Can Co-Creating and Participating in a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Develop Climate Change Leaders?

Abstract

There is an urgent need to develop climate leaders who can inspire and support mitigation and adaptation actions. This exploratory study assessed the experiences of two student populations: (1) remote learners who participated in, and (2) student co-creators who co-designed, the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Act on Climate: Steps to Individual, Community and Political Action (AoC). It examines the extent to which participation and involvement in the course facilitated the development of climate leadership practices of both populations. MOOC remote learners’ answers to discussion prompts (2099 responses from 705 learners) and student co-creators’ interview responses (n = 10, r = 83%) were qualitatively analyzed, informed by Kouzes and Posner’s (2018) five key practices of effective leaders. Findings suggest that remote learners and student co-creators engaged in these key leadership practices to varying degrees. For example, both groups “modeled the way” by taking climate change action consistent with their values and “inspired a shared vision” by conveying desired futures for the planet. Both remote learners and student co-creators attributed these practices to a range of features embedded in the MOOC (e.g., being prompted to research and take mitigation and adaptation actions) and the process of co-creation (e.g., having the agency to creatively and collaboratively produce course content). Given the positive potential for both populations, this paper argues for more research, including experimental studies, to learn how MOOCs and co-creation processes can best be designed to support participants’ climate leadership development.

1. Introduction

Climate change is one of the most critical challenges of our time, requiring transformation at the individual, organizational, community, and political levels [1]. Such transformations, in turn, necessitate leaders who model and inspire the actions needed to bring about what some have referred to as a “sustainability revolution” [2,3] or a global shift toward more sustainable practices and ways of life. Education is key to bringing about that revolution [4,5], and much has been learned, for example, about how to promote climate literacy (i.e., increasing individuals’ knowledge about climate change), especially among youth and young adults [6,7], who may help to precipitate such a revolution.

The same is not the case, however, for climate leadership (i.e., individual practices that bring about positive societal change within the context of climate change). Little is known about the kinds of practices climate leaders engage in or how these can be developed through educational interventions [8]. Despite higher education institutions’ (HEIs) missions to develop societal leaders (e.g., [9]), scant research examines HEI contexts through the lens of climate leadership. Changes are afoot, however, as HEIs have become increasingly committed to climate (leadership) education [10,11]. What is not clear is to what extent these efforts, including the growing number of residential and online course offerings typically focused on climate literacy, develop climate leaders. Just as climate literacy does not necessarily result in mitigation and adaptation actions [12,13], it is not clear that climate literacy results in climate leadership.

Online education is a promising modality for promoting climate leadership at scale. Compared to residential programs, which tend to have relatively small enrollments and, in countries such as the United States of America (USA), come at a great financial expense to learners, online learning opportunities such as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are available at no or relatively small costs [14], despite typically being taught by university faculty experts [15].

In recognition of the potential for online learning, HEIs have supported the development of numerous MOOCs on a great range of climate science and policy topics. With few exceptions, however, little is known about the effectiveness of climate education delivered through MOOCs. One study from Otto et al. focuses on the extent to which two MOOCs on climate change and environmental justice increase remote learners’ climate literacy [16]. In this study, both MOOCs primarily attracted remote learners who were already interested in climate change; nonetheless, online learning improved participants’ knowledge about climate change. In addition, remote learners who completed these two MOOCs reported improvements in their ability to (1) scrutinize media coverage about climate change, (2) explain the interrelatedness of diverse perspectives, and (3) engage in climate change debates with individuals from different backgrounds, all of which are practices of potential import for climate leaders [16]. Based on these findings, online climate education through MOOCs appears to have the potential to support the development of skills important to climate leadership.

Consistent with this Special Issue’s goal to address the gap in research on climate leadership education in higher education contexts, our study focused on assessing the effectiveness of two innovative pedagogies increasingly employed by HEIs, that of online education through MOOCs and that of co-creation with students as partners [16,17,18]. As suggested above, there is some evidence that MOOCs can support learning, including about climate change. The literature on the topic, however, is still nascent. The “students as partners” pedagogy, one in which students and instructors work collaboratively to design and improve educational experiences, has also resulted in improved learning [19,20]. To date, however, there has been limited research on its effectiveness, particularly with respect to climate education. In fact, only one study employing the “students as partners” pedagogy has focused on an environmental sustainability context [21]. That study found that collaborative pedagogy resulted in increased enactment of core sustainability competencies among students, including leadership skills [21].

The goal of the study reported on here was to build on these findings and contribute to the limited body of research on the potential for MOOCs to contribute to the development of climate leadership among remote learners. The study also expands upon the existing body of work on residential student participation in and co-design of online instructional experiences. The following research questions underlie the study:

(1)

To what extent does participation in a MOOC focused on promoting climate action at the individual, community, and political levels develop leadership practices among its online/remote learners?

(2)

To what extent does the co-design of a MOOC focused on promoting climate action at the individual, community, and political levels develop leadership practices among its residential student co-creators?

Within the context of this Special Issue and its focus on climate leadership, this study provides evidence that a MOOC co-designed by a HEI faculty member and students, one focused on climate literacy as well as mitigation and adaptation actions, can indeed develop climate leaders both among remote learners and student co-creators. The study examines leadership through the framework of Kouzes and Posner’s [22] exemplary leadership practices. This framework, consisting of five exemplary leadership practices further described below, was chosen to guide our data analysis because (1) it is highly cited within the leadership literature, (2) it has broad applicability based on empirical research repeated by the authors in a variety of settings every seven years, (3) it has an accompanying book to assess and support higher education student leadership [22], and (4) it has overlap with the existing body of work on leadership practices in sustainability and climate change contexts.

