research-article

"It's all about conversation": Challenges and Concerns of Faculty and Students in the Arts, Humanities, and the Social Sciences about Education at Scale

Authors:

Tiffany Wenting Li,

Karrie Karahalios,

Hari SundaramAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 4, Issue CSCW3

Article No.: 216, Pages 1 - 37

https://doi.org/10.1145/3432915

Published: 05 January 2021 Publication History

Abstract

As colleges and universities continue their commitment to increasing access to higher education through offering education online and at scale, attention on teaching open-ended subjects online and at scale, mainly the arts, humanities, and the social sciences, remains limited. While existing work in scaling open-ended courses primarily focuses on the evaluation and feedback of open-ended assignments, there is a lack of understanding of how to effectively teach open-ended, university-level courses at scale. To better understand the needs of teaching large-scale, open-ended courses online effectively in a university setting, we conducted a mixed-methods study with university instructors and students, using surveys and interviews, and identified five critical pedagogical elements that distinguish the teaching and learning experiences in an open-ended course from that in a non-open-ended course. An overarching theme for the five elements was the need to support students' self-expression. We further uncovered open challenges and opportunities when incorporating the five critical pedagogical elements into large-scale, open-ended courses online in a university setting, and suggested six future research directions: (1) facilitate in-depth conversations, (2) create a studio-friendly environment, (3) adapt to open-ended assessment, (4) scale individual open-ended feedback, (5) establish trust for self-expression, and (6) personalize instruction and harness the benefits of student diversity.

References

[1]

Carlos Alario-Hoyos, Mar Pérez-Sanagustín, Carlos Delgado-Kloos, Mario Muñoz-Organero, Antonio Rodríguez-delas-Heras, et al. 2013. Analysing the impact of built-in and external social tools in a mooc on educational technologies. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer, 5--18.

Digital Library

[2]

Alaa Althubaiti. 2016. Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 9, 211.

[3]

Ernesto Arroyo, Valeria Righi, Roger Tarrago, Patricia Santos, Davinia Hernández-Leo, and Josep Blat. 2011. Remote collaborative multi-user informal learning experiences: design and evaluation. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer, 43--56.

[4]

Stephen P Balfour. 2013. Assessing writing in moocs: automated essay scoring and calibrated peer review?. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 40--48.

[5]

William Bianchi. 2002. The wisconsin school of the air: success story with implications. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 5, 1, 141--147.

[6]

Patrick Blessinger and John M Carfora. 2014. Inquiry-based learning for the arts, humanities and social sciences: A conceptual and practical resource for educators. Emerald Group Publishing.

[7]

Benjamin S Bloom et al. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives. vol. 1: cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 20--24.

[8]

College Board. 2020. Quick guide: types of college courses. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/find-colleges/academiclife/quick-guide-types-of-college-courses. (2020).

[9]

Sorana Bolboac-, JÃ Lorentz, et al. 2007. Computer-based testing on physical chemistry topic: a case study. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 3, 1.

[10]

Michael Brooks, Sumit Basu, Charles Jacobs, and Lucy Vanderwende. 2014. Divide and correct: using clusters to grade short answers at scale. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference. ACM, 89--98.

Digital Library

[11]

Julia Cambre, Scott Klemmer, and Chinmay Kulkarni. 2018. Juxtapeer: comparative peer review yields higher quality feedback and promotes deeper reflection. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 294.

Digital Library

[12]

David Carless. 2009. Trust, distrust and their impact on assessment reform. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 1, 79--89.

[13]

Muthu Kumar Chandrasekaran, Min-Yen Kan, Bernard CY Tan, and Kiruthika Ragupathi. 2015. Learning instructor intervention from mooc forums: early results and issues. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.07206.

[14]

Jyoti Chauhan and Anita Goel. 2016. An analysis of quiz in mooc. In 2016 Ninth International Conference on Contemporary Computing (IC3). IEEE, 1--6.

