Learning in Modern Virtual Environments: The Case of Massive Open Online Courses(MOOC)

Virtual environments (VEs) have gained noteworthy popularity in our societies and contribute to significant changes in the way in which we live, work, and learn. The literature on virtuality recognizes that VEs – be they virtual social networks, virtual teams, etc. – are known for their unique characteristics: e.g. geographical and temporal dispersion, computer mediation, global character and increased member heterogeneity, among others. These characteristics exert noteworthy influence on how individuals perform (e.g. Nunamaker Jr et al. 2009), express their creativity (e.g. Chamakiotis et al. 2013) and learn (e.g. Schaefer and Erskine 2012). In fact, over the last decade or so, there has been an overwhelming, cross-disciplinary interest in the topic of virtual teams from the fields of information systems, management and engineering. What, however, this literature has neglected to consider is a recent, yet increasingly popular, type of VE in which individuals from across the world come together virtually to enhance their knowledge around a chosen topic by enrolling in, what is known as, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Enabled by virtuality and information and communication technologies (ICTs), MOOCs provide unparalleled opportunities for learning, breaking geo-temporal boundaries and allowing learners to capitalize on the strengths of a particular university offering a MOOC in an area of expertise that would otherwise be inaccessible. Adding to these is the advantage of flexibility in terms of the learning format and that of being able to learn at low or no cost, which is not the case with traditional or other online learning environments (Pappano 2012). However, we ask, is this without problems or does is create challenges for both educators and learners? Our rationale for this study is that despite the popularity of these VEs, it has been posited that a surprisingly large number of individuals drop out of MOOCs, failing to complete them (e.g. Pursel et al. 2016). Thus, a number of interesting, unexplored questions emerge. For example, how is learning performed in a VE in which learners come together with ‘online strangers’ to collectively and individually enhance their learning on a particular topic? How does curiosity – which is what might have driven those individuals to embark on a MOOC in the first place – influence learning in VEs? How can this curiosity be sustained throughout the duration of a MOOC? And what is the role played by the leader, instructor, or facilitator for learners’ engagement in these environments? Here, we are interested in shedding light on these questions by focusing on a specific MOOC on ‘Creativity, Innovation and Change’ organized and offered by the Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) in the USA. Our study, which is still at its planning stage, is likely to adopt a mixed methods approach, comprising (a) a qualitative component (drawing on interviews, text-based fora and discussions) aiming to help us gain some understanding of our research questions; and subsequently, (b) a quantitative component (drawing on clickstream data, quiz data, assignment submissions) with the aim of generating results that will be generalizable beyond the context of the studied MOOC. Our study is expected to bring value to scholars and practitioners from the information systems, management, engineering, and education communities through the insights it will provide about globally distributed collaboration, which is increasingly common in high-tech companies, for example. At the conference, we will present the theoretical foundations of our study and we will seek feedback on our thoughts on the methodological approach and expected contributions of our study

Exploring Chinese students’ learning experience in CIC MOOC 2.0– A study with Chinese online communities

This research explores Chinese students’ learning experience in the Creativity, Innovation, and Change (CIC) Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) 2.0 from the cultural, language, and communication perspectives. The CIC MOOC was the first course offered in both English and Chinese in Coursera. Data in this study were collected via online survey, interviews, QQ chat logs, and discussion threads in Guokr platform. Content analysis was performed to identify key themes from the collected data. Findings reveal that differences exist in Eastern and Western societies regarding power distance, individualism versus collectivism, and masculinity versus femininity. Communication patterns also vary in QQ and Guokr online communities. In addition, Chinese students reported that translation helped them understand the course topics better, and the online interest group motivated them to participate in course activities and complete the course. The conclusions shed light on the design of future MOOCs, advocating for translating course content into different languages and building small online communities to meet learners’ needs and improve their learning experiences

The Design Problem Framework: Using Adaption-Innovation Theory to Construct Design Problem Statements

Using Adaption-Innovation Theory to Build a Framework for Constructing Design Problem StatementsDesign problems are central to the work of practicing engineers and thus the education ofengineering students. As engineering instructors work to improve student design skills, oneoverlooked aspect could be in the way they frame and present design problems in their courses.Word choices, decisions about relevant information to include, and stated goals within thesedesign problem statements are likely to impact students’ approaches to generating solutions, aswell as the design solutions themselves.In our work, we developed a framework to assist in the development and framing of designproblem statements to encourage specific sorts of ideation behaviors. We developed the basis forthis framework by connecting literature on the structure of design problems, idea generation, taskframing, and cognitive styles. We utilized Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation (A-I) theory tounderstand the range of cognitive styles, and to create different design problem framings basedon this theory. A-I theory describes the different ways people respond to and manage structure,including the conceptual structures involved in idea generation. More adaptive individuals prefermore structure, with more of that structure consensually agreed, while more innovativeindividuals prefer less structure and are less concerned about consensus.Our review of the research suggested particular modifications in the framing of design problemstatements that would be likely to impact individuals’ natural approaches to ideation. Thosemodifications focused on varying the constraints and criteria specified in the problem. Designproblems that encourage adaptive ideation behaviors include highly specified constraints, alongwith criteria to encourage solutions that build on already existing solutions to the same or similarproblems. In contrast, design problems that encourage innovative ideation behaviors includecriteria to encourage solutions that are radically different from existing solutions and are notbound by particular constraints. We illustrate these variations by presenting a set of five designproblems, with three different versions of each problem statement, guided by the developedframework: (1) a neutrally framed version; (2) a more adaptively framed version; and (3) a moreinnovatively framed version. Additionally, we present three cases of student generated solutions,one case for each version of one of the design problems.We propose this framework as a guide for the development of design problem statements in theworkplace, instruction, and research settings. The framework can assist practicing engineers andengineering instructors to be more explicit about their own goals for the sorts of design solutionsthey aim to obtain

