/presentation/388

[23] B. De Coutere (2014) To Mooc or not to Mooc. Available from: https://www.trainingjournal.com/articles/feature/mooc-or-not-mooc

[24] K. Jordan (2015) MOOC Visualization. Available from: http://www.katyjordan.com/MOOCproject.html

[25] D.F.O.Onah, J.Sinclair, R.Boyatt (2014) Drop out rates of Massive Open Online Courses: Behavioural Patterns. Available from: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/dcs/people/research/csrmaj/daniel_onah_edulearn14.pdf

[26] P. Hill (2015) Four Barriers That MOOCs Must Overcome To Build a Sustainable Model. Available from: https://mfeldstein.com/four-barriers-that-moocs-must-overcome-to-become-sustainable-model/

[27] C. M. Stewart, C. Schifter, M. E. Markaridian Selverian (2010) Teaching and Learning with Technology: Beyond Constructivism

[28] R. Kop (2011) The Challenges to Connectivist Learning on Open Online Networks: Learning Experiences during a Massive Open Online Course. Available from: http://nparc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/view/accepted/?id=2d83ddb7-b3cd-45cd-8371-92a94e5dd349

[29] IMS Global (2013) Learning Measurement for Analytics Whitepaper Available from: https://www.imsglobal.org/sites/default/files/caliper/IMSLearningAnalyticsWP.pdf

[30] C. Milligan, A. Littlejohn, A. Margaryan (2013) Patterns of Engagement in Connectivist MOOCs. Available from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9b8f/37f6573c093b55588185dd1c486fa2465c1b.pdf

[31] D. Morrison (2016) Facebook for MOOCs; A bridge for student Learning. Available from: https://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/moocs-and-facebook-a-hook-up-for-student-learning/

[32] H. Bicen (2017) Determining the effect of using social media as a MOOC tool. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050917324377

[33] S. Zheng, K. Han, M. B. Rosson, J. M. Carroll (2016) The Role of Social Media in MOOCs: How to Use Social Media to Enhance Student Retention.

[34] N. Spyropoulou, C. Pierrakeas, A. Kameas (2015) Creating Mooc Guidelines Based on Best Practices.

[35] N. Sonwalkar (2013) The First Adaptive MOOC: A Case Study on Pedagogy Framework and Scalable Cloud Architecture—Part I. Available from: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/mooc.2013.0007

[36] F. Li, J. Du, B. Li (2014) The Curriculum Design and Development in Moocs Environment. Available From: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED557271.pdf

[37] eLearning Guidelines. Available from: http://www.elg.ac.nz/the-guidelines/teacher-pespective

[38] N. Sabelli (1987) Constructionism: A New Opportunity for Elementary Science Education

[39] C.Par (2013) Mooc completion rates below 7%. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/mooc-completion-rates-below-7/2003710.article#survey-answer