Lifelong Technology-Enhanced

Learning: 13th European Conference

on Technology Enhanced Learning,
EC-TEL 2018, Leeds, UK, September
3-5, 2018, Proceedings Viktoria
Pammer-Schindler
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/lifelong-technology-enhanced-learning-13th-european
-conference-on-technology-enhanced-learning-ec-tel-2018-leeds-uk-september-3-5-2
018-proceedings-viktoria-pammer-schindler/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

Adaptive and Adaptable Learning 11th European

Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning EC TEL 2016
Lyon France September 13 16 2016 Proceedings 1st
Edition Katrien Verbert
https://textbookfull.com/product/adaptive-and-adaptable-
learning-11th-european-conference-on-technology-enhanced-
learning-ec-tel-2016-lyon-france-
september-13-16-2016-proceedings-1st-edition-katrien-verbert/

Transforming Learning with Meaningful Technologies 14th

European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning EC
TEL 2019 Delft The Netherlands September 16 19 2019
Proceedings Maren Scheffel
https://textbookfull.com/product/transforming-learning-with-
meaningful-technologies-14th-european-conference-on-technology-
enhanced-learning-ec-tel-2019-delft-the-netherlands-
september-16-19-2019-proceedings-maren-scheffel/

Addressing Global Challenges and Quality Education 15th

European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning EC
TEL 2020 Heidelberg Germany September 14 18 2020
Proceedings Carlos Alario-Hoyos
https://textbookfull.com/product/addressing-global-challenges-
and-quality-education-15th-european-conference-on-technology-
enhanced-learning-ec-tel-2020-heidelberg-germany-
Technology Enhanced Learning: Research Themes 1st
Edition Erik Duval

https://textbookfull.com/product/technology-enhanced-learning-
research-themes-1st-edition-erik-duval/

Re-imagining Technology Enhanced Learning: Critical

Perspectives on Disruptive Innovation Michael Flavin

https://textbookfull.com/product/re-imagining-technology-
enhanced-learning-critical-perspectives-on-disruptive-innovation-
michael-flavin/

Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology

Enhanced Learning, 9th International Conference Rosella
Gennari

https://textbookfull.com/product/methodologies-and-intelligent-
systems-for-technology-enhanced-learning-9th-international-
conference-rosella-gennari/

Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology

Enhanced Learning 10th International Conference
Pierpaolo Vittorini

https://textbookfull.com/product/methodologies-and-intelligent-
systems-for-technology-enhanced-learning-10th-international-
conference-pierpaolo-vittorini/

Engineering Applications of Neural Networks 19th

International Conference EANN 2018 Bristol UK September
3 5 2018 Proceedings Elias Pimenidis

https://textbookfull.com/product/engineering-applications-of-
neural-networks-19th-international-conference-eann-2018-bristol-
uk-september-3-5-2018-proceedings-elias-pimenidis/
 Viktoria Pammer-Schindler
Mar Pérez-Sanagustín
Hendrik Drachsler
Raymond Elferink
Maren Scheffel (Eds.)
LNCS 11082

Lifelong Technology-
Enhanced Learning
13th European Conference
on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2018
Leeds, UK, September 3–5, 2018, Proceedings

123
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 11082
Commenced Publication in 1973
Founding and Former Series Editors:
Gerhard Goos, Juris Hartmanis, and Jan van Leeuwen

Editorial Board
David Hutchison
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Takeo Kanade
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Josef Kittler
University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Jon M. Kleinberg
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Friedemann Mattern
ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
John C. Mitchell
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Moni Naor
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
C. Pandu Rangan
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India
Bernhard Steffen
TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
Demetri Terzopoulos
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Doug Tygar
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Gerhard Weikum
Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7409
Viktoria Pammer-Schindler Mar Pérez-Sanagustín
•

Hendrik Drachsler Raymond Elferink

•

Maren Scheffel (Eds.)

Lifelong Technology-
Enhanced Learning
13th European Conference
on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2018
Leeds, UK, September 3–5, 2018
Proceedings

123
Editors
Viktoria Pammer-Schindler Raymond Elferink
Technical University of Graz RayCom BV
Graz Utrecht, Utrecht
Austria The Netherlands
Mar Pérez-Sanagustín Maren Scheffel
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Open University Netherlands
Providencia, Santiago de Chile Heerlen
Chile The Netherlands
Hendrik Drachsler
Welten Institute
Open University of the Netherlands
Heerlen, Limburg
The Netherlands

ISSN 0302-9743 ISSN 1611-3349 (electronic)

Lecture Notes in Computer Science
ISBN 978-3-319-98571-8 ISBN 978-3-319-98572-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98572-5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018950530

LNCS Sublibrary: SL3 – Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Chapter “A Classification of Barriers that Influence Intention Achievement in MOOCs” is licensed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/). For further details see license information in the chapter.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are
believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors
give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or
omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

Welcome to the proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Technology-

Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL). This year, the conference was held in the city of Leeds,
UK, September 3–5, 2018, and was hosted by the University of Leeds, which has a
strong commitment to research-led and excellent technology-enhanced higher educa-
tion at the university; In the framework of this endeavor, the conference a very active
player in the European technology-enhanced learning community. In addition, and in
order to promote interdisciplinary approaches to TEL, we embrace the opportunity to
be co-located with the Medical Education Informatics conference.
We live in an increasingly digital and globalized world that offers great opportu-
nities for information sharing and the generation of new knowledge. This reality has
enabled us to move forward rapidly as a society in many respects, but has also led us to
complex, diverse and interdisciplinary challenges that affect all areas of knowledge
such as health, demographic change and well-being; food security and bioeconomy;
secure and clean energy; smart and green energy; or climate action and environment.
In order to meet these major challenges, we need a society that enhances the
development of 21st century skills for supporting lifelong learning citizens able to deal
with the complexity and uncertainty that tomorrow’s problems require. These 21st
century skills encompass not only technical and domain-specific skills, but also
domain-independent meta-skills such as the 4Cs: critical thinking, creativity, com-
munication, and collaboration—all needed to manage the complexity of future prob-
lems. In this context, technology plays a key role in generating new learning
environments that support learners across both formal and informal learning contexts,
facilitating them in developing and practicing 21st century skills to face these future
challenges.
To feed the debate on this topic, the 13th European Conference on Technology
Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL) 2018 was organized around the theme “Lifelong
Technology-Enhanced Learning: Dealing with the Complexity of 21st Century
Challenges.”
This theme is visible in the following keynotes by outstanding speakers, all of whom
are a reference in the TEL community. They are, in alphabetical order: Allison Lit-
tlejohn, from the Open University, UK, who spoke about “Professional Lifelong
Learning”; Carolyn P. Rosé, from Carnegie Mellon University, who spoke about
“Lifelong Learning in a Web-Scale Opportunity Space”; and David Wortley, from
360in360 Immersive Experiences, who spoke about “The impact of disruptive digital
technologies on Education, Medicine, Health and Well-Being.”
We have accepted contributions covering the conference topic on many levels and
encouraged participants to extend the debate around the role of and challenges for
cutting-edge 21st century technologies such as artificial intelligence, robots, augmented
reality, and ubiquitous computing technologies for learning. The theme and debate
VI Preface

were reflected throughout the conference through the workshops, papers, posters, and
demos as well as the lively discussions.
Finally, the theme was also visible in the new format of practitioner papers, whereby
we aim to step up our endeavor as a community to engage in active communication
between research and practice, acknowledging that this is a two-ways communication
in which research and practice inform each other, for the benefit of both.
EC-TEL 2018 received 142 full and short research papers, of which 42 were
accepted for these proceedings (acceptance rate: 29.6%). We further accepted seven
demos and 23 posters for this proceedings volume. Practitioner papers are published in
adjunct CEUR WS proceedings volume.
As we do every year, we aimed at providing a high standard in our review process;
there were at least three reviews for full and short research papers and at least two
reviews by senior Program Committee members for full research papers. All reviews
were checked for their content, not only their overall scores, by the program chairs; and
in many cases the paper itself was checked – this was to ensure decisions were overall
as fair as possible within the pool of all submitted papers and to balance individual
differences in scoring/weighting different strengths and weaknesses of papers by
reviewers. We thank all reviewers who provided constructive and informative reviews
addressing both the authors and the decision-making chairs.
EC-TEL sees itself as a discussion venue for an interdisciplinary community
interested in the pedagogical underpinnings for designing learning technologies—in-
novative, interactive, and intelligent technologies that have the potential to support
learning; individual, social, and organizational learning processes; different learning
communities and contexts; open learning arrangements—and seeks diversity in target
user groups for technologies by being explicitly interested in TEL in developing
countries and for users with special needs. We celebrate this interdisciplinarity. At the
same time, this interdisciplinarity is challenging, as it requires of authors to at the same
time make a novel contribution but also to connect to an interdisciplinary discourse;
and of reviewers to appreciate contributions with a different angle than one’s own. The
Organizing Committee therefore continues to see – in line with last year – that the
community needs to develop a shared vision of TEL, and of what constitutes valid
research practice and methodology, understanding that at the intersection of disciplines,
many methodologies may be valid without this leading to arbitrariness.
These challenges are also addressed within other activities of the European Asso-
ciation of Technology-Enhanced Learning (EATEL), of which EC-TEL is by now the
most visible and prominent one:
– Systematic training of early-stage researchers within the community: Even before
the EC-TEL itself was launched, EATEL launched the first Joint Summer School
on Technology-Enhanced Learning (JTELSS - http://ea-tel.eu/jtelss/) as a training
and networking event for early-stage TEL researchers in Europe. From the first
EC-TEL in 2006 onward, EC-TEL and EATEL held a doctoral consortium at the
EC-TEL to complement this summer school, with the overall goal of engaging the
next generation of TEL researchers into the discourse of the community from
early stages on.
 Preface VII

– Systematic methodological discourse within the community in order to increase

shared methodological understanding: This year, EATEL and EC-TEL further
broadened the scope of TEL as a profession. This year’s focus on open science as
part of the professional practice in TEL initiated a series of events addressing the
ongoing professionalization of our field.
– Systematic appreciation of practitioner perspectives into community: This year,
EC-TEL introduced the category of practitioner papers. We want to support the
possibility of research to impact practice, and of practice to inform research.
Overall, this year’s EC-TEL showed its continued relevance for the TEL community
in providing a world-class forum for academic and professional discourse with strong
European grounding. The chairs aimed to create such a space for the attendees of this
year’s EC-TEL, the authors, all contributors, and all readers of this proceedings vol-
ume. We are looking forward to a future in which this discourse will continue to be
lively, innovative, and reflective.
We close by thanking all the authors who submitted their work to this year’s
conference – you are the drivers of TEL research and practice in Europe. We also thank
all Program Committee members and reviewers for their voluntary contributions – you
are essential for sustaining the quality in our field. Finally, we thank the local orga-
nization team for their great work and their warm welcome in Leeds.