Given the study’s focus on two distinct student populations, the paper will refer to individual, online “learners” (i.e., those who participated in the MOOC remotely) and “student co-creators” (i.e., those who worked as residential partners with the faculty member to co-design the MOOC for online learners). The subsequent literature review is followed by an overview of “Act on Climate: Steps to Individual, Community, and Political Action” (AoC). This MOOC, hosted by the University of Michigan on the Coursera platform, served as the case context for our study. AoC was selected to serve as the case context for this study because this MOOC’s primary goal was to empower individuals to change their own and others’ actions on climate change, an important leadership practice distinct from climate literacy. One of the study’s co-authors was the faculty member who led and facilitated the co-creation of AoC. After describing the study’s methods, the results section describes the leadership practices MOOC learners and student co-creators developed as a result of their participation and involvement. The concluding discussion compares findings across MOOC learners and student co-creators and outlines implications for future research and practice.

2. Conceptual Framework, Literature Review, and Context

2.1. Leadership

The primary goal of this Special Issue is to identify a range of pedagogies that contribute to the development of climate leaders within higher education contexts while elucidating what it means to be a climate leader.

Given the limited research on practices that effective climate-specific leaders engage in, research on leadership broadly conducted by Kouzes and Posner [22] provided the foundation for our analysis. This framework is based on a large body of empirical research, drawing from hundreds of interviews, thousands of cases, and hundreds of thousands of survey questionnaires administered to leaders working in a range of positions and sectors, demonstrating a breadth of leadership practice examples. Based on what leaders did when they were “at their personal best,” the two authors argue that leadership consists of a “measurable, learnable, and teachable set of behaviors” [22] (p. xi). These behaviors are distilled into five core practices: (1) modeling the way (clarify values by finding your voice and affirming shared values and set the example by aligning actions with shared values), (2) inspiring a shared vision (envision the future by imagining exciting and ennobling possibilities and enlist others in a common vision by appealing to shared aspirations), (3) challenging the process (search for opportunities by seizing the initiative and looking outward for innovative ways to improve and experiment and take risks by consistently generating small wins and learning from experience), (4) enabling others to act (foster collaboration by building trust and facilitating relationships and strengthen others by increasing self-determination and developing competence), and (5) encouraging the heart (recognize contributions by showing appreciation for individual excellence and celebrate values and victories by creating a spirit of community).

These five leadership practices appear largely consistent with those identified as critical for sustainability leaders. For example, Boone et al. [23] conducted interviews with twenty inter- and trans-disciplinary (ITD) sustainability leaders across nine different universities and research institutions. They found that general leadership qualities (i.e., creativity, open-mindedness, and being a team-player), as well as ITD-specific qualities (i.e., visioning beyond the status quo, creating a shared culture, promoting collaboration and partnerships, modeling perseverance, and ability to communicate with multiple audiences), were necessary to achieve ITD’s solutions-oriented mission. These leadership qualities closely mirror Wiek et al.’s [24] sustainability competencies for higher education students, i.e., systems, anticipatory or future, normative, strategic, and interpersonal or collaborative thinking. Similar practices and qualities, such as being collaborative, integrating systems thinking, foresighted strategizing, and focusing on actionable outcomes through a shared vision, are present throughout much of the sustainability leadership literature [24,25,26,27,28].

Scholars argue that climate leaders must engage in mitigation and adaptation actions [25,29,30], a practice that is consistent with Kouzes and Posner’s modeling the way [22]. By engaging in these actions, climate leaders can influence the adoption of mitigation and adaptation behaviors of others [31], ultimately contributing to societal transformation. Programs seeking to develop climate leaders should therefore empower learners to engage in such actions. Aligned with this idea, AoC was designed with the diffusion of innovation theory in mind [31]. This theory suggests that societal change is brought about by focusing on leaders such as innovators and early adopters. In other words, focusing on individuals interested in change is more likely to be effective in spreading new behaviors than paying attention to those who are not. This particular theory was selected over other relevant individual behavior theories [32] because of its potential to bring about broader social movements.

Moreover, even individuals who care about climate change tend not to be able to identify mitigation and adaptation actions they can engage in or are empowered to overcome barriers to taking action [15,33]. In addition, the majority of existing MOOCs relating to environmental and sustainability themes are focused on climate science or policy rather than on empowering individuals to engage in climate actions that will contribute to Sustainable Development Goal 13 (climate action). The next section describes how AoC was developed with an awareness of these challenges and with the intention of developing climate leaders.

2.2. MOOCs and (Sustainability) Leadership Outcomes

Although critiques of MOOCs suggest that they have been oversold and have not lived up to their potential [34] due to low completion (typically <10%) [35] and high attrition rates [36], several studies suggest that these courses can develop leaders, including in environmental sustainability contexts. In particular, MOOCs specifically designed to develop leaders have shown success [37,38,39,40]. Car et al. [37], for example, conducted a systematic review of studies exploring eLearning platforms and their ability to build capacity for leadership in healthcare settings. The review found instances where digital learning platforms resulted in gains in leadership practices and competencies, such as collaborative thinking, among participating healthcare professionals. The authors suggested that digital eLearning platforms can be particularly effective in developing leaders because of their accessibility, adaptability, scalability, and ability to present content in an engaging manner. A study conducted on sustainability-focused MOOCs is similarly encouraging. As described in the introduction, Otto et al. [16] administered an evaluative self-assessment questionnaire to learners who participated in two climate change MOOCs, finding that the course increased their climate literacy (e.g., knowledge of mitigation and adaptation measures, governance, prevention solutions, and justice) as well as their communication competencies (e.g., the ability to critically engage in climate change debates across various modalities and with individuals from diverse backgrounds). Additionally, Krasny et al. [41] studied a civic ecology-focused MOOC designed to empower individuals to bring about sustainability transformations in their local communities. The MOOC Environmental Education: Transdisciplinary Approaches to Addressing Wicked Problems prepared and encouraged learners to lead relevant group discussions with members of their respective communities who were not able to enroll in the MOOC due to technological, cultural, or language barriers. The MOOC was effective in supporting social learning for change and in empowering learners to take on leadership roles, including the responsibility to share the MOOC’s content with others.

