Vomit writing tasks to define and slowly refine my research paper for the last two units (EDX703/704) in my Masters.

Since their emergence in the mid-2000s, massive open online courses (MOOC) have been predicated on making learning available to everyone, and at scale. Much effort has been spent analysing data generated by MOOC participants (eg., Guo, Kim & Rubin, 2014; Savage, 2009; Wang, 2017) to determine if video production methods, format, style, type or even duration has the capacity to solely influence student learning and engagement. Research across a variety of MOOCS (eg., Engle, Mankoff & Carbrey 2015; Hew & Cheung, 2008; Taib, Chuah & Aziz, 2017) has also been conducted into better understanding the impact of pedagogical dimensions such as cooperative learning, feedback, activities and assessments on learner participation, therefore suggesting that there may be more factors to cultivating an engaging learning experience than video instruction alone.

These factors may seem elementary for a single instance or one-off run of a MOOC, but what of revisiting learners – those learners who repeatedly join and then continue to actively participate in the same MOOC over multiple instances? An example of this cohort would be the learners who continue to participate in Monash University’s ‘Mindfulness for Wellbeing and Peak Performance’ and ‘Maintaining a Mindful Life’ courses on FutureLearn. 

The goal of this research is to investigate themes identified from comments made by revisiting learners between 2015 and 2020 and also examine which pedagogical dimensions, or combinations of, that could possibly contribute to learners’ intention to revisit an online course over multiple instances. This investigation hopes to further the rise of continued ongoing course participation and enhance guide course design for unique cohorts in alternate and expanded online course offerings.

Revisiting and vividness

Repeat learners or revisiting learners are learners who have self-identified as having completed more than one run of either of Monash’s mindfulness course on FutureLearn between 2016 and 2020. Results indicate that revisiting learners chose to return because the course enabled them to refresh and reinforce their skills and knowledge, stay motivated to maintain and grow a regular/ongoing meditation practice, feel supported in a community of like minded and enthusiastic people, and access and engage with new/course specific content.

Vividness is defined as the quality of being very clear, powerful and detailed in your mind. When applied to digital experiences, through the use of multimedia components such as video, text, voice and animation, for example, vividness is a media capability (Campbell, Fuller & Hess, 2009) that should engage and fully immerse the user in a sensorially rich mediated environment that appeals to multiple senses (Coyle & Thurston, 2001) that are associated with increased feelings of being elsewhere.

While multimedia vividness is associated with increased feelings of telepresence, vividness of course content in a MOOC (which are often sensorially rich mediated environments) is also positively associated with a students’ intention to revisit (Huang, Zhang & Liu, 2017), meaning an individual’s readiness or willingness to make a repeat visit to the same destination (Stylos, Vassiliadis, Bellou & Andronikidis, 2016). 

Huang, Zhang and Liu (2017) identified vividness of course content as a quality that is positively associated with a learner’s intention to revisit. These findings support comments made by learners in Monash’s mindfulness courses as to why they say they revisit the course – to access and engage with new/course specific content. Revisiting learners also revealed in the comments that feeling supported in a community of like minded and enthusiastic people was another reason for their return, and as identified by Huang et al. (2017), teachers’ (lead educators and course mentor) subject knowledge and their interactivity (along with vividness of course content) were all positively associated with the intention to revisit.   

in progress
Do learners revisit for other reasons? https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3027385.3029448 mentions a study in this area "finds that while MOOC learners commonly re-take a course for eventual completion, some learners re-take a MOOC despite success in earlier trials".
Would non or less open-ended skills based courses increase likelihood of revisiting? What does the literature say?

Down for life

Further analysis of comments made by revisiting learners indicate their ongoing participation to be of significant benefit to their behaviour and emotional wellbeing. Revisiting learners seeking behavioural and emotional change is congruent with the ‘Flourisher’ and ‘Fixer’ archetype in the broad context area of ‘Personal Life’, which were identified by researchers from FutureLearn during their exploration of learners’ motivations for choosing to learn with them. According to FutureLearn, ‘Flourishers’ enjoy self-help learning in order to be happy and healthy in their personal and professional lives, while ‘Fixers’ learn in order to understand or manage aspects of their personal life.

