@misc{TeusnerMatthiesStaubitz2018, author = {Teusner, Ralf and Matthies, Christoph and Staubitz, Thomas}, title = {What Stays in Mind?}, series = {IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)}, journal = {IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)}, publisher = {IEEE}, address = {New York}, isbn = {978-1-5386-1174-6}, issn = {0190-5848}, doi = {10.1109/FIE.2018.8658890}, pages = {9}, year = {2018}, language = {en} } @misc{StaubitzWilkinsHagedornetal.2017, author = {Staubitz, Thomas and Wilkins, Christian and Hagedorn, Christiane and Meinel, Christoph}, title = {The Gamification of a MOOC Platform}, series = {Proceedings of 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)}, journal = {Proceedings of 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)}, publisher = {IEEE}, address = {New York}, isbn = {978-1-5090-5467-1}, issn = {2165-9567}, doi = {10.1109/EDUCON.2017.7942952}, pages = {883 -- 892}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have left their mark on the face of education during the recent years. At the Hasso Plattner Institute (HPI) in Potsdam, Germany, we are actively developing a MOOC platform, which provides our research with a plethora of e-learning topics, such as learning analytics, automated assessment, peer assessment, team-work, online proctoring, and gamification. We run several instances of this platform. On openHPI, we provide our own courses from within the HPI context. Further instances are openSAP, openWHO, and mooc.HOUSE, which is the smallest of these platforms, targeting customers with a less extensive course portfolio. In 2013, we started to work on the gamification of our platform. By now, we have implemented about two thirds of the features that we initially have evaluated as useful for our purposes. About a year ago we activated the implemented gamification features on mooc.HOUSE. Before activating the features on openHPI as well, we examined, and re-evaluated our initial considerations based on the data we collected so far and the changes in other contexts of our platforms.}, language = {en} } @misc{StaubitzTeusnerMeinel2019, author = {Staubitz, Thomas and Teusner, Ralf and Meinel, Christoph}, title = {MOOCs in Secondary Education}, series = {2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)}, journal = {2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)}, publisher = {IEEE}, address = {New York}, isbn = {978-1-5386-9506-7}, issn = {2165-9567}, doi = {10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725138}, pages = {173 -- 182}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Computer science education in German schools is often less than optimal. It is only mandatory in a few of the federal states and there is a lack of qualified teachers. As a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) provider with a German background, we developed the idea to implement a MOOC addressing pupils in secondary schools to fill this gap. The course targeted high school pupils and enabled them to learn the Python programming language. In 2014, we successfully conducted the first iteration of this MOOC with more than 7000 participants. However, the share of pupils in the course was not quite satisfactory. So we conducted several workshops with teachers to find out why they had not used the course to the extent that we had imagined. The paper at hand explores and discusses the steps we have taken in the following years as a result of these workshops.}, language = {en} } @article{StaubitzSerthThomasetal.2023, author = {Staubitz, Thomas and Serth, Sebastian and Thomas, Max and Ebner, Martin and Koschutnig-Ebner, Markus and Rampelt, Florian and von Stetten, Alexander and Wittke, Andreas}, title = {A metastandard for the international exchange of MOOCs}, series = {EMOOCs 2023 : Post-Covid Prospects for Massive Open Online Courses - Boost or Backlash?}, journal = {EMOOCs 2023 : Post-Covid Prospects for Massive Open Online Courses - Boost or Backlash?}, editor = {Meinel, Christoph and Schweiger, Stefanie and Staubitz, Thomas and Conrad, Robert and Alario Hoyos, Carlos and Ebner, Martin and Sancassani, Susanna and Żur, Agnieszka and Friedl, Christian and Halawa, Sherif and Gamage, Dilrukshi and Scott, Jeffrey and Kristine Jonson Carlon, May and Deville, Yves and Gaebel, Michael and Delgado Kloos, Carlos and von Schmieden, Karen}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-62415}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-624154}, pages = {147 -- 161}, year = {2023}, abstract = {The MOOChub is a joined web-based catalog of all relevant German and Austrian MOOC platforms that lists well over 750 Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Automatically building such a catalog requires that all partners describe and publicly offer the metadata of their courses in the same way. The paper at hand presents the genesis of the idea to establish a common metadata standard and the story of its subsequent development. The result of this effort is, first, an open-licensed de-facto-standard, which is based on existing commonly used standards and second, a first prototypical platform that is using this standard: the MOOChub, which lists all courses of the involved partners. This catalog is searchable and provides a more comprehensive overview of basically all MOOCs that are offered by German and Austrian MOOC platforms. Finally, the upcoming developments to further optimize the catalog and the metadata standard are reported.}, language = {en} } @misc{StaubitzMeinel2019, author = {Staubitz, Thomas and Meinel, Christoph}, title = {Graded Team Assignments in MOOCs}, series = {SCALE}, journal = {SCALE}, publisher = {Association for Computing Machinery}, address = {New York}, isbn = {978-1-4503-6804-9}, doi = {10.1145/3330430.3333619}, pages = {10}, year = {2019}, abstract = {The ability to work in teams is an important skill in today's work environments. In MOOCs, however, team work, team tasks, and graded team-based assignments play only a marginal role. To close this gap, we have been exploring ways to integrate graded team-based assignments in MOOCs. Some goals of our work are to determine simple criteria to match teams in a volatile environment and to enable a frictionless online collaboration for the participants within our MOOC platform. The high dropout rates in MOOCs pose particular challenges for team work in this context. By now, we have conducted 15 MOOCs containing graded team-based assignments in a variety of topics. The paper at hand presents a study that aims to establish a solid understanding of the participants in the team tasks. Furthermore, we attempt to determine which team compositions are particularly successful. Finally, we examine how several modifications to our platform's collaborative toolset have affected the dropout rates and performance of the teams.}, language = {en} } @misc{StaubitzMeinel2018, author = {Staubitz, Thomas and Meinel, Christoph}, title = {Collaborative Learning in MOOCs - Approaches and Experiments}, series = {2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference}, journal = {2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference}, publisher = {IEEE}, address = {New York}, isbn = {978-1-5386-1174-6}, issn = {0190-5848}, pages = {9}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This Research-to-Practice paper examines the practical application of various forms of collaborative learning in MOOCs. Since 2012, about 60 MOOCs in the wider context of Information Technology and Computer Science have been conducted on our self-developed MOOC platform. The platform is also used by several customers, who either run their own platform instances or use our white label platform. We, as well as some of our partners, have experimented with different approaches in collaborative learning in these courses. Based on the results of early experiments, surveys amongst our participants, and requests by our business partners we have integrated several options to offer forms of collaborative learning to the system. The results of our experiments are directly fed back to the platform development, allowing to fine tune existing and to add new tools where necessary. In the paper at hand, we discuss the benefits and disadvantages of decisions in the design of a MOOC with regard to the various forms of collaborative learning. While the focus of the paper at hand is on forms of large group collaboration, two types of small group collaboration on our platforms are briefly introduced.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Staubitz2020, author = {Staubitz, Thomas}, title = {Gradable team assignments in large scale learning environments}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-47183}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-471830}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {122}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Lifelong learning plays an increasingly important role in many societies. Technology is changing faster than ever and what has been important to learn today, may be obsolete tomorrow. The role of informal programs is becoming increasingly important. Particularly, Massive Open Online Courses have become popular among learners and instructors. In 2008, a group of Canadian education enthusiasts started the first Massive Open Online Courses or MOOCs to prove their cognitive theory of Connectivism. Around 2012, a variety of American start-ups redefined the concept of MOOCs. Instead of following the connectivist doctrine they returned to a more traditional approach. They focussed on video lecturing and combined this with a course forum that allowed the participants to discuss with each other and the teaching team. While this new version of the concept was enormously successful in terms of massiveness—hundreds of thousands of participants from all over the world joined the first of these courses—many educators criticized the re-lapse to the cognitivist model. In the early days, the evolving platforms often did not have more features than a video player, simple multiple-choice quizzes, and the course forum. It soon became a major interest of research to allow the scaling of more modern approaches of learning and teaching for the massiveness of these courses. Hands-on exercises, alternative forms of assessment, collaboration, and teamwork are some of the topics on the agenda. The insights provided by cognitive and pedagogical theories, however, do not necessarily always run in sync with the needs and the preferences of the majority of participants. While the former promote action-learning, hands-on-learning, competence-based-learning, project-based-learning, team-based-learning as the holy grail, many of the latter often rather prefer a more laid-back style of learning, sometimes referred to as edutainment. Obviously, given the large numbers of participants in these courses, there is not just one type of learners. Participants are not a homogeneous mass but a potpourri of individuals with a wildly heterogeneous mix of backgrounds, previous knowledge, familial and professional circumstances, countries of origin, gender, age, and so on. For the majority of participants, a full-time job and/or a family often just does not leave enough room for more time intensive tasks, such as practical exercises or teamwork. Others, however, particularly enjoy these hands-on or collaborative aspects of MOOCs. Furthermore, many subjects particularly require these possibilities and simply cannot be taught or learned in courses that lack collaborative or hands-on features. In this context, the thesis discusses how team assignments have been implemented on the HPI MOOC platform. During the recent years, several experiments have been conducted and a great amount of experience has been gained by employing team assignments in courses in areas, such as Object-Oriented Programming, Design Thinking, and Business Innovation on various instances of this platform: openHPI, openSAP, and mooc.house}, language = {en} } @misc{SerthStaubitzvanEltenetal.2022, author = {Serth, Sebastian and Staubitz, Thomas and van Elten, Martin and Meinel, Christoph}, title = {Measuring the effects of course modularizations in online courses for life-long learners}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Reihe der Digital Engineering Fakult{\"a}t}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Reihe der Digital Engineering Fakult{\"a}t}, number = {17}, editor = {Gamage, Dilrukshi}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-58918}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-589182}, pages = {15}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Many participants in Massive Open Online Courses are full-time employees seeking greater flexibility in their time commitment and the available learning paths. We recently addressed these requirements by splitting up our 6-week courses into three 2-week modules followed by a separate exam. Modularizing courses offers many advantages: Shorter modules are more sustainable and can be combined, reused, and incorporated into learning paths more easily. Time flexibility for learners is also improved as exams can now be offered multiple times per year, while the learning content is available independently. In this article, we answer the question of which impact this modularization has on key learning metrics, such as course completion rates, learning success, and no-show rates. Furthermore, we investigate the influence of longer breaks between modules on these metrics. According to our analysis, course modules facilitate more selective learning behaviors that encourage learners to focus on topics they are the most interested in. At the same time, participation in overarching exams across all modules seems to be less appealing compared to an integrated exam of a 6-week course. While breaks between the modules increase the distinctive appearance of individual modules, a break before the final exam further reduces initial interest in the exams. We further reveal that participation in self-paced courses as a preparation for the final exam is unlikely to attract new learners to the course offerings, even though learners' performance is comparable to instructor-paced courses. The results of our long-term study on course modularization provide a solid foundation for future research and enable educators to make informed decisions about the design of their courses.}, language = {en} } @article{SerthStaubitzvanEltenetal.2022, author = {Serth, Sebastian and Staubitz, Thomas and van Elten, Martin and Meinel, Christoph}, title = {Measuring the effects of course modularizations in online courses for life-long learners}, series = {Frontiers in Education}, volume = {7}, journal = {Frontiers in Education}, editor = {Gamage, Dilrukshi}, publisher = {Frontiers}, address = {Lausanne, Schweiz}, issn = {2504-284X}, doi = {10.3389/feduc.2022.1008545}, pages = {15}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Many participants in Massive Open Online Courses are full-time employees seeking greater flexibility in their time commitment and the available learning paths. We recently addressed these requirements by splitting up our 6-week courses into three 2-week modules followed by a separate exam. Modularizing courses offers many advantages: Shorter modules are more sustainable and can be combined, reused, and incorporated into learning paths more easily. Time flexibility for learners is also improved as exams can now be offered multiple times per year, while the learning content is available independently. In this article, we answer the question of which impact this modularization has on key learning metrics, such as course completion rates, learning success, and no-show rates. Furthermore, we investigate the influence of longer breaks between modules on these metrics. According to our analysis, course modules facilitate more selective learning behaviors that encourage learners to focus on topics they are the most interested in. At the same time, participation in overarching exams across all modules seems to be less appealing compared to an integrated exam of a 6-week course. While breaks between the modules increase the distinctive appearance of individual modules, a break before the final exam further reduces initial interest in the exams. We further reveal that participation in self-paced courses as a preparation for the final exam is unlikely to attract new learners to the course offerings, even though learners' performance is comparable to instructor-paced courses. The results of our long-term study on course modularization provide a solid foundation for future research and enable educators to make informed decisions about the design of their courses.}, language = {en} } @book{MeinelWillemsStaubitzetal.2022, author = {Meinel, Christoph and Willems, Christian and Staubitz, Thomas and Sauer, Dominic and Hagedorn, Christiane}, title = {openHPI}, number = {148}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-86956-544-6}, issn = {1613-5652}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-56020}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-560208}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {125}, year = {2022}, abstract = {On the occasion of the 10th openHPI anniversary, this technical report provides information about the HPI MOOC platform, including its core features, technology, and architecture. In an introduction, the platform family with all partner platforms is presented; these now amount to nine platforms, including openHPI. This section introduces openHPI as an advisor and research partner in various projects. In the second chapter, the functionalities and common course formats of the platform are presented. The functionalities are divided into learner and admin features. The learner features section provides detailed information about performance records, courses, and the learning materials of which a course is composed: videos, texts, and quizzes. In addition, the learning materials can be enriched by adding external exercise tools that communicate with the HPI MOOC platform via the Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) standard. Furthermore, the concept of peer assessments completed the possible learning materials. The section then proceeds with further information on the discussion forum, a fundamental concept of MOOCs compared to traditional e-learning offers. The section is concluded with a description of the quiz recap, learning objectives, mobile applications, gameful learning, and the help desk. The next part of this chapter deals with the admin features. The described functionality is restricted to describing the news and announcements, dashboards and statistics, reporting capabilities, research options with A/B testing, the course feed, and the TransPipe tool to support the process of creating automated or manual subtitles. The platform supports a large variety of additional features, but a detailed description of these features goes beyond the scope of this report. The chapter then elaborates on common course formats and openHPI teaching activities at the HPI. The chapter concludes with some best practices for course design and delivery. The third chapter provides insights into the technology and architecture behind openHPI. A special characteristic of the openHPI project is the conscious decision to operate the complete application from bare metal to platform development. Hence, the chapter starts with a section about the openHPI Cloud, including detailed information about the data center and devices, the used cloud software OpenStack and Ceph, as well as the openHPI Cloud Service provided for the HPI. Afterward, a section on the application technology stack and development tooling describes the application infrastructure components, the used automation, the deployment pipeline, and the tools used for monitoring and alerting. The chapter is concluded with detailed information about the technology stack and concrete platform implementation details. The section describes the service-oriented Ruby on Rails application, inter-service communication, and public APIs. It also provides more information on the design system and components used in the application. The section concludes with a discussion of the original microservice architecture, where we share our insights and reasoning for migrating back to a monolithic application. The last chapter provides a summary and an outlook on the future of digital education.}, language = {en} }