Writing to learn and learning to write across the disciplines: Peer-to-peer writing in introductory-level MOOCs

© Comer, Clark, Canelas.This study aimed to evaluate how peer-to-peer interactions through writing impact student learning in introductory-level massive open online courses (MOOCs) across disciplines. This article presents the results of a qualitative coding analysis of peer-to-peer interactions in two introductory level MOOCs: English Composition I: Achieving Expertise and Introduction to Chemistry. Results indicate that peer-to-peer interactions in writing through the forums and through peer assessment enhance learner understanding, link to course learning objectives, and generally contribute positively to the learning environment. Moreover, because forum interactions and peer review occur in written form, our research contributes to open distance learning (ODL) scholarship by highlighting the importance of writing to learn as a significant pedagogical practice that should be encouraged more in MOOCs across disciplines.

Optimizing the Correction of Memory Errors

People are always at risk of making errors when they attempt to retrieve information from memory. An important question is how to create the optimal learning conditions so that, over time, the correct information is learned and the number of mistakes declines. Feedback is a powerful tool, both for reinforcing new learning and correcting memory errors. In 5 experiments, I sought to understand the best procedures for administering feedback during learning. First, I evaluated the popular recommendation that feedback is most effective when given immediately, and I showed that this recommendation does not always hold when correcting errors made with educational materials in the classroom. Second, I asked whether immediate feedback is more effective in a particular case—when correcting false memories, or strongly-held errors that may be difficult to notice even when the learner is confronted with the feedback message. Third, I examined whether varying levels of learner motivation might help to explain cross-experimental variability in feedback timing effects: Are unmotivated learners less likely to benefit from corrective feedback, especially when it is administered at a delay? Overall, the results revealed that there is no best “one-size-fits-all” recommendation for administering feedback; the optimal procedure depends on various characteristics of learners and their errors. As a package, the data are consistent with the spacing hypothesis of feedback timing, although this theoretical account does not successfully explain all of the data in the larger literature.