July 2018 Hendrik Drachsler

Viktoria Pammer-Schindler
Mar Pérez-Sanagustín
Raymond Elferink
Maren Scheffel
Christian Glahn
Mikhail Fominykh
 Organization

Program Committee
Marie-Helene Abel Heudiasyc, Université de Technologie de Compiègne,
France
Andrea Adamoli Università della Svizzera italiana, Switzerland
Carlos Alario-Hoyos Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain
Patricia Albacete University of Pittsburgh, USA
Liaqat Ali Simon Fraser University, Canada
Luis Anido Rifon Universidade de Vigo, Spain
Alessandra Antonaci Welten Institute, Open University, The Netherlands
Roberto Araya Universidad de Chile, Chile
Inmaculada Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Arnedillo-Sánchez
Juan I. Asensio-Pérez Universidad de Valladolid, Spain
David Azcona Dublin City University, Ireland
Zhen Bai Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Antonio Balderas Universidad de Cádiz, Spain
Merja Bauters University of Helsinki and Aalto University, Finland
Jason Bernard University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Anis Bey University of La Rochelle, France
Sue Bickerdike University of Leeds, UK
Miguel L. Bote-Lorenzo Universidad de Valladolid, Spain
François Bouchet Sorbonne Université, LIP6, France
Yolaine Bourda LRI, CentraleSupélec, France
Bert Bredeweg University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Julien Broisin IRIT, University of Toulouse, France
Daniela Caballero Universidad de Chile, Chile
Manuel Caeiro Rodríguez University of Vigo, Spain
Lorenzo Cantoni Università della Svizzera italiana, Switzerland
Teresa Cerratto-Pargman Stockholm University, Sweden
Sven Charleer Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Arunangsu Chatterjee University of Plymouth, UK
Sunhea Choi University of Southampton, UK
Irene-Angelica Chounta Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Miguel Ángel Conde University of León, Spain
Raquel M. Crespo García Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain
Ulrike Cress Knowledge Media Research Center
Alexandra Cristea Durham University, UK
Mutlu Cukurova University College London, UK
Daniel Davis Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
X Organization

Paul De Bra Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Maria De Marsico Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Carlos Delgado Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain
Stavros Demetriadis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Christian Depover Université de Mons, France
Michael Derntl University of Tübingen, Germany
Philippe Dessus University of Grenoble Alpes, LaRAC, France
Daniele Di Mitri Open Universiteit, The Netherlands
Darina Dicheva Winston-Salem State University, USA
Stefan Dietze GESIS, Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences,
Germany
Yannis Dimitriadis University of Valladolid, Spain
Vania Dimitrova University of Leeds, UK
Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld Aalborg University, Denmark
Monica Divitini Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Sweden
Juan Manuel Dodero Universidad de Cádiz, Spain
Peter Dolog Aalborg University, Denmark
Hendrik Drachsler The Open University
Martin Ebner University of Graz, Austria
Raymond Elferink Raycom BV
Maka Eradze Tallinn University, Estonia
Louis Faucon Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
Switzerland
Carmen Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain
Fernández-Panadero
Angela Fessl Know-Center GmbH, Graz, Austria
Olga Firssova Welten Institute, Open University, The Netherlands
Beatriz Florian-Gaviria Universidad del Valle, Colombia
Mikhail Fominykh Independent/Self-employed
Fernando Gamboa Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico
Catherine Garbay CNRS, LIG, France
Jesús Miguel INAOE
García-Gorrostieta
Serge Garlatti IMT Atlantique, France
Dragan Gasevic Monash University, Australia
Sebastien George LIUM, Le Mans University, France
Panagiotis Germanakos SAP SE and University of Cyprus, Cyprus
Michail Giannakos Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Norway
Denis Gillet Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne
(EPFL), Switzerland
Christian Glahn University of Applied Sciences HTW Chur,
Switzerland
Samuel González-López Technological University of Nogales, Sonora, Mexico
Monique Grandbastien LORIA, Université de Lorraine, France
 Organization XI

Wolfgang Greller Vienna University of Education, Austria

David Griffiths Institute for Educational Cybernetics,
University of Bolton, UK
Christian Guetl Graz University of Technology, Austria
Gabriel Gutu-Robu University Politehnica of Bucharest
Ashley Haberman-Lawson Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany
Thanasis Hadzilacos Open University of Cyprus and the Cyprus Institute
Cecilie Johanne Hansen uniRes, University of Bergen, Norway
Andreas Harrer University of Applied Sciences and Arts Dortmund,
Germany
Matthias Hauswirth University of Lugano, Switzerland
Josefina Hernandez Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
Davinia Hernandez-Leo Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain
Ángel Hernández-García Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
Tore Hoel Høgskolen i Oslo og Akershus, Norway
Sharon Hsiao Arizona State University, USA
Stian Håklev Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
Switzerland
Petri Ihantola University of Helsinki, Finland
Andri Ioannou Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus
Francis Jambon Laboratoire d’Informatique de Grenoble, France
Patrick Jermann Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
Switzerland
Ioana Jivet Open University, The Netherlands
Srecko Joksimovic University of Edinburgh, UK
Pamela Jordan University of Pittsburgh, USA
Ken Kahn University of Oxford, UK
Marco Kalz Heidelberg University of Education, Germany
Mihkel Kangur Tallinn University, Estonia
Nikos Karacapilidis University of Patras, Greece
Julia Kasch Open University, The Netherlands
Susan Kennedy National Health Services
Michael Kickmeier-Rust Graz University of Technology, Austria
Andrea Kienle University of Applied Sciences Dortmund, Germany
Barbara Kieslinger Centre for Social Innovation
Ralf Klamma RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Styliani Kleanthous University of Cyprus
Roland Klemke Open University, The Netherlands
Tomaž Klobučar Jozef Stefan Institute, Slovenia
Carolien Knoop-Van Radboud University, The Netherlands
Campen
Ola Knutsson Stockholm University, Sweden
Panagiotis Kosmas Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus
Vitomir Kovanovic The University of Edinburgh, UK
Milos Kravcik DFKI GmbH, Germany
Mart Laanpere Tallinn University, Estonia
XII Organization

Chad Lane University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA

Peter Lange RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Lydia Lau University of Leeds, UK
Élise Lavoué Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, France
Effie Lai-Chong Law University of Leicester, UK
Dominique Lenne Heudiasyc, Université de Technologie de Compiègne,
France
Marina Lepp University of Tartu, Estonia
Leo Leppänen University of Helsinki, Finland
Tobias Ley Tallinn University, Estonia
Andreas Lingnau Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Martin Llamas-Nistal University of Vigo, Spain
Christoph Lofi Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Mathieu Loiseau University of Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
Aurelio Lopez Instituto Nacional de Astrofísica, Óptica y Electrónica
(INAOE), Mexico
Domitile Lourdeaux Heudiasyc UMR7253, France
Vanda Luengo Laboratoire d’informatique de Paris, LIP6,
Sorbonne Université, France
Piret Luik University of Tartu, Estonia
George Magoulas Birkbeck College, Knowledge Lab,
University of London, UK
Katherine Maillet Institut Mines-Télécom, Télécom Ecole
de Management, France
Jorge Maldonado Universidad de Cuenca, Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile, Chile
Nils Malzahn Rhine-Ruhr Institute for Applied System Innovation
e.V., Germany
Katerina Mangaroska Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Norway
Estefania Martin Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Spain
Jean-Charles Marty LIRIS - equipe SICAL
Alejandra Martínez Universidad de Valladolid, Spain
Carlos Martínez Gaitero Escola Universitària d’Infermeria Gimbernat, Spain
M. Antonia University of Murcia, Spain
Martínez-Carreras
Anna Mavroudi KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Rafael Mello Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Brazil
Agathe Merceron Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin, Germany
Christine Michel LIRIS, Université de Lyon, Insa Lyon, France
Konstantinos Michos Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Alexander Mikroyannidis The Open University
Eva Millan Universidad de Málaga, Spain
Riichiro Mizoguchi Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Inge Molenaar Radboud University, The Netherlands
Baptiste Monterrat INSA de Lyon, France
 Organization XIII