[15]

Mary M Christopher, Julie A Thomas, and Mary K Tallent-Runnels. 2004. Raising the bar: encouraging high level thinking in online discussion forums. Roeper Review, 26, 3, 166--171.

[16]

Derrick Coetzee, Armando Fox, Marti A Hearst, and Bjoern Hartmann. 2014. Chatrooms in moocs: all talk and no action. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference. ACM, 127--136.

Digital Library

[17]

R Cook. 2000. Technology trends: teleconferencing, distance education, and future technologies. (2000).

[18]

Claude Cookman. 2009. Using jitt to foster active learning in a humanities course. Just-in-Time Teaching, 163--178.

[19]

Yi Cui and Alyssa Friend Wise. 2015. Identifying content-related threads in mooc discussion forums. In L@ S, 299--303.

[20]

Thanasis Daradoumis, Roxana Bassi, Fatos Xhafa, and Santi Caballé. 2013. A review on massive e-learning (mooc) design, delivery and assessment. In 2013 eighth international conference on P2P, parallel, grid, cloud and internet computing. IEEE, 208--213.

[21]

Brian Dear. 2017. The friendly orange glow: The untold story of the PLATO System and the Dawn of Cyberculture. Pantheon.

[22]

Vanessa Paz Dennen*. 2005. From message posting to learning dialogues: factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26, 1, 127--148.

[23]

Louis Deslauriers, Logan S McCarty, Kelly Miller, Kristina Callaghan, and Greg Kestin. 2019. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 39, 19251--19257.

[24]

Stephen Downes. 2008. Places to go: connectivism & connective knowledge. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5, 1, 6.

[25]

Suzannah Evans and Karen McIntyre. 2016. Moocs in the humanities: can they reach underprivileged students? Convergence, 22, 3, 313--323.

[26]

Suzannah Evans and Jessica Gall Myrick. 2015. How mooc instructors view the pedagogy and purposes of massive open online courses. Distance Education, 36, 3, 295--311.

[27]

Helene Fournier and Rita Kop. 2015. Mooc learning experience design: issues and challenges. International Journal on E-Learning, 14, 3, 289--304.

[28]

C Ailie Fraser, Tricia J Ngoon, Ariel S Weingarten, Mira Dontcheva, and Scott Klemmer. 2017. Critiquekit: a mixedinitiative, real-time interface for improving feedback. In Adjunct Publication of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 7--9.

[29]

Nicola K Gale, Gemma Heath, Elaine Cameron, Sabina Rashid, and Sabi Redwood. 2013. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC medical research methodology, 13, 1, 117.

[30]

Chase Geigle, ChengXiang Zhai, and Duncan C Ferguson. 2016. An exploration of automated grading of complex assignments. In Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale. ACM, 351--360.

Digital Library

[31]

Graham R Gibbs. 2007. Thematic coding and categorizing. Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage, 38--56.

[32]

Joshua Goodman, Julia Melkers, and Amanda Pallais. 2019. Can online delivery increase access to education? Journal of Labor Economics, 37, 1, 1--34.

[33]

James Grimmelmann. 2015. The virtues of moderation. Yale JL & Tech., 17, 42.

[34]

Greg Guest, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. 2006. How many interviews are enough? an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18, 1, 59--82.

[35]

Kathleen Harting and Margaret J Erthal. 2005. History of distance learning. Information technology, learning, and performance journal, 23, 1, 35.

[36]

John Hattie and Helen Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77, 1, 81--112.

[37]

Donald E Heller. 2001. The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability. JHU Press.

[38]

Khe Foon Hew and Wing Sum Cheung. 2014. Students? and instructors? use of massive open online courses (moocs): motivations and challenges. Educational research review, 12, 45--58.

[39]

Starr R Hiltz and Murray Turoff. 1985. Structuring computer-mediated communication systems to avoid information overload. Communications of the ACM, 28, 7, 680--689.