When framed in the context of the ‘Flourisher’ and ‘Fixer’ archetypes and their needs, learners revisiting Monash’s mindfulness offerings (as an ongoing experience) shouldn’t be surprising because these types of learners are motivated by the physical or mental health of themselves or people close to them, situations requiring practical life skills or major life changes such as bereavement, parenthood, retirement or redundancy. These learners are motivated to manage stress, be enriched, build self-esteem, help others or improve relationships. Another contributing factor that could explain why learners revisit could be that mindfulness is an open-ended skill that requires ongoing practise – learners continue to revisit because they feel the course has no natural limit to continuation and expansion (regardless of whether the course changes over time) Degree of Freedom (2013).

in progress
A bit more about what literature says about courses that are open-ended skills - mastery learning theory - "introduction to mastery learning theory" https://programs.honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/sites/programs.honolulu.hawaii.edu.intranet/files/upstf-student-success-bloom-1968.pdf

‘Have we got a video? Yes, we’ve got a video!’ (Young Ones – Nasty 1986)

Although the use of video isn’t exclusive to MOOCs, video is the primary means of content delivery. Each MOOC is unique, where educators, course content designers and producers work together to create video content that makes use of a diverse combination of video types (text, static image, image and presenter face/talking head and fully animated) and video design elements (static slides, digital ink/scribbler/analysis, discussion/discursive), that complements the pedagogical approach. The impact of video production on learning is of great interest to educators and MOOC producers. Guo, Kim and Rubin (2014) found that videos of short duration are engaging to learners. An equal level of engagement was identified for video types that featured the ‘talking head’ of a presenter or used digital ink/scribbler/analysis to provide a more detailed explanation. Neilson (2014) and Savage (2009) support the approach of videos of short duration. To maintain learner engagement, Neilson (2014) recommended that videos should combine different video types and design elements, such as a presenter face/talking head with a digital ink/scribbler/analysis. Multiple studies have investigated the role of cinematography and cinema production design/methodology on learner engagement. In his research, Wang (2017) identified camera shot style and background design ‘down to the granularity of how the image is captured, recorded and delivered’ (Wang 2017) to be as equally as important as video types and video design elements on learner attention and engagement. In addition, Wang, Chen and Wu (2015) observed the impact of different video types and video design elements on learning. They concluded that the production cost and intensity associated with creating ‘lecture capture and picture-in-picture videos may be worthwhile for online learning from the perspectives of improved learning performance and reduced cognitive load’ (Wang, Chen and Wu 2015). The use of video isn’t reduced only to pre-prepared and pre-recorded content that contributes to the course material. Video can also be created in response to learner activity and play a critical role in enabling educators and course instructors to provide feedback to learners throughout the delivery of the course. Henderson and Phillips (2015) reported that the affordances of video enable instructors to convey detailed and elaborate feedback as well as encouragement and praise to learners more so than written commentary. Henderson and Phillips (2015) also reported positive learner response to video-based feedback, where learners felt they had a closer connection with the instructors or educators. Echoing the reports from Henderson and Phillips are learner reviews posted on a review website ‘The final feedback video each week is the jewel in their crown. It sums up the week’s thoughts and mentions some of the issues and talking points brought up in the online comments’, ‘Weekly feedback on YouTube responds to learners questions and comments as they have arisen that week’ and ‘The weekly feedback sessions allowed the participants to feel engaged and gave a more personal feel to an online course’ (Class Central 2018). The use of video-based feedback in this capacity not only addresses any potential knowledge deficit experienced by learners, makes the ‘makes the massive feel intimate’ (Pappano 2018), but also personalised the course in a meaningful and practical way, while actively contributing to the change in learner perceptions of the course as the type where an ‘instructor is not as available because there are tens of thousands of others in the class’ (Pappano 2012).

