Engagement and desertion in MOOCs: Systematic review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Massive and open online courses (MOOCs) satisfy learning needs from the particularities of their typologies (xMOOC, tMOOC, cMOOC, iMOOC, among others) even though their high dropout rate is still latent. Recent studies reaffirm engagement as an alternative to reduce dropout rates. The literature analyzed has not yet been able to systematize responses as to how to guarantee engagement in MOOCs and thus reduce their attrition rate. And, consistent with that question, are there still challenges for teachers in this area of educational technology? These answers motivated us to carry out this systematic review to determine how engagement has been studied to help reduce the attrition rate in MOOCs. Articles from journals indexed in Scopus or WoS were reviewed applying the PRISMA protocol. At the end of the protocol, it was defined to analyze 40 studies. The results reflect that the main variables are: the design of e-activities, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and communication between students. This paper confirms that the main challenges to guarantee engagement in MOOCs are individualized tutoring, interactivity, and feedback. Due to the scarcity of studies that analyze the variables in an integrated way, it is proposed as future work to determine what relationships exist between these variables that interfere with engagement and dropout in MOOCs.

Los cursos en línea masivos y abiertos (MOOCs) permiten satisfacer necesidades de aprendizaje desde las particularidades de sus tipologías (xMOOC, tMOOC, cMOOC, iMOOC, entre otras), sin embargo, es aún latente su alta tasa de deserción. Estudios recientes reafirman el engagement como una alternativa para disminuir los índices de deserción. La literatura analizada aún no logra sistematizar respuestas a ¿cómo garantizar el engagement en los MOOCs y disminuir así su tasa de deserción? Y, en coherencia con esa pregunta, ¿existen aún retos del profesorado en este ámbito de la tecnología educativa? Ello motivó a realizar esta revisión sistemática para determinar cómo se ha trabajado el engagement para contribuir a disminuir la tasa de deserción en los MOOCs. Se revisaron artículos de revistas indexadas en Scopus o en WoS aplicando el protocolo PRISMA. Al finalizar el protocolo se definió analizar 40 estudios. Los resultados reflejan que las principales variables son: el diseño e-actividades; la motivación intrínseca y extrínseca y; la comunicación entre los estudiantes. Se ratifica que los principales retos para garantizar el engagement en los MOOCs son: la tutoría individualizada; la interactividad; y la retroalimentación. Debido a la escasez de estudios que analicen de forma integrada las variables antes mencionadas, se propone como trabajo futuro, determinar qué relaciones existen entre estas variables que intervienen en el engagement y la deserción en los MOOCs.

Related collections

Most cited references 67

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke … (2017)

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

0 comments Cited 5787 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation.

Craig Lockwood, Zachary Munn, Kylie Porritt (2015)

Qualitative synthesis informs important aspects of evidence-based healthcare, particularly within the practical decision-making contexts that health professionals work in. Of the qualitative methodologies available for synthesis, meta-aggregation is most transparently aligned with accepted conventions for the conduct of high-quality systematic reviews. Meta-aggregation is philosophically grounded in pragmatism and transcendental phenomenology. The essential characteristics of a meta-aggregative review are that the reviewer avoids re-interpretation of included studies, but instead accurately and reliably presents the findings of the included studies as intended by the original authors. This study reports on the methodology and methods of meta-aggregation within the structure of an a priori protocol and standardized frameworks for reporting of results by over-viewing the essential components of a systematic review report.