Concept mapping-An effective method for identifying diversity and congruity in cognitive style

This is a pre-print version of the paper published in Evaluation and Program Planning, 2017, 60This paper investigates the effects of cognitive style for decision making on the behavior of participants in different phases of the group concept mapping process (GCM). It is argued that cognitive style should be included directly in the coordination of the GCM process and not simply considered as yet another demographic variable. The cognitive styles were identified using the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory, which locates each person’s style on a continuum ranging from very adaptive to very innovative. Cognitive style could explain diversity in the participants’ behavior in different phases of the GCM process. At the same time, the concept map as a group’s common cognitive construct can consolidate individual differences and serves as a tool for managing diversity in groups of participants. Some of the results were that: (a) the more adaptive participants generated ideas that fit to a particular, well-established and consensually agreed paradigm, frame of reference, theory or practice; (b) the more innovative participants produced ideas that were more general in scope and required changing a settled structure (paradigm, frame of reference, theory or practice); and (c) the empirical comparison of the map configurations through Procrustes analysis indicated a strong dissimilarity between cognitive styles

The Impact of Teaming and Cognitive Style on Student Perceptions of Design Ideation Outcomes

The Impact of Teaming and Problem Solving Style on Student Perceptions of Design Ideation Out comes The importance of idea generation (ideation) within the engineering design process is recognized in academic and industrial settings alike. The collaborative nature of engineering design is also well-established, with individuals of differing personalities, technical backgrounds, and levels of experience coming together to meet shared design objectives. Engineering educators routinely put students in design teams to complete both simple and complex projects, with the assessment of students’ individual differences becoming increasingly common. Our goal for this study was to explore the extent to which teaming and problem solving style, respectively, impact the perceptions of students about the creativity, diversity, and elaborateness of their ideas, as well as their perceptions of the relative difficulty of generating ideas alone or with another person.To this end, a study was conducted with 122 students participating in a variety of engineering-related programs across three Midwestern universities. Student academic level ranged from high school students participating in a pre-engineering program to undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in engineering and design degree programs. All students engaged in two separate ideation sessions (one individually and one in pairs) and completed a problem solving style inventory (KAI®). For the first session, students were asked to generate solutions to adesign problem individually using words and sketches. After this first ideation exercise, students were asked to generate ideas for a new problem in a two-person team, recording their ideas separately on their own individual worksheets. For each idea generated in the paired session,students were also asked to indicate which person of the two first verbalized each idea, as well a show much each person contributed to the idea’s generation and development.Following each ideation session, students completed a short reflection survey (individually) to provide insights into how they perceived their own ideation during the session. In particular, the students were asked to evaluate how creative, diverse, and elaborate their ideas were, along with the level of difficulty they experienced generating ideas under each condition. These student perceptions were analyzed for differences between the individual and paired ideation sessions. In addition, correlations between the students’ perceptions (from both sessions) and their individual problem solving styles were examined to determine whether perceptions differed between the more adaptive (more structured) and the more innovative (less structured) problem solvers, as measured by KAI ®. Preliminary results suggest that student perceptions of both the diversity and the elaborateness of their ideas are influenced by teaming and/or problem solving style. This paper will report on the details of our experimental procedure, the results of our analyses, and the implications of these results in the engineering classroom