Pablo Moreno-Ger Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain

Neil Morris University of Leeds, UK
Pedro Munoz-Merino Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain
Mathieu Muratet Sorbonne University, France
Juan A. Muñoz-Cristóbal GSIC/EMIC, University of Valladolid, Spain
Mandran Nadine Laboratoire d’Informatique de Grenoble (LIG), France
Rob Nadolski Welten Institute, Open University, The Netherlands
Petru Nicolaescu RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Jalal Nouri Stockholm University, Sweden
Mikko Nurminen Tampere University of Technology, Finland
Alejandro Ortega-Arranz Universidad de Valladolid, Spain
Carmen L. Padrón-Nápoles ATOS
Viktoria Pammer-Schindler Know-Center GmbH and Graz University
of Technology, Austria
Lucia Pannese Imaginary
Pantelis Papadopoulos Aarhus University, Denmark
Ionut Cristian Paraschiv Politehnica University of Bucharest, Romania
Abelardo Pardo University of South Australia
Kai Pata Tallinn University
Mar Perez Sanagustin Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
Zinayida Petrushyna LOT Internet GmbH
Laëtitia Pierrot Université de Poitiers, France
Niels Pinkwart Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Gerti Pishtari Tallinn University, Estonia
Elvira Popescu University of Craiova, Romania
Richard Price Health Education England, UK
Luis P. Prieto Tallinn University, Estonia
Michael Prilla Ruhr University of Bochum, Germany
Ronald Pérez Álvarez Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
Eric Ras Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology,
Luxembourg
Christoph Rensing TU Darmstadt, Germany
Marc Rittberger DIPF, Leibniz Institute for Research and Information
in Education, Germany
Luz Stella Robles Pedrozo UNED
María Jesús Tallinn University, Estonia
Rodríguez-Triana
Elisabeth Rolf DSV, Stockholm University, Sweden
Adolfo Ruiz Calleja Tallinn University, Estonia
Ellen Rusman Open University, The Netherlands
Demetrios Sampson Curtin University, Australia
Eric Sanchez Université Fribourg, Switzerland
Olga C. Santos aDeNu Research Group (UNED)
Luisa Sanz-Martínez Universidad de Valladolid, Spain
Maren Scheffel Open University, The Netherlands
Daniel Schiffner Goethe Universität Frankfurt, Germany
XIV Organization

Andreas Schmidt Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences, Germany

Marcel Schmitz Zuyd Hogeschool
Jan Schneider Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische
Forschung, Germany
Ulrik Schroeder RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Karim Sehaba LIRIS, Université Lumière Lyon 2, France
Kshitij Sharma Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Norway
Puneet Sharma University of Tromsø, Norway
Mike Sharples The Open University
Tanmay Sinha Institute of Learning Sciences and Higher Education,
ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Alan Smeaton Dublin City University, Ireland
Sergey Sosnovsky Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Marcus Specht Open University, The Netherlands
Daniel Spikol Malmö University, Sweden
Slavi Stoyanov Open University, The Netherlands
Christian M. Stracke Open University, The Netherlands
Alexander Streicher Fraunhofer
Merilin Säde University of Tartu, Estonia
Esther Tan Open University, The Netherlands
Erika Tanhua-Piiroinen University of Tampere, Finland
Stefano Tardini Università della Svizzera italiana, Switzerland
Pierre Tchounikine University of Grenoble, France
Marco Temperini Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Vladimir Tomberg Tallinn University, Estonia
Richard Tortorella University of North Texas, USA
Stefan Trausan-Matu University Politehnica of Bucharest, Romania
Tamsin Treasure-Jones University of Leeds, UK
Chrysanthi Tseloudi Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Eno Tõnisson University of Tartu, Estonia
Carsten Ullrich DFKI GmbH, Germany
Rémi Venant IRIT
Katrien Verbert Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Himanshu Verma University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Julio Villena-Román MeaningCloud
Massimo Vitiello Graz University of Technology, Austria
Terje Väljataga Tallinn University, Estonia
Wim Westera CELSTEC-Centre for Learning Sciences
and Technologies, Open University,
The Netherlands
Denise Whitelock The Open University, UK
Fridolin Wild Oxford Brookes University, UK
Amel Yessad LIP6, Sorbonne Université, France
Raphael Zender University of Potsdam, Germany
Yue Zhao Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Additional Reviewers
Balderas, Antonio
Barreiros, Carla
Dehler, Jessica
Fernández, Camino
Greven, Christoph
Holtz, Peter
Laforcade, Pierre
Liaqat, Daniyal
Lukarov, Vlatko
Moreno-Marcos, Pedro Manuel
Organization XV
Oyelere, Solomon Sunday
Perez De La Cruz, Jose-Luis
Person Montero, Tatiana
Pesonen, In Collab With Joonas
Renner, Bettina
Rubio, Aarón
Ruiz-Rube, Iván
Schulz, Sandra
Wahid, Usman
 Contents

Research Papers

A Classification of Barriers that Influence Intention Achievement

in MOOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Maartje Henderikx, Karel Kreijns, and Marco Kalz

Tools to Support Self-Regulated Learning in Online Environments:

Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Ronald Pérez-Álvarez, Jorge Maldonado-Mahauad,
and Mar Pérez-Sanagustín

The Psychometric Properties of a Preliminary Social Presence Measure

Using Rasch Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Karel Kreijns, Joshua Weidlich, and Kamakshi Rajagopal

Multimodal Learning Hub: A Tool for Capturing Customizable Multimodal

Learning Experiences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Jan Schneider, Daniele Di Mitri, Bibeg Limbu, and Hendrik Drachsler

How Teachers Prepare for the Unexpected Bright Spots and Breakdowns
in Enacting Pedagogical Plans in Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Ghita Jalal, Valentin Lachand, Aurélien Tabard, and Christine Michel

Evaluating the Robustness of Learning Analytics Results Against

Fake Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Giora Alexandron, José A. Ruipérez-Valiente, Sunbok Lee,
and David E. Pritchard

Where Is the Learning in Learning Analytics? A Systematic Literature

Review to Identify Measures of Affected Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Justian Knobbout and Esther van der Stappen

Can I Have a Mooc2Go, Please? On the Viability of Mobile

vs. Stationary Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Yue Zhao, Tarmo Robal, Christoph Lofi, and Claudia Hauff

Validation of the Revised Self-regulated Online Learning Questionnaire . . . . 116

Renée S. Jansen, Anouschka van Leeuwen, Jeroen Janssen,
and Liesbeth Kester

SRLx: A Personalized Learner Interface for MOOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Dan Davis, Vasileios Triglianos, Claudia Hauff, and Geert-Jan Houben
XVIII Contents

Motivating Students to Enhance Their Knowledge Levels Through

Personalized and Scrutable Visual Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Bilal Yousuf, Athanasios Staikopoulos, and Owen Conlan

Supporting the Adaptive Generation of Learning Game Scenarios

with a Model-Driven Engineering Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Pierre Laforcade and Youness Laghouaouta

Student Drop-out Modelling Using Virtual Learning Environment

Behaviour Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Jakub Kuzilek, Jonas Vaclavek, Viktor Fuglik, and Zdenek Zdrahal

A Microservice Infrastructure for Distributed Communities of Practice. . . . . . 172

Peter de Lange, Bernhard Göschlberger, Tracie Farrell,
and Ralf Klamma

Multimodal Analytics for Real-Time Feedback in Co-located Collaboration . . . 187

Sambit Praharaj, Maren Scheffel, Hendrik Drachsler,
and Marcus Specht

Towards Personalized Learning Objectives in MOOCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Tobias Rohloff and Christoph Meinel

PsychOut! a Mobile App to Support Mental Status Assessment Training . . . . 216

Carrie DEMMANS EPP, Joe Horne, Britney B. Scolieri, Irene Kane,
and Amy S. Bowser

Exploring Gamification to Prevent Gaming the System and Help Refusal

in Tutoring Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Otávio Azevedo, Felipe de Morais, and Patricia A. Jaques

Automated Analysis of Cognitive Presence in Online Discussions

Written in Portuguese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Valter Neto, Vitor Rolim, Rafael Ferreira, Vitomir Kovanović,
Dragan Gašević, Rafael Dueire Lins, and Rodrigo Lins

Fine-Grained Cognitive Assessment Based on Free-Form Input

for Math Story Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
Bastiaan Heeren, Johan Jeuring, Sergey Sosnovsky, Paul Drijvers,
Peter Boon, Sietske Tacoma, Jesse Koops, Armin Weinberger,
Brigitte Grugeon-Allys, Françoise Chenevotot-Quentin, Jorn van Wijk,
and Ferdinand van Walree

Extending the SIPS-Model: A Research Framework

for Online Collaborative Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Karel Kreijns and Paul A. Kirschner
 Contents XIX

A Syllogism for Designing Collaborative Learning Technologies

in the Age of AI and Multimodal Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Mutlu Cukurova

“Make It Personal!” - Gathering Input from Stakeholders for a Learning

Analytics-Supported Learning Design Tool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Marcel Schmitz, Maren Scheffel, Evelien van Limbeek,
Roger Bemelmans, and Hendrik Drachsler

Investigating the Relationships Between Online Activity, Learning

Strategies and Grades to Create Learning Analytics-Supported
Learning Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Marcel Schmitz, Maren Scheffel, Evelien van Limbeek,
Nicolette van Halem, Ilja Cornelisz, Chris van Klaveren,
Roger Bemelmans, and Hendrik Drachsler

Evidence for Programming Strategies in University Coding Exercises . . . . . . 326

Kshitij Sharma, Katerina Mangaroska, Halvard Trætteberg,
Serena Lee-Cultura, and Michail Giannakos