Digital Library

[40]

Malinka Ivanova. 2016. Technology landscape in moocs platforms. In 2016 19th International Symposium on Electrical Apparatus and Technologies (SIELA). IEEE, 1--4.

[41]

Hyeonsu B Kang, Gabriel Amoako, Neil Sengupta, and Steven P Dow. 2018. Paragon: an online gallery for enhancing design feedback with visual examples. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 606.

Digital Library

[42]

Desmond Keegan. 2013. Foundations of distance education. Routledge.

[43]

Hanan Khalil and Martin Ebner. 2013. "how satisfied are you with your mooc?"-a research study on interaction in huge online courses. In EdMedia Innovate Learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 830--839.

[44]

Andrea Kienle and Carsten Ritterskamp. 2007. Facilitating asynchronous discussions in learning communities: the impact of moderation strategies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26, 1, 73--80.

Digital Library

[45]

Sara Kiesler, Robert Kraut, Paul Resnick, and Aniket Kittur. 2012. Regulating behavior in online communities. Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design, 125--178.

[46]

Chinmay Kulkarni, Julia Cambre, Yasmine Kotturi, Michael S Bernstein, and Scott R Klemmer. 2015. Talkabout: making distance matter with small groups in massive classes. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 1116--1128.

Digital Library

[47]

Chinmay E Kulkarni, Michael S Bernstein, and Scott R Klemmer. 2015. Peerstudio: rapid peer feedback emphasizes revision and improves performance. In Proceedings of the second (2015) ACM conference on learning@ scale. ACM, 75--84.

Digital Library

[48]

Fabrizio Lamberti, Andrea Sanna, Gianluca Paravati, and Gilles Carlevaris. 2014. Automatic grading of 3d computer animation laboratory assignments. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7, 3, 280--290.

[49]

N Levenburg. 2000. A brief history of curriculum reform in the united states. Distance Learning Dynamics.

[50]

Ou Lydia Liu, Chris Brew, John Blackmore, Libby Gerard, Jacquie Madhok, and Marcia C Linn. 2014. Automated scoring of constructed-response science items: prospects and obstacles. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33, 2, 19--28.

[51]

Karen D Locke. 2000. Grounded theory in management research. Sage.

[52]

Jan Machotka, Zorica Nedic, and Özdemir Göl. 2008. Collaborative learning in the remote laboratory NetLab. PhD thesis. International Institute of Informatics and Systemics.

[53]

Philip W Martin. 2003. Key aspects of teaching and learning in arts, humanities and social sciences. A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education, 300.

[54]

Michael J McInerney and L Dee Fink. 2003. Team-based learning enhances long-term retention and critical thinking in an undergraduate microbial physiology course. Microbiology Education, 4, 3.

[55]

John A Michael. 1980. Studio art experience: the heart of art education. Art Education, 33, 2, 15--19.

[56]

Michael Mohler, Razvan Bunescu, and Rada Mihalcea. 2011. Learning to grade short answer questions using semantic similarity measures and dependency graph alignments. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies-Volume 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, 752--762.

Digital Library

[57]

Michael G Moore. 1989. Three types of interaction. (1989).

[58]

National Association of Schools of Art and Design. 2018. Nasad handbook 2018--19. https://nasad.arts-accredit.org/ accreditation/standards-guidelines/handbook/. (Dec. 2018).

[59]

Ebba Ossiannilsson, Fahriye Altinay, and Zehra Altinay. 2015. Analysis of moocs practices from the perspective of learner experiences and quality culture. Educational Media International, 52, 4, 272--283.

[60]

Tina Overton. 2003. Key aspects of teaching and learning in experimental sciences and engineering. A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice, 2, 255--277.

[61]

Wanqi Peng. 2016. How can mooc providers create an interactive learning experience in the arts. (2016).