‘Everybody online. Looking good.’ (Aliens 1986)

When thinking about why learners persist with a course or even choose to repeat the same course again, it’s critical to consider the role of instructors, course mentors or any of the multitudes of names for the course team members who are responsible for facilitating discussions and interacting with learners on the platform. According to Hew (2014), instructor accessibility and passion are some of the features that were identified as key for promoting learner engagement, where engagement is defined as an observable action in the course. While engagement is different from completion and retention (which in MOOCS, are an often misconstrued metric devised by educators and platform providers for defining their view of learner success, satisfaction, needs or goals) an analysis by Adamopoulos (2013) revealed that the role of the instructor did have the largest possible effect on the likelihood of completion. Learner reviews posted online ‘In addition to this there are two outstanding mentors who support the learning and help clarify the more scientific aspects of the course and make lots of useful links and resourses [sic] available to enable the independant [sic] exploration of a complex subject’ (Class Central 2018), ‘The moderators are extremely active in their support for learners’ (Class Central 2018) and ‘The mentors had valuable insights and comments and added a lot’ (Class Central 2018) echo the findings of Adamopoulos (2013) and Pilli & Admiraal (2017) in relation to learner interaction with an instructor, where learner retention and satisfaction is higher when instructors are highly responsive. However, some earlier literature on MOOCS (Kop, 2011; Mackness, 2013; Milligan & Littlejohn, 2014) seemingly bemoan the absence of interaction between instructors and learners, asserting that learners may be prevented from having a quality learning experience due to their limited capacity to undertake self-directed learning. In the past, a diminished learning experience may have been inevitable, considering the vintage of the online environment in which their learner cohort was constrained (the anti-social EdX platform and the hardcore Connectivist Edupunk-ness of the open web). Since the launch of FutureLearn, a platform that’s been ‘inspired by Laurillard’s Conversational Framework’ (Sánchez-Vera, Maria del Mar, Leon Urrutia, Manuel and Davis, Hugh C 2015), a diminished learning experience seems less likely as the platform is predicated on a social learning experience, instructor-learner, learner-learner and learner-content.

‘This course could be your life’ (Groom 2016)

According to Horrigan (2016), people undertake learning for personal and professional reasons. Personal learners often choose learning opportunities that are likely to increase their knowledge and skills that benefit themselves and others. Professional learners often choose learning opportunities that are likely to maintain or improve their knowledge and skills. Irrespective of the learner’s inclination for undertaking learning, the opportunity must be flexible and permit the learner drop-in and out at their discretion, often at intervals throughout their life, much like ‘a personal learning continuum, rather than as unrelated, separate gatherings’ (Aras Bozkurt & Jeffrey Keefer 2018). Communities that foster a culture of participatory learning contribute to the premise of lifelong learning, something to be part of, an idea ‘that the teaching and learning experience, the idea of imagining where you stand within that environment is something that’s akin to the DIY punk experience‘ (Groom 2016). While the course creates an environment for this type of experience, it’s an environment that is suited for a learner that is self-determined, attentive, can think critically, reason, and is ready to collaborate (Pegrum, 2009). The presence of instructors is once again critical, where they support learners, the development of a community of learning, all the while gently guiding learners through the course. This raises the question as to why learners continue to participate and persist with a course and continue to engage in the community of learning. As MOOCS are voluntary, is it possible that learners simply enjoy being part of a community or their goals to deepen their knowledge and skills are being met, or is it the convenience, ease of use and flexibility afforded by the platform, or possibly even something else entirely that’s related to their individual needs that’s being served? Learners (Class Central, 2018) who participated in either or both of the mindfulness-related offerings by Monash reported ‘The two courses that I have been blessed with the opportunity to do on a number of ocassions [sic] have really enhanced the quality of not just my life but those who share their lives with me in any way. I am simply a better person for the learnings that I have had through undertaking the courses’, ‘I have found the leaders, Craig and Richard, really engaging and great role models for their subject, being calm, measured and reassuring, but also inspirational and encouraging. The strength of the course is their rapport in the short videos and audios which acknowledge human frailty and make the continuing practice of mindfulness seem vital and attainable in daily life.’ and ‘I plan to take the course again when it is offered in November, so I can delve more deeply into this more authentic way of viewing the world and living my life’, which goes some way to providing some insight into their ongoing participation. Furthermore, the learner sentiment expressed towards the mindfulness related offerings is somewhat akin to the model proposed by Peltier, Drago, and Schibrowsky (2003), that identified student-to-student interactions, student-instructor interactions and instructor support and mentoring, as well as course content, course structure and information delivery technology to key components to learner perceived quality of the online learning experience.


Adamopoulos, P. (2013). What makes a great MOOC? An interdisciplinary analysis of student retention in online courses. In Thirty fourth international conference on information systems, Milan, 2013.

Aliens 1986, film, Brandywine Productions, USA

Aras Bozkurt & Jeffrey Keefer (2018) Participatory learning culture and community formation in connectivist MOOCs, Interactive Learning Environments, 26:6, 776-788.

Campbell, D., Fuller, M., Hess, T. (2009) Designing Interfaces with Social Presence: Using Vividness and Extraversion to Create Social Recommendation Agents. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(12), 889-919.

W. Wang, C. Chen and C. Wu, “Effects of Different Video Lecture Types on Sustained Attention, Emotion, Cognitive Load, and Learning Performance,” 2015 IIAI 4th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics, Okayama, 2015, pp. 385-390.

Class Central 2018, Maintaining a Mindful Life, retrieved 20 July 2018,

Class Central 2018, Mindfulness for Wellbeing and Peak Performance, retrieved 20 July 2018,

Degree of Freedom 2013, MOOC, Learn, Repeat?, retrieved 10 July 2020,

Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale (pp. 41-50).

Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 51-66.

Hew, K. F. (2014). Promoting engagement in online courses: what strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology (Online First). http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12235.

Huang, L., Zhang, J., Liu. (2017) Antecedents of student MOOC revisit intention: Moderation effect of course difficulty. International Journal of Information Management, 37(2), 84-91.

IMDB 2018, The Young Ones – Nasty, retrieved 21 July 2018, .

James R. Coyle, & Thorson, E. (2001). The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65-77.

Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: learning experiences during a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 19e38.

Mackness, J. (2013). cMOOCs and xMOOCs-key differences. Available from: https://jennymackness.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/cmoocs-and-xmoocs-key-differences/.

Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2014). Supporting professional learning in a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5), 197e213.

Neilson, B. (2014). Video Production and Learner Engagement in MOOCs, retrieved 22 July 2018,

Pegrum, M. (2009). From blogs to bombs: The future of digital technologies in education. Perth, Australia: University of Western Australia Publishing.

Peltier, J.W., Drago, W., & Schibrowsky, J. A. (2003). Virtual communities and the assessment of online marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(3), 260e276.

Pew Research Center 2016, Lifelong Learning and Technology, retrieved 20 July 2018,

Pilli, O., & Admiraal, W. (2017). Students’ learning outcomes in massive open online courses (MOOCs): Some suggestions for course design. Journal of Higher Education, 7(1), 46–71.

Sánchez-Vera, Maria del Mar, Leon Urrutia, Manuel and Davis, Hugh C. (2015) Challenges in the creation, development and implementation of MOOCs: Web Science course at the University of Southampton. Comunicar, 22 (44), 37-43.

Stylos, N., Vassiliadis, A. C., Bellou, V., Andronikidis, A. (2016) Destination images, holistic images and personal normative beliefs: Predictors of intention to revisit a destination, Tourism Management, 53, 40-60.

The New York Times 2012, The Year of the MOOC, retrieved 21 July 2018,

This Course Could Be Your Life, Keynote – Jim Groom 2016, YouTube, CIRT Lab, 3 March, retrieved 20 July 2018, .

Wang, P.-Y. (2017). The impact of camera shot and background design for MOOC videos on student recall and flow experience. Journal of Educational Media and Library Science, 54(3):237-268