Incorporating Blended Learning Processes in K12 Mathematics Education

Through BA-Khan Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Valeria Henríquez, Eliana Scheihing, and Marta Silva

Predicting Learners’ Success in a Self-paced MOOC Through Sequence

Patterns of Self-regulated Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Jorge Maldonado-Mahauad, Mar Pérez-Sanagustín,
Pedro Manuel Moreno-Marcos, Carlos Alario-Hoyos,
Pedro J. Muñoz-Merino, and Carlos Delgado-Kloos

Semantically Meaningful Cohorts Enable Specialized Knowledge

Sharing in a Collaborative MOOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
Stian Håklev, Kshitij Sharma, Jim Slotta, and Pierre Dillenbourg

Detecting Learning Strategies Through Process Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

John Saint, Dragan Gašević, and Abelardo Pardo

Low-Investment, Realistic-Return Business Cases for Learning Analytics

Dashboards: Leveraging Usage Data and Microinteractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
Tom Broos, Katrien Verbert, Greet Langie, Carolien Van Soom,
and Tinne De Laet

Identifying Design Principles for Learning Design Tools: The Case

of edCrumble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
Laia Albó and Davinia Hernández-Leo
XX Contents

Exploring Causality Within Collaborative Problem Solving

Using Eye-Tracking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
Kshitij Sharma, Jennifer K. Olsen, Vincent Aleven, and Nikol Rummel

Towards an Automated Model of Comprehension (AMoC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427

Mihai Dascalu, Ionut Cristian Paraschiv, Danielle S. McNamara,
and Stefan Trausan-Matu

Course-Adaptive Content Recommender for Course Authoring . . . . . . . . . . . 437

Hung Chau, Jordan Barria-Pineda, and Peter Brusilovsky

Assessing Leadership Competencies Through Social Network Analysis . . . . . 452

Faisal Ghaffar, Neil Peirce, and Alec Serlie

Concept Focus: Semantic Meta-Data for Describing MOOC Content . . . . . . . 467

Sepideh Mesbah, Guanliang Chen, Manuel Valle Torre,
Alessandro Bozzon, Christoph Lofi, and Geert-Jan Houben

Help Me Understand This Conversation: Methods of Identifying Implicit

Links Between CSCL Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
Mihai Masala, Stefan Ruseti, Gabriel Gutu-Robu, Traian Rebedea,
Mihai Dascalu, and Stefan Trausan-Matu

The Effect of Personality and Course Attributes on Academic

Performance in MOOCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
Mahdi Rahmani Hanzaki and Carrie Demmans Epp

Learning by Reviewing Paper-Based Programming Assessments . . . . . . . . . . 510

Yancy Vance Paredes, David Azcona, I-Han Hsiao, and Alan Smeaton

Which Learning Visualisations to Offer Students? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524

Susan Bull, Peter Brusilovsky, and Julio Guerra

Detection of Student Modelling Anomalies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531

Sergey Sosnovsky, Laurens Müter, Marc Valkenier, Matthieu Brinkhuis,
and Abe Hofman

Expanding the Curricular Space with Educational Robotics:

A Creative Course on Road Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
Andri Ioannou, Chrysanthos Socratous, and Elena Nikolaedou

Poster and Demo Papers

New Approaches to Training of Power Substation Operators Based

on Interactive Virtual Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
Rinat R. Nasyrov and Peter S. Excell
 Contents XXI

Enabling Systematic Adoption of Learning Analytics

through a Policy Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556
Yi-Shan Tsai, Maren Scheffel, and Dragan Gašević

Diversity Profiling of Learners to Understand Their Domain Coverage

While Watching Videos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
Entisar Abolkasim, Lydia Lau, Vania Dimitrova, and Antonija Mitrovic

Using Digital Medical Collections to Support Radiology Training

in E-learning Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
Félix Buendía, Joaquín Gayoso-Cabada, and José-Luis Sierra

Temporal Analytics of Workplace-Based Assessment Data to Support

Self-regulated Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
Alicja Piotrkowicz, Vania Dimitrova, and Trudie E. Roberts

Learning Analytics Dashboard Analysing First-Year Engineering Students . . . 575

Jonas Vaclavek, Jakub Kuzilek, Jan Skocilas, Zdenek Zdrahal,
and Viktor Fuglik

The Learning Analytics Indicator Repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579

Daniel Biedermann, Jan Schneider, and Hendrik Drachsler

Eye-Tracking for User Attention Evaluation in Adaptive Serious Games . . . . 583

Alexander Streicher, Sebastian Leidig, and Wolfgang Roller

Development of a Learning Economy Platform Based on Blockchain . . . . . . 587

Masumi Hori, Seishi Ono, Toshihiro Kita, Hiroki Miyahara,
Shiu Sakashita, Kensuke Miyashita, and Kazutuna Yamaji

Enhancing Human Learning of Motions: An Approach Through Clustering . . . 591

Quentin Couland, Ludovic Hamon, and Sébastien George

How to Help Teachers Adapt to Learners? Teachers’ Perspective

on a Competency and Error-Type Centered Dashboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596
Iryna Nikolayeva, Bruno Martin, Amel Yessad, Françoise Chenevotot,
Julia Pilet, Dominique Prévit, Brigitte Grugeon-Allys,
and Vanda Luengo

MedSense: The Development of a Gamified Learning Platform

for Undergraduate Medical Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600
Justin Choon Hwee Ng, Sarah Zhuling Tham, Chin Rui Chew,
Amelia Jing Hua Lee, and Sook Muay Tay

edCrumble: Designing for Learning with Data Analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605

Laia Albó and Davinia Hernández-Leo
XXII Contents

Ensuring Novelty and Transparency in Learning Resource-

Recommendation Based on Deep Learning Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609
Wael Alkhatib, Eid Araache, Christoph Rensing, and Steffen Schnitzer

Exploring Math Achievement Through Gamified Virtual Reality. . . . . . . . . . 613

Espen Stranger-Johannessen

Observational Scaffolding for Learning Analytics:

A Methodological Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617
Jairo Rodríguez-Medina, María Jesús Rodríguez-Triana, Maka Eradze,
and Sara García-Sastre

Cohesion-Centered Analysis of Sociograms for Online Communities

and Courses Using ReaderBench. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622
Mihai Dascalu, Maria-Dorinela Sirbu, Gabriel Gutu-Robu,
Stefan Ruseti, Scott A. Crossley, and Stefan Trausan-Matu

A Digital Ecosystem for Digital Competences: The CRISS Project Demo . . . 627
Manolis Mavrikis, Lourdes Guardia, Mutlu Cukurova,
and Marcelo Maina

Towards Generation of Ambiguous Situations in Virtual Environments

for Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631
Azzeddine Benabbou, Domitile Lourdeaux, and Dominique Lenne

Digging for Gold: Motivating Users to Explore Alternative

Search Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636
Angela Fessl, Alfred Wertner, and Viktoria Pammer-Schindler

The Role of Ubiquitous Computing and the Internet of Things for

Developing 21st Century Skills Among Learners: Experts’ Views . . . . . . . . . 640
Olga Viberg and Anna Mavroudi

An Exploratory Study on Student Engagement with Adaptive

Notifications in Programming Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644
David Azcona, I-Han Hsiao, and Alan Smeaton

Instrumentation of Classrooms Using Synchronous Speech Transcription . . . . 648

Vincent Bettenfeld, Salima Mdhaffar, Christophe Choquet,
and Claudine Piau-Toffolon

A Programming Language Independent Platform for Algorithm Learning . . . . 652

Bruno Burke, Peter Weßeler, and Jürgen te Vrugt

Using Thematic Analysis to Understand Students’ Learning

of Soft Skills from Videos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656
Björn Sjödén, Vania Dimitrova, and Antonija Mitrovic
 Contents XXIII

Formalizing CSCL Scripts with Logic and Constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660

Andreas Papasalouros

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665

Research Papers
 A Classification of Barriers that Influence
Intention Achievement in MOOCs

Maartje Henderikx1(&), Karel Kreijns1, and Marco Kalz2

1
Welten Institute, Open University of the Netherlands,
Heerlen, The Netherlands
{maartje.henderikx,karel.kreijns}@ou.nl
2
Heidelberg University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany
kalz@ph-heidelberg.de

Abstract. MOOC-learning can be challenging as barriers which prevent or

hinder acting out MOOC-takers’ individual learning intentions may be
encountered. The aim of this research was to elicit and to empirically classify
barriers that influence this intention achievement in MOOCs. The best fit model
of our factor-analytical approach resulted in 4 distinctive components; 1. Tech-
nical and online-learning related skills, 2. Social context, 3. Course design/
expectations management, 4. Time, support and motivation. The main finding of
our study is that the experienced barriers by MOOC-takers are predominantly
non-MOOC related. This knowledge can be of value for MOOC-designers and
providers. It may guide them in finding suitable re-design solutions or inter-
ventions to support MOOC-takers in their learning, even if it concerns non-
MOOC related issues. Furthermore, it makes a valuable contribution to the
expanding empirical research on MOOCs.

