Leitner, Philipp; Ebner, Martin
Experiences with a MOOC-platform – Who are our learners and what do they think about MOOCs? Proceedings Article
In: Proceedings of Work in Progress Papers of the Research, Experience and Business Tracks at EMOOCs 2019, 2019, ISSN: 1613-0073.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Schlagwörter: A, iMooX, massive open online courses (MOOCs), online survey, quantitative assessment
@inproceedings{Leitner2019,
title = {Experiences with a MOOC-platform – Who are our learners and what do they think about MOOCs?},
author = {Philipp Leitner and Martin Ebner},
url = {http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2356/
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2356/experience_short14.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333446168_Experiences_with_a_MOOC-platform_-Who_are_our_learners_and_what_do_they_think_about_MOOCs},
issn = {1613-0073},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-05-20},
urldate = {2019-08-08},
booktitle = {Proceedings of Work in Progress Papers of the Research, Experience and Business Tracks at EMOOCs 2019},
volume = {2356},
abstract = {iMooX, the first and currently only Austrian MOOC platform, has been hosting xMOOCs since 2014. Directly after the start a survey of the first three MOOCs was conducted and published in 2015. In the meantime, the MOOC platform contains more than 45 courses and serves many thousands of learners. Therefore, we are investigating, if there is a change towards the learners themselves, their expectations and experiences regarding learning with MOOCs as well as with the platform. Using the exact same survey as years before it can be shown that there are little changes in the right directions or maybe it can be concluded that learning with MOOCs became more common to a broader public, at least in the academic world.},
keywords = {A, iMooX, massive open online courses (MOOCs), online survey, quantitative assessment},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
Neuböck, Kristina; Kopp, Michael; Ebner, Martin
What do we know about typical MOOC participants? First insights from the field Proceedings Article
In: Proceedings of eMOOCs 2015 conference, S. 183–190, Mons, 2019.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Schlagwörter: A, iMooX, massive open online courses (MOOCs), online survey, quantitative assessment
@inproceedings{Neuböck2019,
title = {What do we know about typical MOOC participants? First insights from the field},
author = {Kristina Neuböck and Michael Kopp and Martin Ebner},
url = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276473928_What_do_we_know_about_typical_MOOC_participants_First_insights_from_the_field},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-05-20},
urldate = {2019-08-08},
booktitle = {Proceedings of eMOOCs 2015 conference},
pages = {183–190},
address = {Mons},
abstract = {assive Open Online Courses became a worldwide phenomenon. Especially in Central Europe it is a subject of debates whether universities should invest more money or not. This research study likes to give first answers about typical MOOC participants based on data from different field studies of the Austrian MOOC-platform iMooX.
It can be pointed out that the typical learner is a student or an adult learner, strongly interested in the course topic or just interested in learning with media and finally with self- contained learning competencies. The research work concludes that MOOCs broaden the educational field for universities and are a possibility to educate the public in a long run.},
keywords = {A, iMooX, massive open online courses (MOOCs), online survey, quantitative assessment},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
It can be pointed out that the typical learner is a student or an adult learner, strongly interested in the course topic or just interested in learning with media and finally with self- contained learning competencies. The research work concludes that MOOCs broaden the educational field for universities and are a possibility to educate the public in a long run.
Lemke, Steffen; Mehrazar, Maryam; Mazarakis, Athanasios; Peters, Isabella
“When You Use Social Media You Are Not Working”: Barriers for the Use of Metrics in Social Sciences Artikel
In: Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, Bd. 3, S. 39, 2019, ISSN: 2504–0537.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Schlagwörter: A, altmetrics, bibliometrics, concerns, interviews, online survey, research assessment, social media usage
@article{Lemke2019,
title = {“When You Use Social Media You Are Not Working”: Barriers for the Use of Metrics in Social Sciences},
author = {Steffen Lemke and Maryam Mehrazar and Athanasios Mazarakis and Isabella Peters},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00039},
doi = {10.3389/frma.2018.00039},
issn = {2504–0537},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-01-08},
journal = {Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics},
volume = {3},
pages = {39},
abstract = {The Social Sciences have long been struggling with quantitative forms of research assessment – insufficient coverage in prominent citation indices and overall lower citation counts than in STM subject areas have led to a widespread weariness regarding bibliometric evaluations among social scientists. Fueled by the rise of the social web, new hope is often placed on alternative metrics that measure the attention scholarly publications receive online, in particular on social media. But almost a decade after the coining of the term altmetrics for this new group of indicators, the uptake of the concept in the Social Sciences still seems to be low. Just like with traditional bibliometric indicators, one central problem hindering the applicability of altmetrics for the Social Sciences is the low coverage of social science publications on the respective data sources – which in the case of altmetrics are the various social media platforms on which interactions with scientific outputs can be measured. Another reason is that social scientists have strong opinions about the usefulness of metrics for research evaluation which may hinder broad acceptance of altmetrics too.
We conducted qualitative interviews and online surveys with researchers to identify the concerns which inhibit the use of social media and the utilization of metrics for research evaluation in the Social Sciences. By analyzing the response data from the interviews in conjunction with the response data from the surveys, we identify the key concerns that inhibit social scientists from (1) applying social media for professional purposes and (2) making use of the wide array of metrics available.
Our findings show that aspects of time consumption, privacy, dealing with information overload, and prevalent styles of communication are predominant concerns inhibiting Social Science researchers from using social media platforms for their work. Regarding indicators for research impact we identify a widespread lack of knowledge about existing metrics, their methodologies and meanings as a major hindrance for their uptake through social scientists. The results have implications for future developments of scholarly online tools and show that researchers could benefit considerably from additional formal training regarding the correct application and interpretation of metrics.},
keywords = {A, altmetrics, bibliometrics, concerns, interviews, online survey, research assessment, social media usage},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
We conducted qualitative interviews and online surveys with researchers to identify the concerns which inhibit the use of social media and the utilization of metrics for research evaluation in the Social Sciences. By analyzing the response data from the interviews in conjunction with the response data from the surveys, we identify the key concerns that inhibit social scientists from (1) applying social media for professional purposes and (2) making use of the wide array of metrics available.
Our findings show that aspects of time consumption, privacy, dealing with information overload, and prevalent styles of communication are predominant concerns inhibiting Social Science researchers from using social media platforms for their work. Regarding indicators for research impact we identify a widespread lack of knowledge about existing metrics, their methodologies and meanings as a major hindrance for their uptake through social scientists. The results have implications for future developments of scholarly online tools and show that researchers could benefit considerably from additional formal training regarding the correct application and interpretation of metrics.