Exploring the Effects of Problem Framing on Solution Shifts: A Case Study

Exploring the Effects of Problem Framing on Solution Shifts: A Case Analysis Both students in engineering and practicing engineers are continually challenged with new problems to solve. We propose that the way the problem is presented will influence the engineer’s ideation processes, and eventually, the design outcomes. In our previous research, we developed three categories of framings for design problem statements based on Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation theory: (1) neutral framing, (2) adaptive framing, and (3) innovative framing. The neutral framing is intended to leave designers uninfluenced with respect to their natural ideation processes. The adaptive framing offers additional constraints to the problem,encouraging designers to generate practical solutions based on pre-existing designs. The innovative framing is constructed to push designers towards radical solutions that are not based on pre-existing designs. In this paper, we aimed to test to what extent and in what ways students shift their design ideas based on how the design problems were framed.A study was conducted with 36 prospective engineering students participating in a high school summer outreach program at a large Midwestern university. Students were first given a neutrally framed problem statement and asked to generate solutions to the problem using visual and verbal depictions. After this ideation session, they were given either an adaptively or innovatively framed problem statement for a different design problem. Following each ideation session,students were asked to complete a reflection survey to provide some insight into how they perceived their own ideation during the session.We used the concept of paradigm relatedness as our primary lens to explore how students’ ideas were influenced by different problem framings. Paradigm relatedness was defined as the extent to which an idea preserves the focus, assumptions, elements, and relationships associated with the problem definition. Based on these four facets of paradigm relatedness, ideas from the study were coded into one of two general types of paradigm relatedness: paradigm preserving and paradigm modifying. Using the coded results, we analyzed the effect of problem framing on the paradigm relatedness of individual solutions. We identified students whose ideas shifted between paradigm modifying and paradigm preserving when framing changed, as well as students whose ideas remained consistent within one type of paradigm relatedness despite framing changes. We analyzed cases of students of each type, using their generated idea sets and reflection surveys to describe the influence of the framed design problem statements on their ideation approaches

Evaluating the Impacts of Different Interventions on Quality in Concept Generation

Producing ideas of high quality has great importance in engineering design. Although concept generation is sometimes one of the shorter phases of a project, concept generation that leads to viable and unique solutions can greatly contribute to a product’s final outcomes. Concept generation also has importance as a tool for engineering education and academic research. Because the quality of solutions can vary from individual to individual and from circumstance to circumstance, it would be useful to better understand how different interventions influence the outcomes of the ideation process in the concept generation stage of engineering design. In this work, we investigated the impacts of the problem context and three specific interventions designed to increase the ideation flexibility for the outcomes of concept generation. The three interventions were problem framing, design tools, and teaming. Our results show that both problem framing and teaming impact several aspects of quality, while design tools only impact the quantity of ideas produced

How MOOC Reality Informs Distance Education, Online Learning, and Connectivism

In this paper, we draw from our experience as designers, instructors, and researchers in the second edition of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOCs) called Creativity, Innovation, and Change (CIC) 2.0 to discuss MOOC interactions. Since the CIC 2.0 MOOC was inspired by the tenets of connectivism, we employed connectivism and its four main conceptual components (autonomy, diversity, openness, and connectedness) to discuss these empirical findings from a theoretical perspective. We build our argument on the four levels of interactions (interactions with instructors, learners, course materials, and the interface) traditionally used in the field of distance education and online learning and look at the clashes between the original concepts of connectivism and cMOOCs on one hand and traditional educational concepts, particularly interactions and group work, on the other. This study discusses how MOOC interactions reveal that the four components of connectivism are more complex than originally conceptualized. This complexity can be summarized as follows: a) learner autonomy is more complex in MOOC reality; students are relatively more autonomous but not as originally conceptualized since the role of teachers remains unchanged when student interactions with course content and assessment are considered; b) diversity and openness are also more complex since peer interaction and open networks do not exhibit dynamics and importance as predicted, especially in certain participation behaviors and in MOOC pathways; and c) also, the four connectivism components are not mutually inclusive, and their interaction is not as predicted

Impact of Problem Contexts on the Diversity of Design Solutions: An Exploratory Case Study

Impact of problem contexts on the diversity of design solutions: An exploratory case study he role of ideation in design is to generate design solutions that have the potential for further development. Having many diverse ideas increases the potential for successful design out comes by increasing the number of possibilities available during concept evaluation and selection phases. How do we define the problems that would allow for the most diverse solution space?The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of how different contexts impacted the variety of solutions generated within the solution space, by a diverse group of students. In this exploratory case study, we report on (1) how we identified a set of design problems with diverse contexts appropriate for students with varied backgrounds, and (2) how we explored the impact of these problem contexts on the size of the solution space, aiming to select the contexts with the most diverse pool of ideas for our ongoing studies [1]. Our results show that diversity judged by multiple raters was consistent and provided us with evidence to support the decision of which design problems to use in our further studies

Concept mapping—An effective method for identifying diversity and congruity in cognitive style

This is a pre-print version of the paper published in Evaluation and Program Planning, 2017, 60This paper investigates the effects of cognitive style for decision making on the behavior of participants in different phases of the group concept mapping process (GCM). It is argued that cognitive style should be included directly in the coordination of the GCM process and not simply considered as yet another demographic variable. The cognitive styles were identified using the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory, which locates each person’s style on a continuum ranging from very adaptive to very innovative. Cognitive style could explain diversity in the participants’ behavior in different phases of the GCM process. At the same time, the concept map as a group’s common cognitive construct can consolidate individual differences and serves as a tool for managing diversity in groups of participants. Some of the results were that: (a) the more adaptive participants generated ideas that fit to a particular, well-established and consensually agreed paradigm, frame of reference, theory or practice; (b) the more innovative participants produced ideas that were more general in scope and required changing a settled structure (paradigm, frame of reference, theory or practice); and (c) the empirical comparison of the map configurations through Procrustes analysis indicated a strong dissimilarity between cognitive styles