2020
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-49663-0_7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exploring Navigation Styles in a FutureLearn MOOC

Abstract: This paper presents for the first time a detailed analysis of finegrained navigation style identification in MOOCs backed by a large number of active learners. The result shows 1) whilst the sequential style is clearly in evidence, the global style is less prominent; 2) the majority of the learners do not belong to either category; 3) navigation styles are not as stable as believed in the literature; and 4) learners can, and do, swap between navigation styles with detrimental effects. The approach is promising… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding is contrary to the early claim that MOOCs are a “disruptive innovation” to the higher education system (Yuan & Powell, 2013) and consistent with “a growing consensus that MOOCs will be integrated into existing higher education systems” (Littenberg‐Tobias & Reich, 2020, p.1). Unlike the previous studies, we did not find learners registering for this MOOC for social reasons reported by Shi et al (2020), nor for the certificate of completion by Semenova (2020).…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…This finding is contrary to the early claim that MOOCs are a “disruptive innovation” to the higher education system (Yuan & Powell, 2013) and consistent with “a growing consensus that MOOCs will be integrated into existing higher education systems” (Littenberg‐Tobias & Reich, 2020, p.1). Unlike the previous studies, we did not find learners registering for this MOOC for social reasons reported by Shi et al (2020), nor for the certificate of completion by Semenova (2020).…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…Seven programming features on the platform were identified: Average number of codes (ACo), Average number of changes (ACh), Number of platform operations (NPo), Number of clicks on debug (ND), Number of syntactical errors (NSe), Average time between two debugs (AtD), and Average time on irrelevant behaviour (AtIb) (see Table 2). Moreover, clustering analysis (CA) was used to uncover hidden patterns in a complex dataset, and many works used these unsupervised learning methods to analyse new relationships in educational data (Dutt et al, 2015; Shi et al, 2019; Shi & Cristea, 2018). We clustered learners based on the learners' logs, to inspect the patterns of programming features in each learner cluster.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the traditional one-size-fits-all approach can no longer satisfy student learning needs, it leads to increased demands for customised learning [27,28]. Various student modelling methods have been proposed, which are generally classified as integrating expert knowledge-based or data-driven methods [29,30]. Knowledge-based methods refer to utilising human knowledge to address issues that would normally require human intelligence [7,31].…”
Section: Student Modellingmentioning
confidence: 99%