zmWmQs

Self-Regulated Learning in MOOCs: Do Open Badges and
Certificates of Attendance Motivate Learners to Invest More
Simone Haug, Katrin Wodzicki, Ulrike Cress and Johannes Moskaliuk
University to launch the company Udacity. Two other
Stanford professors then started up the company Coursera,
and both companies provide MOOCs. In addition,
several universities, including Harvard and MIT, founded
edX and started as providers of MOOCs.
The Learning Theory behind MOOCs
Some see different ideologies, or at least pedagogies, behind
what MOOC offers. There are connectivist MOOCs
(cMOOCs), then there are MOOCs such as those offered
by edX, well-funded and with a more instructional learning
approach that consists of video presentations, quizzes
and testing - the so-called xMOOCs (Bates, 2012).
Siemens criticizes their difference harshly by saying
“cMOOCs focus on knowledge creation and generation
whereas xMOOCs focus on knowledge duplication” (Siemens,
2012). In this paper we focus on the special learning
conditions in cMOOCs. In a cMOOC the emphasis is on
the collaboration and interaction with other learners that
take part in the course. The central goal of a cMOOC is to
build a community of learners that discuss their experiences,
develop shared understanding and create new ideas.
This leads to two forms of learners’ investment: self-centered
and interactive. Self-centered forms of investment
refer to learning activities such as reading course material
or listening to presentations. The individual learner carries
out these activities independently of the community
of other learners. Interactive forms of investment refer
to learning activities such as commenting on the ideas of
others or publishing one’s own idea. These activities are
carried out by the community of learners who are part of
a MOOC. Both forms of investment are indicators that a
learner is actively participating in a course, and these indicators
could be used to differentiate between successful
and unsuccessful learners.
cMOOCs are learner-centered and based on a socio-constructivist
approach, where learners actively
construct their learning. Different learning styles are encouraged.
This means that in MOOCs participants have a
great deal of autonomy with almost no control, but with
rich social contexts which provide the possibility of communication.
According to the Self-Determination Theory
(SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) this autonomous environment
supports intrinsic motivation and leads to high-quality
learning. Free choices and the opportunity for self-direction
(e.g., Zuckerman et al., 1978) appear to especially enhance
intrinsic motivation, as they afford a greater sense
of autonomy.
In addition, Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) presented
by Deci and Ryan (1985), specifies factors in social contexts
that produce variability in intrinsic motivation. CET,
which is considered a sub-theory of self-determination
theory, argues that interpersonal events and structures
(e.g., rewards, communication and feedback) can enhance
intrinsic motivation. Such interpersonal factors can lead
to feelings of competence during a certain action, thereby
yielding satisfaction of the basic psychological need
for competence. Accordingly, such factors as optimal
challenges effectively encourage feedback and freedom
from demeaning evaluations are all predicted to facilitate
intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The opposite of
this is tangible rewards: but threats (Deci & Cascio, 1972),
deadlines (Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976), directives
(Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984) and competition
pressure (Reeve & Deci, 1996) have been shown to diminish
intrinsic motivation as students perceive them as controllers
of their behavior. The significance of autonomy
versus control for the maintenance of intrinsic motivation
has been clearly observed in studies of classroom learning
(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
This idea is aligned with the learning theory behind
MOOCs. Instead of following a strict curriculum, conducting
formal learning assessments and certificating
learners’ performance, focus is on self-regulated learning
and communication processes. Open badges are one
method of recognizing and documenting one’s own learning
and skill development. Each learner sets his or her own
learning goals and the open badge works as a tool to summarize
one’s own success. In the sense of the Self-Determination
Theory, this should support intrinsic motivation,
because learners perceive themselves as autonomous but
also connected to others.
In the first cMOOC, Stephen Downes and George Siemens
followed the idea of a connected learner and based
their course concept on the idea of connectivism. Connectivism
takes into account aspects of network theory, chaos
theory and self-organization theory (Siemens, 2005).
Key principles for learning in connectivist terms are autonomy,
connectedness, diversity and openness (Downes,
2010). Learning is seen as “the process of forming and
pruning connections through social and technological
networks” (Downes, 2010). It is claimed that learners can
massively improve their learning by integrating the network
or community. As defined by Downes, (2010, p. 503)
“knowledge is found in the connections between people
with each other and […] learning is the development and
traversal of those connections.”
With regard to this foundation, social connectivity can
influence involvement and learning in Open Courses.
This is supported by the findings of Garrison, Anderson,
& Archer (2000) who differentiate between three forms
of presence that play a role in education: cognitive presence,
social presence and teacher presence. It seems that
the closer the ties among the people involved, the higher
the level of presence and the higher the level of involvement
in the learning activity (Kop, 2011, p. 22). Research
about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation also supports the
assumption that social connectivity is important for learning.
The “tendency toward assimilation or integration can
lead people not only to do what interests them, but also
to internalize and integrate the value and regulation of
Research Track | 67