[62]

Justin Reich and José A Ruipérez-Valiente. 2019. The mooc pivot. Science, 363, 6423, 130--131.

[63]

Yuqing Ren, Robert Kraut, Sara Kiesler, and Paul Resnick. 2010. Regulating behavior in online communities.

[64]

Frederico Menine Schaf, Dieter Müller, F Wilhelm Bruns, Carlos Eduardo Pereira, and H-H Erbe. 2009. Collaborative learning and engineering workspaces. Annual Reviews in Control, 33, 2, 246--252.

[65]

D Shah. 2018. Kadenze programs: a modern day credential for artists and creatives. (2018).

[66]

Dhawal Shah. 2019. By the numbers: moocs in 2019. https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-stats-2019/. (Dec. 2019).

[67]

Peter Shea, Alexandra Pickett, and Chun Sau Li. 2005. Increasing access to higher education: a study of the diffusion of online teaching among 913 college faculty. The International review of research in open and distributed learning, 6, 2.

[68]

Ali Sher. 2009. Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8, 2.

[69]

Scott Simkins and Mark Maier. 2010. Just-in-time teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

[70]

Hoi K Suen. 2014. Peer assessment for massive open online courses (moocs). International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15, 3, 312--327.

[71]

Ayse Saliha Sunar, Nor Aniza Abdullah, Su White, and Hugh C Davis. 2015. Personalisation of moocs: the state of the art.

[72]

Karen Swan, Scott Day, Leonard Bogle, and Traci van Prooyen. 2015. Amp 1: a tool for characterizing the pedagogical approaches of moocs. In MOOCs and open education around the world. Routledge, 105--118.

[73]

Michael Sweet and Larry K Michaelsen. 2012. Team-based learning in the social sciences and humanities: Group work that works to generate critical thinking and engagement. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

[74]

Joan Thormann and Patricia Fidalgo. 2014. Guidelines for online course moderation and community building from a student's perspective. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 10, 3, 374--388.

[75]

Michael B Twidale and Karen Ruhleder. 2004. Over-the-shoulder-learning in a distance education environment. Learning, culture, and community in online education: research and practice, Caroline Haythornthwaite & Michelle M. Kazmer, eds. New York, NY: Lang, 177--194.

[76]

Arizona State University. 2019. Defining course components. https://provost.asu.edu/sites/default/files/page/1585/ defining-course-components_6-17-19.pdf. (June 2019).

[77]

Beth Walker. 2009. New twists on an old problem: preventing plagiarism and enforcing academic integrity in an art and design school. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 28, 1, 48--51.

[78]

Xu Wang, Srinivasa Teja Talluri, Carolyn Rose, and Kenneth Koedinger. 2019. Upgrade: sourcing student open-ended solutions to create scalable learning opportunities. In Proceedings of the Sixth (2019) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale, 1--10.

Digital Library

[79]

Etienne Wenger, Nancy White, and John D Smith. 2009. Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities. CPsquare.

[80]

Joseph Jay Williams, Juho Kim, Anna Rafferty, Samuel Maldonado, Krzysztof Z Gajos, Walter S Lasecki, and Neil Heffernan. 2016. Axis: generating explanations at scale with learnersourcing and machine learning. In Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale, 379--388.

Digital Library

[81]

Pete Williams, David Nicholas, and Barrie Gunter. 2005. E-learning: what the literature tells us about distance education. In Aslib Proceedings. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

[82]

Zhen Xiong, Lin Zhi, and Jie Jiang. 2019. Research on art education digital platform based on big data. In 2019 IEEE 4th International Conference on Big Data Analytics (ICBDA). IEEE, 208--211.

[83]

Diyi Yang, Mario Piergallini, Iris Howley, and Carolyn Rose. 2014. Forum thread recommendation for massive open online courses. In Educational Data Mining 2014. Citeseer.