Keywords: MOOCs
Online learning
Barriers
Factor analysis

1 Introduction

An often-heard concern regarding MOOCs is their high dropout rate [1]. These dropout
rates—generally used to assess MOOC-success—are misleading, as often success
measurements from traditional education are used [2–5]. Kalz, Kreijns, Walhout,
Castaño-Munoz, Espasa, and Tovar [6] introduced a theoretical framework that com-
bines distal and proximal variables and which takes into account individual intentions
and barriers. Since different educational contexts deserve different educational mea-
sures [7], Henderikx, Kreijns and Kalz [2] further specified this theoretical framework
into a model to take into account individual intentions of MOOC-takers as a starting
point for measuring educational success in MOOCs. But, even when taking the indi-
vidual intentions as a starting point, a study by Henderikx, Kreijns and Kalz [3] showed
that there is still a substantial group of MOOC-takers who do not achieve what they
intended to do. It seems that they encounter barriers preventing or hindering them from
acting out their individual learning intentions.
These barriers can be either MOOC related or non-MOOC related and may cause
MOOC-takers to change their individual intentions or even to stop [3]. While there are

© The Author(s) 2018

V. Pammer-Schindler et al. (Eds.): EC-TEL 2018, LNCS 11082, pp. 3–15, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98572-5_1
4 M. Henderikx et al.

related studies dealing with the empirical analysis of the effects of barriers to online
learning and distance education using various statistical techniques [8–13], for the
context of massive open online learning such analyses are limited. Current studies on
barriers in MOOCs mainly focus on a restricted number of barriers in case studies,
qualitative research setups, literature reviews and descriptive studies [14–17]. There are
some studies which empirically investigate barriers to student retention, however these
studies merely focus on the effect of specifically selected barriers [18, 19]. Furthermore,
some studies in online learning or distance education context grouped types of barriers
[9] or aimed to empirically identify barrier components [10]. But, apart from an
exploratory study on barriers in MOOCs by Henderikx et al. [3], there is no synthesized
overview of MOOC-specific barriers available.
In this study, an exploratory factor analysis was used to categorize these potential
barriers and present a MOOC-specific barrier classification, that could contribute to
purposefully improve MOOCs and enhance MOOC-taker experiences and intention
achievement. First, a literature review will give a brief overview of the most relevant
literature on barriers to online learning and MOOCs specifically. Second, the method-
ology of the study will be reported, followed by the results of the factor analysis. Lastly,
the results will be discussed as well as the limitations, implications for practice and
recommendations for future research.

2 Literature Review

Many different issues are perceived as possible barriers to online learning and distance
education. An extensive literature review on barriers in distance education by Galusha
[9] showed that students in a distance learning environment regard financial costs,
disruption of family life, lack of support from the employer, lack of feedback, lack of
instructor presence, lack of technical assistance, lack of planning assistance, lack of
social contact, unfamiliarity with distance learning, lack of computer or writing skills as
disablers to their learning. She grouped these barriers into five categories (1) costs and
motivators, (2) feedback and teacher contact, (3) student support and services,
(4) alienation and isolation and (5) lack of experience and training.
Peltier, Drago and Schibrowsky [12] chose to investigate which role six specific
dimensions, drawn from literature, played in perceived effectiveness of online educa-
tion. These dimensions were (1) instructor support and mentoring, (2) course content,
(3) course structure, (4) student-to-student interaction, (5) information technology and
(6) instructor-student. Their regression results showed that course content, instructor
support and mentoring played a substantial role and can be regarded as the most
important barriers - or success factors if positively experienced - to students’ learning
experiences.
Other reported challenging characteristics as perceived by students in online
learning context are technical problems, perceived lack of community, time constraints
and unclear course objectives as found by Song, Singleton, Hill and Koh [13] in their
mixed-methods study.
Eom, Wen and Ashill [8] examined the determinants of students’ satisfaction in the
context of university online courses. They included the variables course structure,
 A Classification of Barriers that Influence Intention Achievement in MOOCs 5

instructor feedback, self-motivation, learning style, interaction, and instructor facilita-

tion, quite similar to the study undertaken by Peltier et al. [12]. Results of the structural
equation modelling analysis revealed that instructor feedback and learning style were
significant predictors for student success, indicating that these issues are important for
learning and could become barriers if students are not satisfied with these specific
issues.
Qualitative research by Aragon and Johnson [20] uncovered that self-reported
reasons for non-completion of community college online courses were time constraints,
lack of instructor interaction, bad course content, lack of communication and techno-
logical issues Furthermore, Park and Choi [11] found that lack of family- and work
support are positively related to non-completion and can thus be regarded as barriers to
online learning.
Research that sought to integrate perceived barriers students (expected to) face in
an online distance education context was conducted by Muilenburg and Berge [10].
Their factor analytical study which used the principal component extraction method,
revealed that these barriers could be assigned to eight distinctive components:
(1) administrative/instructor issues, (2) social interactions, (3) academic skills,
(4) technical skills, (5) learner motivation, (6) time and support for studies, (7) cost and
access to the internet, (8) technical problems. A composite scores calculation per
component identified social interactions as the most important barrier for students’
online-learning. Academic skills have been identified as the least important barrier.
These studies, reporting on aforementioned barriers were all conducted in a general
online learning or distance education context. Yet, with the still relatively new online
learning environment of MOOCs, research on barriers in MOOC-specific context has
caught on and is increasing.
In a study on student retention in MOOCs, Adamopoulos [18] used various text
mining and predictive modelling techniques to analyse online student reviews and
online available course characteristics. The analysis showed that the negative sentiment
for the discussion forum, length of the course and workload had a significant negative
effect on student retention. Belanger and Thornton [14] evaluated a MOOC on Bio-
electricity by analysing pre- and post-questionnaires and log-data. The main barriers
that were mentioned by students as reason for non-completion were time constraints
and insufficient background knowledge. A literature review by Khalil and Ebner [15]
found, in addition to the barriers mentioned in Belanger and Thornton’s [14] study, that
student motivation, feelings of isolation and hidden costs are also considered barriers to
MOOC-learning. Further, a descriptive analysis of MOOC data to uncover reasons for
dropout by Onah, Sinclair and Boyatt [16], showed that difficulty of the MOOC,
timing, lack of digital skills and lack of in-MOOC support were often encountered
barriers by MOOC-takers. In addition, Hone and El Said [18] explored factors which
affect MOOC retention. Their factor analytic study focused on student experiences with
the course instructor, experiences with other learners and experiences with the design
features of the course and found that especially instructor interaction and course
content are important features for students. If these features are not perceived positively
by students, they have the potential to become barriers to their learning and ultimately
retention.
6 M. Henderikx et al.

Also, a very recent study by Shapiro, Lee, Roth, Li, Çetinkaya-Rundel and Canelas
[17] on barriers to retention in MOOCs, sought to identify which antecedents, both
inside and outside the course setting, had an impact on MOOC-learning. Their quali-
tative approach of conducting 36 online interviews identified, in order of severity, lack
of time, bad previous experiences, online format and inadequate background as barriers
to MOOC-learning.
Previous studies confirmed that research on barriers to learning in MOOCs is
developing and has strong parallels with the research findings in online learning and
distance education context. Still, a shortcoming of prior studies is that they merely
examine several specific potential barriers to MOOC-learning and are limited in their
empirical analysis. As it is important to continue to explore potential barriers to
MOOC-learning to gain a richer understanding of these issues [17, 21], a next step is to
generate a composite overview of potential MOOC-specific barriers or groupings of
barriers based on literature and related studies as already available in online learning or
distance education context [9, 10].
Henderikx et al. [3], composed an overview of potential barriers based on a limited
literature review and made a first effort to categorize these barriers (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Overview of barriers arranged by type [3]

The choice for categorization was based on the rationale: which classification
would be most useful to MOOC-designers and/or providers and MOOC-takers. The
current study took this initial typology of barriers in MOOCs as a starting point. In
addition, this overview was expanded by the (potential) barrier items based on findings
in the previously discussed literature. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to
empirically summarize the data set and to categorize the barriers.

3 Method
3.1 Participants
The participants were individuals who took part in one or more MOOCs in the Spanish
language from different MOOC providers in the last 2 years and who indicated that we
could contact them for further research, regardless of whether or not they successfully
achieved their personal goals in these MOOCs. 1618 Potential respondents received an
invitation to participate in the survey of whom 317 actually completed the survey
 A Classification of Barriers that Influence Intention Achievement in MOOCs 7

(163 women, 154 men, Mage = 47, age range: 20–83 years). Most of the participants
hold a master (26.1%) or bachelor (32.9%) degree. 8.1% of the participants have a
doctorate degree, while 24.8% have an associate or secondary education degree. The
remaining 8.1% of the participants finished middle school or below. 66.1% Of the
participants are employed for wages, while 13.9% are self-employed. A further 8.5% is
currently looking for work and 1.7% is not looking for work. 3.4% of the participants
are students, 0.3 military and 6.1% indicated that were retired or other. A majority of
the participants participated in up to 5 MOOCs (45.2%). 27.9% participated in 6 to 10
MOOCs, 17% between 11 and 20 MOOCs and 9.9% between 21 and 100 MOOCs.
Furthermore, 58.3% of the participants actually finished between 1 and 5 MOOCs,
23.7% finished between 6 and 10 MOOCs, 10.2% between 11 and 20 MOOCs and
7.8% indicated that they finished between 21 and 80 MOOCs. Lastly, 24.4% of the
participants prefer the traditional face-to-face way of learning, 39.3% indicates that it
makes no difference to them whether they learn face-to-face or online and 36.3%
prefers to learn online. Overall, the sample is similar to samples reported in other
research on MOOCs [22].

3.2 Materials
A ‘Barriers to MOOC-learning’ survey was developed, which contained items drawn
from general online learning, distance education and MOOC-specific context literature
on barriers and enablers to learning, as discussed in previous section. After answering
several general questions on gender, age, educational background, employment status,
MOOC-learning experience and preferred learning context, respondents were asked to
indicate to what extent they considered the 44 listed items as barriers to learning in a
MOOC on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘to a very large extent’ to ‘not at all’.
Examples of items are ‘lack of decent feedback’, ‘family issues’, ‘technical problems
with the computer’ and ‘lack of instructor presence’.

3.3 Procedure
Over the course of several weeks potential respondents were invited via email batches
using the open source online survey tool Limesurvey (visit http://www.limesurvey.org).
Filling out the questionnaire took 5–10 min. After four and six weeks, a reminder was
sent to those who did not yet completed the survey.

3.4 Data Screening

The Mahalanobis distance was calculated to identify possible outliers. Based on these
calculations, 22 outliers were determined and removed, which resulted in a final sample
of 295 cases, which is within the generally accepted item ratio to conduct a factor
analysis of 5 to 10 respondents per item [23].
8 M. Henderikx et al.

3.5 Analysis
The suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed by first examining the
correlation between items. It was observed that all items correlated with at least .3 with
one other item, which is a positive indication of factorability. Additionally, the Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin measure showed a value of .95 which exceeded the recommended
minimum value of .6 [24, 25] and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was statistically
significant (p < .05), which further supports the factorability of the data. Lastly, the
communalities all exceeded .3 (see Fig. 2). Given these indicators, the factorability of
the data could be considered positive.
Principal component analysis was selected as extraction method because this
method allows for reducing the observed variables to a smaller set of independent
composite variables. A cut-off of 0.4 was used for statistical significance of the com-
ponent loadings and the component structure was examined using both Varimax and
Oblimin rotation. After initial analysis, the Oblimin rotation was selected as this
rotation method produced the simplest component structure. The Kaiser criterion [26],
which retains components with an eigenvalue above 1, and inspection of the scree plot
were used to determine the number of components. Yet, as these methods are not
considered very accurate [27], parallel analysis was also performed. The first analysis
showed the presence of 6 components with eigenvalues above 1, explaining respec-
tively 48,2%, 9,2%, 5,8%, 4,5%, 2,6% and 2,3% of the variance, yet with very few or
no loadings in the last two components. The screen plot indicated a break after the 4th
component. This was further supported by the results of parallel analysis, which pro-
duced 4 random eigenvalues smaller than the first 4 eigenvalues of the PCA. Solutions
for 4 and 5 components were then examined, also using Oblimin rotation. The
4-component solution, which explained 67,7% of the variability was preferred because
of (a) the combined results of the scree plot and the parallel analyses and (b) the
reasonably clear interpretable components.
A total of nine items were removed because they did not meet the criteria of no
cross-loading of .4 and failed to have a primary component loading of more than .4,
thus not contributing to a simple component structure. The items ‘Procrastinate (delay),
cannot get started’, ‘Lack of instructor presence’, ‘Insufficient training/experience to
use the delivery system’, ‘Lack of adequate internet access’, ‘Lack of technical
assistance’, ‘Technical problems with the site’ and ‘Lack of language skills’ had cross-
loadings of more than .4 on multiple components. The items ‘Course content was too
easy’ and ‘Course content was too hard’ did not load above .4 on any component.
Furthermore, two items which seem very similar: ‘workplace issues’ and ‘workplace
commitments’ were not removed as their mutual correlation was low to medium.
For the final stage, a factor analysis of the remaining 35 items, using the principal
component extraction method and oblimin rotation was conducted, forcing four
components explaining 70,4% of the variance (see Table 1). All items in this analysis
had primary loadings over .4 on one single component. The component loading matrix
for this final solution is presented in Fig. 2.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
conscious expression of countenance to accompany the words she
had spoken. But she was looking into his eyes quite earnestly.
He turned his face away from her for an instant, and then, with an air
of having worked out a problem——
“I don’t believe I would,” he said.
“It might frighten him?” she suggested.
“Not that. He might not think it very polite.”
She looked at him studiously a little, her earnest eyes seeming to
search his soul. Then she ventured upon a story:
“I got on a street-car with Miss Barry to-day, and we sat down on a
seat with a fat woman; and, believe me, the big thing nearly
squeezed the gizzard out of me.”
Her eyes grew wide with excitement as she achieved the climax.
She waited for his comment.
His eyelids quivered slightly. He decided to pay no more attention to
her, despite her prettiness. What language! He stared resolutely at
his programme a full minute. But he could not shake off the influence
of her steady gaze. “I think you must be exaggerating,” he said
finally, with mild irritation.
“Not at all, really.”
“Well, then,” he added impatiently, “I think your language is—is
indelicate.”
“Do you, indeed?” She considered this. “Of course that’s a matter of
opinion.” She abandoned the subject and seemed to be searching
his face for a topic which might be more acceptable. “A good many
things have happened to me,” she ventured presently. “I came within
an inch of getting caught by the curtain once.”
He had no idea what she meant.
She continued: “It was in a regular tank town somewhere. I never
pay any attention to the names of the little towns.” Her tone clearly
conveyed the fact that she wished to get away from controversial
topics. She waited, plainly puzzled, rather than discouraged,
because she received no response. “You know,” she elaborated, “the
audiences in the little towns don’t care much whether it’s something
legitimate, or a tambourine show with a lot of musty jokes.”
Still Baron’s inclination was to make no response; but really there
was such an amazing contrast between her innocent beauty and her
gamin-like speech that he could not easily ignore her.
“I’m not sure I know the difference myself,” he confessed.
“Well, you’d rather see ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ than a lot of Honey Boys,
wouldn’t you?”
“I’m afraid I’d be in favor of the Honey Boys, whoever they are,
unless they are pretty bad.”
She looked incredulous, and then disappointed. For an instant she
turned her back on him with resolution. He observed that she
squirmed herself into a position of dignified uprightness in her chair.
After a brief interval she turned to him with renewed hope. “Maybe
you’re prejudiced against ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’?” she ventured.
“Frankly, I am.”
“You’re not down on the legitimate, though?”
“I like plays—if that’s what you mean.”
Her forehead wrinkled. “Certainly that’s what I mean. What did you
think I meant?”
“Why, you see, I wasn’t quite sure.”
She searched his eyes suspiciously; then suddenly she dimpled.
“Tell me—are you an actor? Or aren’t you?”
“No—assuredly not!”
She was genuinely embarrassed. She allowed her face to drop into
her hands, and Baron felt from her gesture that she must be blushing
though he could see that she was not.
After a little she laughed weakly. “How childish of me!” she
exclaimed. “I really had no right to make such a mistake. But please
tell me how you happen to be up in this box?”
“The manager was good enough to direct an usher to bring me
here.”
“Well, you know, I thought this box was always given to us—to the
profession, I mean. I do hope you’ll forgive me.” She seemed
prepared to withdraw her interest from him then, as if he no longer
concerned her in any way.
But Baron was looking at her searchingly, almost rudely. “Are you an
—an actress?” he managed to ask.
Her manner changed. For the first time Baron detected an
affectation. She looked beyond him, out toward the chattering
audience, with an absurd assumption of weariness.
“I thought everybody knew me,” she said. “I’m Bonnie May. You’ve
heard of me, of course?” and she brought her eyes back to his
anxiously.
“Why, yes, of course,” he assented. He was uncomfortable over the
untruth—or over the fact that he had not told it adroitly.
“I wouldn’t have talked to you so freely if I hadn’t thought you were
an actor,” she explained. “You know we always treat one another
that way.”
His manner softened. “I’m sure I understand,” he assured her.
“I thought everybody knew me,” she said. “I’m Bonnie
May.”
He perceived that, despite the lightness of her manner, she was truly
ashamed of her mistake. It seemed to him that she was regretfully
slipping back into her own world, her own realm of thought. And she
was speedily becoming, to him, not a pert minx, but just a lonely,
friendly little child.
“I don’t believe I know just where you are appearing now,” he said.
For the moment he could not do less than appear to be interested in
her.
She moved uncomfortably in her chair. “I’m not doing anything just
now,” she said. Then her eyes brightened. “The manager skipped
just when business was picking up. We had to close our season.
Such a jay town we closed in. The people wanted to hold our trunks!”
“But they didn’t?”
“No, we gave one more performance, so we could square up.”
“Why shouldn’t you have kept on giving performances?”
“Of course, you wouldn’t understand. You see, the manager was our
Simon Legree, and we couldn’t do without him.”
“But that last performance——”
“The constable who came to hold our things said he’d take the part
of Simon Legree just once, so we could pay our bills and get out of
town. He said there was sure to be a crowd if it was known that he
would be one of the actors. He said he’d always wanted to be an
actor, but that his parents thought it would be sinful for him to act.”
“But did he know the part?”
“He didn’t have to. Even in the profession there are a lot of us who
don’t know our parts half the time. You may have noticed. The
constable said he could ‘pop a whip’ and we told him that would do,
if he would remember to say ‘You black rascal!’ every little while.
That would be to Uncle Tom, you know. Our Uncle Tom did both
parts. That happens lots of times. With any play, I mean. He’d say:
‘Yo’ say Ah b’longs to you, Massa Legree? Oh, no, Massa Legree,
Ah don’ b’long to you. Yo’ may own mah body, but yo’ don’ own mah
soul.’ Saying both parts, you know.”
When Baron laughed at this she joined in the merriment and even
promoted it. “The constable enjoyed it,” she said. “He said he’d like
to leave town with us and play the part all the time.”
“He’d got over thinking it was sinful for him to act?”
“Yes, but the rest of us thought his first hunch was right. Besides,
there were other difficulties. You see, our Topsy was the manager’s
wife, and she wouldn’t play any more until she found her husband.
She wasn’t much of an artist. Anyway, we had to quit.”
Baron sent a wandering glance over the theatre; but he was thinking
of neither audience nor play. He wondered whose child this could be,
and by what chance a little creature so alert and so friendly in her
outlook upon life should be deeply submerged in the make-believe of
men, when she should have been reading only the primer of real
things.
Then by chance his eyes fell upon Thornburg, the manager, who
stood just inside the foyer, engaged in what was seemingly an
intense conversation with a tall, decidedly striking-looking woman.
And even as his eyes rested upon these two they looked up at him
as if he were the subject of their conversation. Or were they not,
more probably, discussing the child who sat near him?
He had no time to pursue his reflections. The orchestra brought to its
climax the long overture which it had been playing with almost
grotesque inadequacy, and the curtain went up on the next act.
There was the sudden diminuendo of voices throughout the house,
and the stealthy disturbance of an individual here and there feeling
his way to his seat. Then again Baron was lost in the progress of the
play.
The child shrank into herself again and became once more an
absorbed, unobtruding little creature.
Baron sat in rapt silence for half an hour; and then the master
dramatist, Fate, intervened, and proceeded to make him a figure in
one of those real dramas before which all make-believe fades into
insignificance.
At the left of the stage a flame went leaping up along the inner edge
of one of the wings, and took swift hold of a cloud of filmy fabric
overhead. The theatre was afire!
Baron saw and was incredulous. The child near him remained
undisturbed. The persons on the stage continued their work with an
evenness which, to Baron, became suddenly a deadly monotony.
But back in those realms in the theatre which were all but hidden
from him he saw the swift movements of men who were confronted
with an unwonted, a fearful task.
He turned to the child with sudden purpose, with a manner that was
harsh and peremptory. “Come!” he said. His voice was subdued yet
vibrant.
The child noted the vibration and quickly caught the expression of
command in his eyes. She put out a hand toward him obediently, but
he excitedly ignored that. He gathered her into his arms and
disappeared from the box. In an instant he was carrying her
cautiously yet swiftly down a narrow stairway.
He skirted the wall of the theatre and passed the manager in the
foyer. He paused long enough to whisper a few startling words, and
then hurried toward the entrance. His ears were fortified for the
screams of women; but he heard only the dull sound of the asbestos
curtain being lowered as he passed out to the street. He did not
hesitate until he had turned a corner and was well out of the way of a
possible panic-stricken crowd.
He put the child down on the sidewalk; she was really a good deal
above the weight of those children who are usually carried. A few
steps and they had reached a confectioner’s shop, in which women
and children were sitting at little tables, oblivious to all menaces, far
or near.
“Let’s go in here,” he said, trying to assume a matter-of-fact tone.
The child looked searchingly into his eyes. “What was it?” she asked.
“What was what?”
“Don’t!” she exclaimed with impatience. And then she looked up and
down the street, where the constant stream of strangers passed.
She felt forlorn, alone. She turned again to Baron as to a final refuge.
“I behaved myself,” she said. “I didn’t wait to ask what was the
matter—I didn’t say a word. But I knew something had happened. I
could hear your heart beating. I knew it was something terrible. But
you could tell me now!”
Baron guided her to a chair and released her with a feeling of relief.
His impulse was to take his departure and let the incident end as it
might. But that wouldn’t do, certainly! What would the confectioner
do with the child? Besides, there was something about her——
Through the fitful symphony of the city’s noises the clang of an
alarm-bell sounded.
The child lifted her head; her eyes became wide with excitement.
“There’s a fire!” she exclaimed.
“Yes,” admitted Baron. “It’s in the theatre. I thought we ought to come
out, though of course it may not amount to anything. We’ll wait here
until the excitement is over, and then we’ll go out and find your——”
He did not finish the sentence. He realized that he did not know how.
Instead he turned to a clerk and ordered something—he scarcely
knew what. He was listening to those noises out in the street; he was
noting, soon with great relief, that they were abating rapidly. Clearly
there had been no real danger, after all.
He led his charge from the place presently. He noticed that she had
not touched a little dish of something the clerk had set before her.
On the street again he was surprised to perceive that the normal
activities of the neighborhood had been resumed. The audience in
the theatre had been dismissed upon some pretext of a nature not at
all terrifying. The fire had been extinguished. The lobby was
deserted. No one was searching or waiting for a little girl, or seemed
to be remotely interested in one.
“Strange!” reflected Baron. He was wholly outside the realm of
make-believe now. He was amid painfully prosaic surroundings.
He turned to his companion. “Er—your name has escaped me for
the minute——”
“Bonnie May.”
“Of course. Well, Bonnie May, I think I’ll have to take you home.”
“Whose home—yours?” she asked.
“Good gracious, no! To your own!”
She peered into the lobby searchingly, the light slowly fading from
her eyes.
“But I haven’t any home,” she said.
 CHAPTER II
A MOMENTOUS DECISION

It was all very well for a young man of an almost painfully

circumspect type to rescue a youthful female from danger. It was a
different matter, however, when he found himself walking along a
crowded thoroughfare, leading a waif in a fantastic and almost
shabby dress, and bringing upon himself the curious, if not the
suspicious, glances of passers-by.
This fact struck Baron forcibly and unpleasantly.
“Come, let’s get inside somewhere,” he said to his companion. He
spoke almost abjectly, as if he had been a soldier seeking a hiding-
place behind a wall. “This place will do!” He had espied a haven in
the form of a restaurant, deserted by all save two or three young
women wearing waitresses’ aprons and caps.
Bonnie May looked at him inquiringly, almost piteously. This
movement was a mere strategy, she realized. It was not a time for
eating. But the ready speech of half an hour ago had deserted her,
and she entered the restaurant, when Baron opened the door for her,
without saying a word. Indeed she stood so forlornly and
dependently that her companion realized anew that he had
somehow committed an enormous blunder.
“Sit down somewhere,” he said almost impatiently; and when he
noted the childish effort with which she wriggled into her chair, and
tried heroically to assume a debonair manner, a feeling deeper than
mere irritation seized him.
“Darn the luck!” he ruminated; “she’s so little, and so lovely—what’s
a fellow to do in such a case, anyway?”
“It doesn’t seem quite a suitable time to be eating, does it?” she
observed politely. The words were accompanied by a gently
deprecatory smile which amazed Baron by a quality of odd
sophistication and practised self-restraint.
“We needn’t eat anything,” he said, more cordially. “I think we ought
to order something to drink. You see, I have to decide what to do.”
She adjusted certain articles on the table with feminine nicety.
“That’s very good of you, I’m sure,” she said.
“What is?”
“I mean your taking an interest in me.”
“An interest in you! What else can I do?”
She propped her face up in the palms of her hands and looked
across the table at him meditatively.
“Don’t!” he exclaimed. “I’m not used to having a cherub on my
hands. It’s my own predicament I’m thinking about, not yours. Do
you drink milk?”
A waitress had approached and was standing behind them.
She resented his brusque manner, now that the waitress was there
to hear. “I have done such a thing,” she said. “As a rule I’m permitted
to choose for myself.”
“Well, by all means do, then.”
She turned to the waitress and lowered her voice by a full tone. “A
cup of chocolate, please; not too thick; and some wafers.” She faced
Baron again with a ready change of countenance and voice, and
touched upon some trivial subject which he recognized as a formal
means of dispelling any impression that there was something
unusual in their relationship or appearance.
“Now, Bonnie May,” he began, when they were alone, “I want you to
help me as far as you can. Who took you to the theatre this
afternoon?”
“I went with Miss Barry.”
“Good. Who is Miss Barry?”
“Miss Florence Barry. You don’t mean to say you don’t know who she
is?”
“I never heard of her.”
“She’s an actress. She’s very well known, too.”
“Very well. How did she happen to take you? How did you happen to
be with her?”
“I’ve always been with her. She’s all I’ve got.”
“We’re getting along nicely. You’re related to her, I suppose?”
“I couldn’t say. It’s possible.”
Baron frowned. “Your mother is dead?” he asked.
She gazed at him with a gathering cloud in her eyes—a look that
was eloquent of secret sorrow and beseechment. But she made no
response in words.
Baron felt the pangs of swift remorse. “I suppose Miss Barry will
have to do,” he said, with an attempt at kindly brusqueness. Then
—“Can you tell me her address?”
“I don’t suppose she has any. We’ve been doing one-night stands
quite a long time.”
“But she must belong some place—and you, too. Where have you
been stopping?”
“We only got here yesterday. I see you don’t quite understand. We’ve
just been moving from place to place all the time.”
Baron pondered. “Have you always lived in hotels, in one town or
another?” he finally asked.
“Hotels—and theatres and rooming-houses, and trains and even
wagons and carriages. Every kind of place.”
“I see. Well, where did you stop last night?”
“We had a room somewhere. I really couldn’t tell you where. It was
the meanest kind of a place—empty and cold—quite a distance from
the theatre. It was in a long row of houses, built one up against
another, miles and miles long, with cheap, little old stores or shops
down-stairs, and sometimes rooms above that you could rent. We
were just getting ready to look for an engagement, you know, and we
were broke. We couldn’t afford to go to a nice place.”
The fine show of bravery was beginning to pass. She felt that she
was being questioned unsympathetically.
Baron, too, realized that his questions must seem to lack
friendliness.
The waiter brought chocolate and coffee, and Baron dropped sugar
into his cup, thoughtfully watching the little bubbles that arose. Then,
much to Bonnie May’s surprise, and not a little to her relief, he
laughed softly.
“What is it?” she asked eagerly.
“Oh, nothing.”
“I beg your pardon, I’m sure,” was Bonnie May’s chilling rejoinder.
She began to sip her chocolate with impressive elegance.
“Why not?” reflected Baron. He was drawing a picture of Bonnie May
in his mother’s presence—his mother, who was the most punctilious
of all elderly ladies, and whose genuine goodness of heart was
usually quite concealed by the studied way in which she adhered to
the unbending social codes that must govern a Baron—or, rather, a
Boone. She was a Boone—of the Virginia Boones—when she
married Baron’s father; a beauty who had been wealthy, despite the
disintegration of the Boone fortunes when the Civil War freed the
slaves.
He pictured Bonnie May in the dim old mansion that was his home—
in that aged house that never knew the voices of children; in which
even adults seemed always to be speaking in low, measured tones.
“The governess isn’t as bad as she would like to appear,” was his
irreverent meditation, which still related to his mother. “And Flora
would take my part. As for the governor——”
He turned to the child with decision. He realized, finally, that the
question of treating her just as if she were any other lost child was
not to be considered.
“Bonnie May,” he said, “I think you’d better go home with me for the
time being. We can put something in the paper, you know, and I’ll
find out if Miss Barry has left any word with the police. But that can’t
be done in a minute, and of course we can’t sit here all afternoon.
Come, let’s go home.”
The waitress came forward to assist when she saw Bonnie May
trying to climb down from her chair without loss of dignity.
“It was very nice,” said the child, addressing the waitress. She was
smiling angelically. “I think we’re ready,” she added, turning toward
Baron.
She tried to catch step with him as they moved toward the door.

And Baron could not possibly have known that at that very moment
his mother and his sister Flora were sitting in an upper room of the
mansion, brooding upon the evil days that had fallen upon the family
fortunes.
Theirs was a very stately and admirable home—viewed from within.
But it was practically all that the family possessed, and the
neighborhood—well, the neighborhood had wholly lost eligibility as a
place for residences long ago.
All their friends, who had formerly been their neighbors, had moved
away, one after another, when commerce had descended upon the
street, with its grime and smoke, and only the Barons remained.
Certainly cities grow without any regard at all for the dignity of old
mansions or old families.
And while the ground on which the mansion stood had increased in
value until it was worth a considerable fortune, it was a carefully
guarded family secret that the actual supply of funds in the family
treasury had dwindled down to next to nothing.
One permanent investment brought Mrs. Baron a few hundreds
annually, and Mr. Baron drew a modest salary from a position with
the city, which he had held many years without complaint or lapses.
But the fortune that used to be theirs had vanished mysteriously in
trips to Europe and in the keeping up of those social obligations
which they could not disregard. The formal social activities of the
mansion had become wholly things of the past, and within the past
year or two the visits of old friends, now living out in commodious
new residential districts, had become few and far between. Really it
seemed that the Barons had been forgotten.
Flora, looking suddenly into her mother’s brooding, fine old eyes,
and quite accurately reading the thought that was beyond them,
sighed and arose.
“It’s the neighborhood,” she said—quite ambiguously, it would have
seemed, since not a word had passed between them for nearly half
an hour.
But Mrs. Baron responded: “Do you think so?” And her face stiffened
with new resolve not to repine, even if the currents of life had drawn
away from them and left them desolate.
Then an automobile drew up in front of the mansion and Flora’s face
brightened. “They’ve come!” she said. “I won’t be gone long, mother,”
and she hurried away to her room.
A moment later Mrs. Baron heard her going down the stairs and
closing the front door.
She stood at the window and watched Flora get into the shining
electric coupé of the McKelvey girls. She caught a glimpse of the
McKelvey girls’ animated faces, and then the elegant little vehicle
moved away.
Still she stood at the window. Her face was rather proud and defiant.
And then after a time it became, suddenly, quite blank.
There was Victor coming up the stone steps into the yard, and he
was leading a waif by the hand. Only the word “waif” did not occur to
Mrs. Baron.
“Well!” she exclaimed, her body rigid, her eyes staring out from
beneath pugnacious brows. “Victor and an impossible little female!”
 CHAPTER III
MRS. BARON DECIDES

As Baron felt for his key he stood an instant and surveyed the other
side of the street, up and down the block. A frown gathered on his
forehead.
Bonnie May, keyed to a very high pitch, noted that frowning survey of
the line of buildings across the way. “Something wrong?” she asked.
“No, certainly not,” responded Baron; but to himself he was admitting
that there was something very wrong indeed. It was the
neighborhood. This was his conclusion, just as it had been Flora’s.
He had become conscious of the frowning, grimy fronts; the windows
which were like eyes turning baleful glances upon the thoroughfare.
The grass-plots, the flower-beds, the suitable carpets spread for the
feet of spring—what had become of them?
A dissolute-appearing old woman was scrubbing the ancient stone
steps in one place across the way. She suggested better days just
as obviously as did the stones, worn away by generations of feet.
And a little farther along there were glaring plate-glass fronts bearing
gilt legends which fairly shrieked those commercial words—which
ought to have been whispered from side doors, Baron thought—
Shoes, and Cloaks, and Hats.
What sort of a vicinity was this in which to have a home?
Baron wondered why the question had not occurred to him before.
He did not realize that he was viewing the street now for the first time
through the eyes of a child who owed the neighborhood no sort of
sentimental loyalty.
“Here we are!” he exclaimed as he produced his key; but his tone
was by no means as cheerful as he tried to make it.
Bonnie May hung back an instant, as a butterfly might pause at the
entrance of a dark wood. She glanced into the dark vestibule before
her inquiringly. Her eyebrows were critically elevated.
“Is it a—a rooming-house?” she faltered.
“Nonsense! It’s always been called a mansion. It’s a charming old
place, too—I assure you! Come, we ought not to stand here.”
He was irritated. More so than he had been before when his
companion’s look or word had served as a reminder that he was
doing an extraordinary, if not a foolish, thing. He would not have
admitted it, but he was nervous, too. His mother hadn’t been at all
amiable of late. There wasn’t any telling what she would do when he
said to her, in effect: “Here’s a lost child. I don’t know anything at all
about her, but I expect you to help her.”
Suppose she should decide to express her frank opinion of waifs,
and of people who brought them home?
He fumbled a little as he unlocked the door. His heart was fairly
pounding.
“There you are!” he exclaimed. His voice was as gayly hospitable as
he could make it, but his secret thought was: “If she weren’t so—so
—Oh, darn it, if she were like any other child I’d shut her out this
minute and let that be the end of it.”
The hall was shadowy; yet even in the dim light Baron perceived that
the marble balustrade of the stairway was strangely cold and
unattractive—and he had always considered this one of the fine
things about the house. So, too, was the drawing-room gloomy
almost to darkness. The blinds were down as always, save on
special occasions. And Baron realized that the family had long ago
ceased to care about looking out upon the street, or to permit the
street to get a glimpse of the life within. Indeed, he realized with a bit
of a shock that the home life had been almost entirely removed to
the upper floor—as if the premises were being submerged by a
flood.
He lifted one of the blinds. “Sit down,” he said. “I’ll find mother.”
“What do you use this room for?” inquired Bonnie May. She was
slightly pale. She seemed to be fortifying herself for weird
developments.
“I hardly know,” Baron confessed. “I think we don’t use it very much
at all.”
“You might think from the properties that it was a rooming-house.”
She had wriggled into a chair that was too high for her. Her curiosity
was unconcealed. Baron could see by the look in her eyes that she
had not meant her comment to be derisive, but only a statement of
fact.
“Possibly you haven’t seen many quite old, thoroughly established
homes,” he suggested. The remark wasn’t meant at all as a rebuke.
It represented the attitude of mind with which Baron had always
been familiar.
“Anyway,” she persisted, “it wouldn’t do for an up-to-date interior. It
might do for an Ibsen play.”
Baron, about to leave the room to find his mother, turned sharply.
“What in the world do you know about Ibsen plays?” he asked
sharply. “Besides, you’re not in a theatre! If you’ll excuse me a
minute——”
There were footsteps on the stairway, and Baron’s countenance
underwent a swift change. He withdrew a little way into the room, so
that he stood close to Bonnie May. He was trying to look conciliatory
when his mother appeared in the doorway; but guilt was really the
expression that was stamped on his face.
It was a very austere-looking old lady who looked into the room.
“Good evening,” she said, as if she were addressing strangers. Still,
Baron detected a wryly humorous smile on her lips. She stood quite
still, critically inspecting her son as well as his companion.
Baron was glad that Bonnie May sprang to her feet instantly with
comprehension and respect. “This is my mother, Mrs. Baron,” he
said to the child; and to the quizzical old lady, who regarded him with
a steady question, he added foolishly, “this is a little girl I have
brought home.”
“So I should have surmised.” Her tone was hardening. Her attitude
was fearfully unyielding. It seemed to Baron that her gray hair, which
rose high and free from her forehead, had never imparted so much
severity to her features before, and that her black eyes had never
seemed so imperious.
But Bonnie May was advancing very prettily. “How do you do, Mrs.
Baron?” she inquired. She was smiling almost radiantly. “I do hope I
don’t intrude,” she added.
Mrs. Baron looked down at her with frank amazement. For the
moment she forgot the presence of her son. She took the child’s
outstretched hand.
Perhaps the touch of a child’s fingers to a woman who has had
children but who has them no longer is magical. Perhaps Bonnie
May was quite as extraordinary as Victor Baron had thought her. At
any rate, Mrs. Baron’s face suddenly softened. She drew the child
into the protection of her arm and held her close, looking at her son.