How Learners Participate in Connectivist Learning: An Analysis of the Interaction Traces From a cMOOC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="3">In this research paper, the authors analyse the collected data output during a 36 week cMOOC. Six-week data streams from blogs, Twitter, a Facebook group, and video conferences were tracked from the daily newsletter and the MOOCs’ hashtag (#Change 11). This data was analysed using content analysis and social network analysis within an interpretative research paradigm. The content analysis was used to examine the technology learners used to support their learning while the social network analysis focused on the participant in different spaces and their participation patterns in connectivist learning.</p><p class="3">The findings from this research include: 1) A variety of technologies were used by learners to support their learning in this course; 2) Four types of participation patterns were reveled, including unconnected floaters, connected lurkers, connected participants, and active contributors. The participation of learners displays the participation inequality typical of social media, but the ratio of active contributors is much higher than xMOOCs; 3) There were five basic structures of social networks formed in the learning; and 4) The interaction around topics and topic generation supports the idea of learning as network creation after the analysis of participation patterns that are based on some deep interactive topic. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the behaviors of learners in a cMOOC in an open and distributed online environment, so that future MOOCs designers and facilitators can understand, design and facilitate more effective MOOCs for learners.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".