[84]

Yu-Chun Grace Yen, Joy O Kim, and Brian P Bailey. 2020. Decipher: an interactive visualization tool for interpreting unstructured design feedback from multiple providers. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1--13.

[85]

Jeff Young. 2020. Sustaining higher education in the coronavirus crisis. Edsurge. Accessed 6/1/2020 at: https://www. edsurge.com/research/guides/sustaining-higher-education-in-the-coronavirus-crisis.

[86]

Yuan Zhenming, Zhang Liang, and Zhan Guohua. 2003. A novel web-based online examination system for computer science education. In 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 5--8.

[87]

Craig B. Zilles, Matthew West, Geoffrey L. Herman, and Timothy Bretl. 2019. Every university should have a computer-based testing facility. In CSEDU.

Cited By

Balsara DGómez-Zará D(2024)Virtual Threads: A Systematic Literature Review of 10 Years of VR/AR/MR Adoption in Fashion DesignProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661575(356-371)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3661575
Bryant P(2024)Learning design ecosystems thinking: defying the linear imperative and designing for higher education at-scaleJournal of Work-Applied Management10.1108/JWAM-11-2023-0123Online publication date: 12-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-11-2023-0123
Nurgalieva LFrik ADoherty G(2023)A Narrative Review of Factors Affecting the Implementation of Privacy and Security Practices in Software DevelopmentACM Computing Surveys10.1145/358995155:14s(1-27)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3589951
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

"It's all about conversation": Challenges and Concerns of Faculty and Students in the Arts, Humanities, and the Social Sciences about Education at Scale
1. Applied computing
  1. Arts and humanities
  2. Education
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing
    1. Collaborative and social computing theory, concepts and paradigms
      1. Computer supported cooperative work
    2. Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing

Recommendations

Connecting across campus
SIGCSE '10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education

Computer science holds a unique position to craft multidisciplinary curricula for the new generation of faculty and students across the academy who increasingly rely on computing for their scholarship. We propose that computer science programs cease ...
Five Years of Graduate CS Education Online and at Scale
CompEd '19: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education

In 2014, Georgia Tech launched an online campus for its Master of Science in Computer Science program. The degree, equal in stature and accreditation to its on-campus counterpart, offered a notably lower cost of attendance. Its design emphasized ...
Early Exploration of MOOCs in the U.S. Higher Education: An Absorptive Capacity Perspective
Advanced information technologies have enabled Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which have the potential to transform higher education around the world. Why are some institutions eager to embrace this technology-enabled model of teaching, while others ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 4, Issue CSCW3

CSCW

December 2020

1825 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3446568

Editor:
Jeff Nichols
Apple Inc., United States

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2021 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 05 January 2021

Published in PACMHCI Volume 4, Issue CSCW3

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
299
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)63
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8

Reflects downloads up to 27 Jul 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Balsara DGómez-Zará D(2024)Virtual Threads: A Systematic Literature Review of 10 Years of VR/AR/MR Adoption in Fashion DesignProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661575(356-371)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3661575
Bryant P(2024)Learning design ecosystems thinking: defying the linear imperative and designing for higher education at-scaleJournal of Work-Applied Management10.1108/JWAM-11-2023-0123Online publication date: 12-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-11-2023-0123
Nurgalieva LFrik ADoherty G(2023)A Narrative Review of Factors Affecting the Implementation of Privacy and Security Practices in Software DevelopmentACM Computing Surveys10.1145/358995155:14s(1-27)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3589951
Gangahagedara RKarunarathna MAthukorala WSubasinghe SEkanayake P(2021)Emergency Teaching–Learning Methods (ETLM) during COVID-19: Lessons Learned from Sri LankaEducation Sciences10.3390/educsci1110057911:10(579)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2021
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100579
Shirish AChandra SSrivastava S(2021)Switching to online learning during COVID-19International Journal of Information Management: The Journal for Information Professionals10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.10239461:COnline publication date: 1-Dec-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102394

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents