Learning Behavior of Men and Women in MOOC Discussion Forums – A Case Study

Recent sociotechnical innovations in online communication make user-content interaction, dynamic user-user interaction and user-generated content interesting for content analysis, but raise complex challenges of reliable and valid coding as well as content analytical interpretations. We approach these new issues by analyzing the asynchronous communication and discourses in an exemplary Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in IT security with 4,203 enrollments and 1,343 posts on 192 topics in the forum by 274 different users. We analyze the user-driven contributions to forum discussions using mixed methods and answer the question of whether men and women raise different questions in the discussion forums and if yes, with what kind of effects. We show that many women prefer closed and consent questions, as well as rhetorical questions over discussion, hypothetical questions, and contact requests. The question type significantly influences the way of answering: Direct and open questions particularly encourage fellow learners to answer in a helpful way and in a short time of two to three hours. Responses to questions asked by women were characterized more often by detailed explanations, a simple reply or expression of appreciation, and less often with vagueness. In other words, no one repeated the initial questions asked by women and none of their questions were met with a reaction of amazement. The qualitative part of our content analysis revealed that women’s discussion posts imply more often uncertainty or a slightly lower level of self-efficacy than men’s contributions. Forum discussions took place particularly in the afternoon from 2 to 6 p.m. CET, a time period when many women have other obligations, therefore making it less than ideal. We conclude by making recommendations based on our findings for improvements in supporting underrepresented groups in online learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and discuss potential limitations of our case study.