2.3. Leadership Outcomes and Co-Creation

Studies of HEI courses employing students as partners pedagogy—one in which students and instructors work collaboratively to co-design and improve higher education experiences—have found a range of mainly positive outcomes for students’ learning, engagement, confidence, employability, sense of inclusion, and overall motivation [20,42]. Though these outcomes are relevant to effective leadership, few studies of co-design experiences have focused on leadership development as an explicit outcome of interest [43,44,45]. Within this body of literature, leadership is typically conceptualized as pertaining to class settings, with students reporting or exercising an increased sense of responsibility over their learning and readiness to take on more active forms of class participation, such as leading discussions. The current study builds on this existing work by (1) examining how leadership can be expressed as part of the co-creation process and as an outcome of co-creation, along with (2) the potential for the transfer of leadership skills beyond the original co-created course environment.

2.4. About the MOOC

The seven-week MOOC AoC was launched in 2017 and continues to actively enroll online learners through the Coursera platform. The course introduces a range of mitigation and adaptation actions to engage in at the individual, community, and political levels within the context of four main “themes” responsible for carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions: food, energy, transportation, and the built environment. The mitigation and adaptation actions promoted at the conclusion of each module were selected based on climate science. Insights from social science research also informed other elements of the MOOC’s design. Accordingly, for example, AoC (1) provides procedural knowledge by offering guidance for how to engage in the recommended actions, (2) shares stories and prompts to foster discussion and build self-efficacy (i.e., the belief that learners can make a difference), and (3) encourages goal setting to support enduring behaviors [46]. AoC concludes with learners submitting a personal climate action plan, through which they identify actions they intend to engage in. “Interaction” between online learners and faculty members and student co-creators happens through video content and expert interviews. Learning is further supported by complementary, relatable case studies [16,47]. Despite not having the opportunity to interact directly with course instructors, Coursera statistics suggest high levels of satisfaction among AoC learners, with an average course rating of 4.8/5 and 99% “Likes”.

The student co-creators co-led all aspects of AoC’s development, including deciding on the core topic for the MOOC (i.e., the focus on climate action), choosing the four themes and their corresponding mitigation/adaptation actions, identifying learning objectives for each module, creating video and case study content as well as designing assessments such as quizzes, discussion prompts, and the personal climate action plan assignment. The University’s unit responsible for MOOCs provided video recording and editing, uploaded all created content onto Coursera, and allowed access to the expertise of online learning scientists.

3. Materials and Methods

To determine the extent to which remote learners participating in AoC develop leadership practices, we drew on responses participants posted on AoC’s publicly available discussion boards. These discussion board data were chosen for analysis because this forum allowed learners to respond and interact with peers in open-ended ways and, thus, allowed for the potential expression of a full range of leadership practices over the duration of the course. The personal climate action plans were not reviewed as they focused only on one particular climate theme, were completed by learners individually, and only allowed for the expression of a small subset of potential leadership practices.

To learn about leadership practices developed by the MOOC’s student co-creators, we conducted semi-structured interviews. Interviews allowed for unique access to participants’ meaning-making [48,49]. In this case, interviews prompted participants to reflect on their experiences in the class and the impact course activities had on their commitments to climate change action and leadership.

Evidence of leadership practices implemented by both remote learners and student co-creators was identified based on responses exemplifying the actual practice, or indicators of the practice, based on Kouzes and Posner’s [22] empirical research results.

Learners who participate in Coursera MOOCs consented to have their data used for research purposes with partnering academic institutions. Thus, data posted under discussion forums were available for this purpose. Student co-creators gave oral and written consent to be interviewed and participate in the interviews. This study was reviewed and approved by the U-M Institutional Review Board (IRB).

The following paragraphs provide more details about the respective remote learner and student co-creator samples, data collection, and analyses.

3.1. Samples and Data Collection

3.1.1. AoC Learners

Coursera data analytics revealed that 3056 unique remote learners participated in AoC between June 2017 and January 2020, with 153 completing the course. Of these learners, 705 contributed 2099 responses across the MOOC’s optional but recommended discussion prompts throughout the course. These publicly shared responses served as the primary data set for this study population. Responses consisted of remote learner answers to prompts included at the end of each content module, checking learner understanding and asking them to share actions they might take in response to these understandings. For example, one prompt asked remote learners to reflect on which of the course’s recommended actions they were able to take; for those that were not able to take action on a particular theme, learners were asked to describe the challenges they faced that prevented them from doing so. The other prompts are related to that week’s respective content. Appendix A provides a list of each week’s main prompts.

It is also relevant to note that only about 4% of learners who originally enrolled in AoC finished all modules and assignments, and significant attrition occurred within the initial two weeks of AoC (i.e., 16% of enrolled learners completed the module for Week 1, followed by 12% for Week 2).

Data captured through Coursera provided overall demographic information for all enrolled remote learners but not at the individual level. Thus, we cannot describe the demographics of the subset of 705 learners who contributed the 2099 analyzed responses. Instead, we share information about the 3056 learners from which this sub-set originated. The majority of these AoC learners identified as female (57%), 41% male, and 2% other. This breakdown is consistent with most existing MOOCs, which tend to attract a higher proportion of female learners [50]. AoC learners were relatively young, with 48% between the ages of 25 and 34 and an additional 21% between 35 and 44. The majority had postsecondary degrees (37% bachelor’s, 34% master’s). Many were employed full-time (42%), were current students (27%), or were actively searching for employment (19%). The majority resided in the United States (72%), India (23%), and Canada (11%).

3.1.2. Student Co-Creators

All 12 student co-creators who had enrolled in the residential course at U-M that resulted in the design and development of AoC were invited via their alumni email to participate in semi-structured interviews three years following completion of the MOOC. The interviews were conducted by two of the co-authors and one additional student, none of whom had been involved in the co-creation of AoC. The interview questions centered on course dynamics, students’ role in the co-design process, as well as lasting memories and key insights from their experience. The majority of questions indirectly inquired about students’ experiences developing leadership practices during and following the course so as not to unduly influence their responses. Toward the end of the interview, we asked directly about the extent to which students felt the course helped them develop as leaders. The interview protocol for interactions with student co-creators can be found in Appendix B.

Ten students of the original twelve co-designers (83%) participated in interviews over Zoom, each lasting approximately an hour. The interviews were audio recorded, subsequently transcribed through Zoom, and then manually cleaned by researchers before analysis.

The interviewed AoC MOOC co-creators were MS (n = 8) and Ph.D. (n = 2) students varying in age at the time of the co-design process, with half between the ages 24–26 (n = 5), and the remainder between the ages of 27–35. The majority of the student co-creators identified as female (n = 6) and white (n = 7). Nine of the ten students were enrolled in an interdisciplinary graduate sustainability program when they co-created the MOOC, with two students also enrolled in other academic programs. One student was from an education program, and another was from an information program. All students, aside from those finishing their doctorate degrees, had graduated since completing the MOOC co-design (n = 8) and were employed in various roles, including as program designers, climate policy managers, directors, farmers, and stakeholder engagement specialists. They worked across higher education, in environmental and sustainability science, as well as in climate policy.

3.2. Data Analysis

Both data sets (i.e., for AoC learners and student co-creators) were coded by two individual researchers who had not been involved in the MOOC’s design or development (Authors 2 and 3). Codes were initially developed with Kouzes and Posner’s [21] leadership practices as the guiding theory in shaping “etic” (theoretically driven), “closed” codes. Additional theory-informed codes were constructed to capture evidence of predictors of spillover effects [46,51] to verify that learners consisted of the target audience of “innovators” and “early adopters” [31]. These etic codes were applied to both data sets in order to maintain a consistent leadership framework across learning contexts with both remote learners and student co-creators. Interview data were analyzed iteratively, with attention to theory-driven and data-driven codes, as further described below. (There is a large body of literature on the distinctions and intersections of “etic” and “emic” codes. For example, see Headland, 1990 [52]; Agar, 1996 [53]).

AoC learner data were extracted from the Coursera site resulting in an HTML file. Data transformations were performed such that each individual response appeared in its own row in a .csv/excel file for ease of subsequent coding. Responses ranged from single sentences to short paragraphs. Learner data were coded individually, although the two coders met three times throughout the process to code collaboratively, test, and discuss alignment, leading to a final inter-rater reliability of ɑ = 0.82 based on a random subset of 200 responses. Learner posts, including references to more than one leadership practice, received multiple codes. Responses that did not explicitly address any leadership practices were coded as “not applicable”.

Due to student co-creators’ more elaborate responses in the context of interviews, we developed a more comprehensive coding scheme to analyze these data. Transcripts of the interviews were downloaded from Zoom and cleaned manually before importation into NVivo software for coding. The two coders engaged in multiple rounds of analysis (IRR ɑ = 0.87) aimed at exploring instances of Kouzes and Posner’s [22] five leadership practices. Though a theoretically informed coding approach was the intention, we remained open to emergent ideas that challenged this framework [54]. Given the ways that student co-designers linked their experiences in the residential class to leadership practices they enacted since completing the course, the need to analyze responses across different settings became apparent. This attention to setting resulted in the modification of original codes to better reflect and capture empirical patterns. We also expanded our coding scheme to capture residential course practices, such as “shared decision-making” and “imagining the MOOC learner,” as these themes emphasized design elements of the course’s SaP approach that contributed to student co-creators’ leadership practices. In several instances, students initially rhetorically pushed back on the leadership frame, uncertain whether this was the most fitting way to describe their experiences. We actively captured these data in our coding process to explore alternative student co-creator outcomes and to take into consideration data potentially disconfirming expectations, a hallmark practice for establishing validity. Ultimately, however, even students who initially did not agree with the leadership outcome framing gave examples of leadership they exercised during the co-design and co-development of AoC. In all, our analytic approach both allowed for the freedom to develop new codes in response to themes falling outside the leadership framework while also justifying the theoretical approach selected.

4. Results

Consistent with AoC’s diffusion of innovation-inspired design, there is evidence that both its remote learner participants and student co-creators were “innovators” and “early adopters” [31] who are interested in promoting climate action for the purpose of bringing about positive, transformative societal change. For example, nearly half of AoC learners reported self-efficacy when engaging in climate actions (46%), a quarter shared environmental goals and values (25%), and some expressed identities as environmental change agents (9%). Based on spillover behavior research [46,51], these are all indicators of individuals likely to model the way by taking individual actions consistent with their values. The student co-creators who were attracted to the two-semester residential course, which ultimately led to AoC, were chosen based on their vision for, as well as commitment to, addressing climate change. They expressed these perspectives in their initial applications and through sustained involvement with AoC. Though some of the student co-creators are identifiable through the MOOC’s videos, we use pseudonyms to keep their responses as confidential as possible. Reporting data in this way allowed for more authentic reflections on students’ co-creation experiences and outcomes.

4.1. Act on Climate Learners’ Leadership Practices

An overview of AoC remote learners’ answers to discussion prompts is provided in

Table 1. Percent of responses to Act on Climate discussion prompts that identified leadership practices consistent with Kouzes and Posner [22].

Leadership Practices	Entire Course n = 2099 1	Module 1 n = 991	Module 2 n = 366	Module 3 n = 237	Module 4 n = 268	Module 5 n = 109	Module 6 n = 41	Module 7 n = 87
Model the way	50%	31%	7%	4%	5%	2%	0.3%	1%
Inspire a shared vision	22%	11%	3%	2%	2%	1%	1%	1%
Challenge the process	39%	12%	6%	5%	7%	2%	0.7%	2%
Enable others to act	11%	6%	2%	1%	1%	0.5%	1%	0.8%
Encourage the heart	3%	2%	0.2%	0.05%	0.1%	0%	0%	0.2%

¹ Percentages are represented as a fraction of the total number of responses across all seven AoC modules.

. Each percent in the table represents the number of responses with evidence of the enactment of one of the five Kouzes and Posner [22] leadership practices associated with the respective modules, as well as a fraction of the total 2099 responses across AoC’s seven modules. Note that many single discussion prompt responses identified multiple leadership practices; thus, categories are not mutually exclusive. Across the entire MOOC, modeling the way was the most frequently identified leadership practice (identified by 50% of responses). The second most frequently mentioned practice was challenging the process (39%). Inspiring a shared vision and enabling others to act were identified less frequently (22% and 11%). Encouraging the heart was identified rarely (3%).

Although the data in Table 1 suggests that the leadership practices mentioned declined over time as students progressed through course modules, this may be due to attrition (i.e., AoC learner participation declining over the duration of the course). This rationale is based on the fact that, with only two exceptions, examples of the five leadership practices were identified in learners’ responses across each of the MOOC’s seven modules. The exceptions were for encouraging the heart for modules five and six.

Illustrative sample quotes for each of the five leadership practices, as shared by the MOOC learners in their responses to the discussion forum prompts, are provided in

Table 2. Illustrative examples of how learners expressed enacting Kouzes and Posner’s [22] five leadership practices in their responses to discussion prompts and how they linked these to the Act on Climate MOOC.

Leadership Practices (Kouzes and Posner, 2018) [22]	Illustrative Quote from Act on Climate MOOC Discussion Forum Response (Module Source)	Link to AoC MOOC
Model the way	“Some actions I’ve been engaging in: Using reusable shopping bags, opting in to my local utilities all renewable electric rates, buying bulk whenever possible, preparing meals at home and using reusable containers for lunches, reusing anything I can and recycling, switching my hygienic and self-care products from one time use products to reusable ones, reducing water and electricity usage, and promoting energy efficiency through work and volunteer opportunities. Thanks to this [MOOC], this week I have learned more about the energy and sustainability plans that my local officials have and chatting with my coworkers about them. I also posted on social media my pledge card, a personal post about climate change, rather than my usual liking and reposting of other people’s posts.” (Module 1)	MOOC module recommends pledge, as well as individual-, community-, and political-level action
Inspire a shared vision	“I have been fascinated by all of the lessons and themes of this course; it has been inspiring to learn about all of the accomplishments people have made to help the world mitigate and adapt to climate change. I really resonated with the asset-based community development approach; the methodology is similar to approaches I’ve taken with other community engaged research projects, and it is always encouraging to see how interdisciplinary the things you learn can be…Restructuring my diet and reconnecting with my bicycle have not only made me feel great, but have also provided an excellent ice breaker into conversations that help me spread what I have learned in this class.” (Module 7)	MOOC module includes examples of climate actions engaged in by student co-creators and sustainability leaders, encourages learners to share such actions, and introduces an asset-based approach to community development
Challenge the process	“I am a frustrated tree lover. My urban forest is being cut down all around I The City…only requests a person get a tree permit in order to cut down a tree. My neighbor cut down 3 large mulberry trees (which harbor amazing migratory birds in the spring) and 3 royal palms that were over 50 feet tall. Then the city picked up every limb (they stretched an entire city block) for free!!!!!! I contacted the city Planner in charge of the tree permits and she never responded. I did get a response from my Iy councilman…who says he is also frustrated…” (Module 5)	MOOC mocdule 5 recommends political action according to principles of new urbanism
Enable others to act	“Hi. Here in [state’s geographic location] we’re working on spreading climate change awareness among school 12 children, followed by planting [trees] on school campuses. We’re also working on a plan to create local community groups within the city, to guard the greenery in their area. From the recommendations this week, I signed the climate pledge. I also looked up the full list of concerned ministers at National and State level on the Environment side. I have started maintaining a Personal Climate Change Repository to act as one sin–le source of all—climate change science, actions, and stories from around the world. This acts as my complete Climate Change Reference Book. It’s still pretty nascent. Hoping to build on it as I go along this course.” (Module 1)	MOOC module recommends pledge as well as political action
Encourage the heart	“Really encouraged by the interest in food I am seeing in young adults. I feel like Farmer’s Markets are becoming more commonplace as well as personal gardens. I also think it is great how people are using the internet to share recipes. Learning to cook is a wonderful skill to have and having an appreciation of good food seems to lead to an appreciation of fresh and often sustainable options.” (Module 2)	MOOC module recommends sharing recipes that use local ingredients

, with corresponding discussion forum prompts found in Appendix A.

These quotes demonstrate how learners expressed their leadership practices and how they associated them with the content covered in AoC. Not surprisingly, given the MOOC’s focus, learners typically linked their leadership practices to the respective modules’ featured climate actions, although other design elements were also mentioned (e.g., examples of other individuals engaging in actions, personal climate action plans).

4.2. Student Co-Creators’ Leadership Practices

4.2.1. Developing Practices across Multiple Settings

In this section, we describe how students reflected on the MOOC co-design process three years after course completion and the extent to which course involvement promoted their climate action and leadership practices. As mentioned earlier, most students had been enrolled in an interdisciplinary sustainability program, and many were drawn to the class in hopes of advancing the shared vision ultimately communicated through the MOOC. Being “pro-environmental” individuals with environmentally conscious values and behaviors [46,51], these students were greatly concerned about climate change. While we do not claim that co-designing and co-developing the MOOC instilled pro-environmental identities, values, or dispositions among these students, the interviews suggested that the course experience deepened their individual commitments to acting on climate change and allowed them to exhibit leadership practices across three settings: the residential course, the MOOC, and professional or community spaces.

Table 3. Distribution of the five leadership practices identified by Kouzes and Posner [22] as enacted by Act on Climate student co-creators across three settings.

Student Co-Creators (Pseudonym)	Leadership Practices Enacted
	__ = Co-design Setting __ = MOOC Setting __ = Community Setting
	Model the way			Inspire a shared vision			Challenge the process			Enable others to act			Encourage the heart
David	X	X		X	X	X	X		X	X	X		X	X	X
Sarah		X	X				X	X		X	X	X	X	X
Emma		X	X	X			X			X	X	X		X
Thomas		X		X	X		X			X	X			X
Luke	X	X	X	X	X	X		X		X	X	X	X	X	X
Taylor		X	X				X			X	X	X	X	X
Victoria	X			X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X		X
Carrie	X			X			X	X	X	X	X		X
Olivia					X			X	X		X			X
Camila						X	X	X		X	X	X	X
Totals by setting	4	6	4	6	5	4	8	6	4	9	10	6	6	8	2
Totals/Learning Practice	14			15			18			25			16

displays the distribution of leadership practices that manifested across these three distinct settings. It is important to emphasize that the three settings emerged through the analytic process; we did not ask explicitly about them during interviews, nor were they preset theoretical categories that we sought to code. As such, the absence of a leadership practice in a particular setting may be more reflective of a particular role played by the student in the co-creation process or of an interview focused more exclusively on one setting over another rather than as an indicator that leadership practices were not enacted in that domain. For example, Olivia talked at length about “enabling others [i.e., MOOC learner] to act.” This does not mean that she did not also enact such behaviors in her own community, though we do not have data to support this claim. Illustrative interview quotes from co-creators mentioning each of the five leadership practices across the three contexts of enactment are shared in Appendix C. These quotes were selected to demonstrate the enactment of leadership practices as associated with the AoC co-creation process.

4.2.2. Model the Way

For a number of students, joining the course was an opportunity to “model the way” toward action on climate change in that it allowed them a chance to better align their behaviors with their stated values. Although this practice was mentioned less frequently when compared to the remaining four, it was raised by several co-creators and within the context of each of the three settings. For example, Thomas reflected on the importance of showcasing diverse role models for the MOOC learner to make taking action on climate change more accessible. For the energy consumption module he co-developed, he explained that a key pedagogical goal was to share “success stories… so that learners coming into it can get a little bit of a glimpse into somebody that actually made that change in their own life… it was very much redefining expertise and just saying, like, just by taking these actions, just by doing something like you are now serving as a role model for others.” As students made decisions about content to include in the MOOC, there were explicit efforts to imagine the learner and design a learning experience in response to their perceived needs. Students imagined diverse, globally situated learners who would be embedded in distinct contexts and settings with particular needs and constraints. They also anticipated a range of motivations for joining the digital course, recognizing that MOOCs were likely to attract students with interest in the topic. Camila reasoned, “You’re kind of still… you’re kind of preaching to the choir, in a sense,… but I guess it’s good because it’s giving people some of that low-hanging fruit. People that are already, you know, eager to act, but maybe don’t have the tools regarding how. Like this will stimulate further action and you know, leverage that as citizens or supporters of, climate action maybe more so than they would have been.” Thinking back to her own learning, Camila added, “…what stuck with me [from the course co-design] was the exercise of thinking about how to make those actions accessible, and to communicate that, to a wider audience.” This sentiment was widely shared in that co-creating the course solidified for students that information is not enough to shift behavior. This understanding became key to students’ efforts to enable others to act.

4.2.3. Enable Others to Act

Enabling others to act was the most frequently cited leadership practice developed among student co-creators and the most widely distributed across the three contexts. Interviews were filled with references to empowerment to act, both within and outside the seminar context. The co-design and co-development experience demanded that students take on leadership roles that enabled them to advance their collective work. This entailed shared goal setting, decisions about distributing workload, and opportunities to deliberate. Camila recalled that delegation allowed for “multiple leaders in different aspects of the project. And that’s what enabled the completion of the project as a whole, over the course of the semester, is by everyone stepping up and having their own leadership roles.” When envisioning the MOOC learner, students also actively designed for empowerment to act. Victoria explained, “We didn’t want people to take the course and feel powerless because their governments weren’t choosing to act, or they couldn’t influence their neighbors. You know, we’re really drastically behind where we need to be, and so it was like, well, the one thing we can control is what we do. So how do we help people do the things that will push society?” As she continued to reflect on her own learning, Victoria explained that one of the insights that “have most stuck with [her]” was that climate change action depends on more than access to information. Information about climate change, for example, needed to be paired with other features to foster learners’ actions, engage the senses, empower them to take further action, and increase self-efficacy by seeing how their actions were making a difference. She shared, “The problem is…making sure that 100% of society understands the issue and trying to make it something that they care about and want to act on.” Through the co-creation experience, she came to realize the importance of engaging with a broader public for political reasons: “Legislators are never going to pass something they don’t think their constituents believe in and so…my focus has really shifted a lot more to thinking about how do we engage the public? How do we make sure communities are coming along?… How do we frame things up so that it’s approachable for all of those people so that they all want to care? They all want to act?… And that’s a focus that I never really had before.” In other words, “enabling others to act” aimed at the MOOC learner was a shared goal for student co-creators and became a characteristic feature and outcome of the process for students themselves.

4.2.4. Inspire a Shared Vision

In the collaborative seminar environment, enacting theories of behavior change [32], coupled with design-based principles, reinforced the notion that “enabling others to act” depends, in part, on “inspiring a shared vision.” David recalled feeling drawn to the class due to its promise to engage with research in a way that had a real-world impact. “I felt like a lot of ecology research… goes sort of unused… this course was like a huge opportunity for me to make that impact.” He overcame his discomfort of appearing on camera to further this impact. “I felt like my, my actual words, you know, were going to be heard. So I put a lot of importance on trying to trace things well and make sure it was-- to try to be relatable to some degree. I don’t know if I succeeded in that, but also I just really wanted to hopefully inspire people to take action.” Several students shared this sentiment in viewing the MOOC as an opportunity to inspire others to have a meaningful impact. As Carrie recalled, “I think everybody came into the process wanting to make an impact on society. You know, there was that intrinsic belief system that like we wanted to create change as a group of young people and that this was a way that we could do that. And then we learned how to do it.” Luke remembered the positive collective energy, and that “a lot of us were just excited to be a part of something like this. So I felt that kind of pushed people, propelled people forward to kind of pull their weight.” Despite student co-creators implicitly “sharing a vision” to empower action on climate change among MOOC learners, they did not necessarily agree on the best way to design learning experiences that would accomplish this goal. As David delved into the research on vegetarianism, he realized that the links to climate change were not clear-cut. He recalled, “you would think, you know, everyone wants to have this positive impact, inspire people…to act on climate, to fix climate change,” but he realized there were “different and sometimes contrasting perspectives, even within this group of people that are making this course.” Though everyone agreed that the diversity of perspectives among students was a design advantage, in cases such as this one, they had to work through these differences to inspire a shared vision and create a holistic approach to the MOOC.

4.2.5. Challenge the Process

The second-most prevalent practice, “challenge the process”, manifested across the three settings in distinct ways. Within the seminar context, students challenged traditional graduate course structures, hierarchies, and expectations by playing an active role in the co-design and co-development of the MOOC. There were also recurrent references to the risks and tendencies toward disempowerment that lurk in the field of climate change. The action orientation foregrounded in the MOOC intended to work against disempowering forces, a compelling counter-narrative that several students continued to embrace when they encountered skepticism and burnout. For example, Olivia noted that taking action and the value of incremental change, a central message threaded throughout the MOOC, set “a different tone.” She explained, “I think it shifted students’ thinking… It definitely shifted my thinking on, you know, it doesn’t have to be all or nothing… For me, it really helped eradicate this all-or-nothing thinking about, either I’m a die-hard environmentalist, or I’m not supporting. It’s like, I can support, no matter where I am.” Similarly, Sarah saw the MOOC as putting “a different lens” onto climate change action in that it focused on “things that you can actually do at different levels to help people take action and feel empowered.” Student co-creators did not tend to reference resisting individual or structural barriers that impeded action on climate change but reflected on the affective and dispositional challenges of taking action on a global, systemic issue.

4.2.6. Encourage the Heart

Most student co-creators were hesitant to deem AoC “successful” without additional evidence of behavioral change among learners. Nevertheless, they marveled at their ability to create the MOOC on a tight timeline. Hearing updated statistics on the number of learners the MOOC has reached and reading through public reviews, students displayed how they developed the practice of “encouraging the heart.” There were expressions of satisfaction, pride, and optimism, particularly with reference to the way the MOOC challenged a sense of isolation and disempowerment. Emma spoke about the importance of the MOOC as facilitating a community for climate change actors so that they would feel as though “they have support or feel like they’re not alone.” Even if learners gravitated towards the “easier action” steps, Olivia saw this as “a win.” Some also reflected on the community fostered through the co-design and co-development experience and the ways students grew together to deepen their commitments to climate change action as they shaped and taught the MOOC. Building community and fostering a sense of self-efficacy were also the principal ways students “encouraged the heart” in their own lives and work. For example, Luke described becoming more involved in local governance to advocate for better bicycling infrastructure in his community: “it’s been nice [to]… get involved on a local level that hopefully can have kind of broader or global [impact]… If many people work on a global level, then that global response will be that much more impactful.” Importantly, Luke connected his current level of community engagement to the knowledge, skills, and confidence he gained from the course: “The active role I played in the course and creating content kind of made me look at resources and… look for community groups that are doing work in mitigating climate change…And continuing in knowing just how to access those resources by doing it in the course has helped me continue…And then just being a part of the conversation locally, I think has been something that I took… [Co-designing the MOOC] gave me confidence that I could do something like this, that I had the resources to do it.”

Student co-creators enacted each of Kouzes and Posner’s five core leadership practices [22]. Moreover, these data show how student co-creators expressed themselves as climate leaders across three distinct though interrelated settings [22]. First, in their position as MOOC co-designers and co-developers, students had opportunities to develop or enact leadership practices within the residential course context. Second, students created MOOC content that hinged on positioning themselves and MOOC learners as climate leaders in their communities, thus reinforcing leadership practices through the co-design and co-development process. Lastly, the interviews provided evidence of students enacting the five leadership practices in their own communities and/or professional spaces, drawing on particular skills and insights from the co-creation experience.

5. Limitations

AoC and its co-creation process targeted and reached individuals we believe to be “innovators” and “early adopters” [31]. As such, our findings apply to these rather than the remaining diffusion of innovation segments. Moreover, our study’s samples were limited in that (1) most AoC learner data originated from earlier modules due to learner attrition common among MOOCs, and (2) the number of student co-creators who designed and developed the MOOC was limited. Although qualitative evidence suggests that the leadership practices AoC remote learners and student co-creators engaged in were influenced by participation in or co-design of the MOOC, causal inferences are not possible due to a lack of comparison groups. Interview contexts for student co-creators offered additional information about how individual students attributed their climate leadership skills and practices to the course. However, results for MOOC learners lack the richness of those for MOOC student co-designers, in part because of the relatively short discussion posts available as data sources. Future studies could attempt to recruit remote learners for more robust data collection opportunities. Student co-designers’ perspectives may have also been influenced by the length of time between when the residential course was completed and the MOOC was launched and when this study’s interviews took place. For example, some students struggled to recall particular details about course activities. On the other hand, this retrospective view may be advantageous in that it gives students a larger period of time to think about how they have enacted leadership skills developed in the course. Lastly, although Kouzes and Posner’s [22] leadership practices mapped onto the climate change leadership actions that both learners and student co-creators shared, other important climate change leadership practices may have been missed as a result of our use of this particular framework and in the absence of available and comparable frameworks at the time of analysis (e.g., Roy et al., 2020 [21]).

6. Discussion

This exploratory study examined the extent to which remote learners who were enrolled in the MOOC AoC, as well as its residential student co-creators, attributed their climate action and leadership practices to their course involvement. We examined how remote learners and co-creators enacted five key practices that effective leaders engage in (i.e., modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, encouraging the heart) according to Kouzes and Posner [22]. As intended, and similar to the only study authors are aware of that examines climate change MOOC learner outcomes [16], both learners and students came to AoC with strong environmental identities, values, and/or goals, typical of innovators and early adopters [31]. In particular, students across both climate change and environmental justice MOOCs studied by Otto et al. [16] indicated a high level of self-perceived knowledge of the content prior to enrolling, demonstrating a strong interest in and familiarity with the topic. Nonetheless, learners gained valuable knowledge and skills in the process. Similarly, this study suggests that the learners who participated in AoC and the students who co-created it developed as climate leaders as a result of their respective course experiences. For one, remote learners’ responses to discussion prompts and student co-creator’s answers to interview questions identified a range of actions consistent with Kouzes and Posner’s [22] five practices. Moreover, remote learners associated these practices with specific MOOC content (e.g., the recommended actions for each week). Students participating in the co-creation process pointed to practices and design features of the residential course, which contributed to their growth and development as leaders (e.g., the opportunity to take on particular leadership responsibilities and roles in the course context, participation in deliberative decision-making, learning from peers and experts, researching appropriate content/actions). In their review of the literature on digital health management and leadership courses, Car et al. [37] provide evidence that participation in collaborative, online learning communities supports learners’ leadership practices. Findings from this study are consistent with this conclusion, showing that both AoC’s learners and student co-creators developed and enacted leadership practices. Through our research, we thus demonstrate, as Greta Thunberg has, that any motivated and informed individual can be a climate leader. It is not necessary to be a politician, community or business leader, or academic to develop and enact climate leadership.

Although both AoC learners and student co-creators shared examples of enacting all of Kouzes and Posner’s [22] five leadership practices, the extent to which they did so varied. Not surprisingly, given the explicit focus of AoC on individual actions, the majority of remote learners primarily reported modeling the way, whereas student co-creators focused on enabling others to act more so than other leadership practices. With regard to challenging the process, both remote learners and student co-creators reported actions within the context of societal structures that prevent climate action (e.g., learners taking climate action at the political level by voicing concern at local town halls, students researching recommended political-level actions that are widely accepted across countries). Student co-creators also confronted traditional academic hierarchies by taking on the students as partners role. While student co-creators had opportunities to encourage the heart by celebrating their achievements with peers along the way, it was clear from the results that AoC did not sufficiently support these affective practices among remote learners.

Student co-creators shared examples of leadership practices they engaged in in private, professional, and community settings. Co-creators had the opportunity to demonstrate leadership within the seminar throughout the co-design and co-development process, with the extent to which they enacted associated practices based in part on the roles and responsibilities that they were assigned or took on. Unfortunately, it was not possible to assess the extent to which individual MOOC learners engaged in each of the five leadership practices as a result of the data accessible through Coursera and the inability to match individual contributions to remote learner profiles. However, we suspect that the extent to which remote learners did so likely depended on their level of commitment to the course and their enactment of the recommended actions.

Our findings add to the limited evidence available documenting that MOOCs can help remote learners develop leadership practices [37,38,39,40,41], including within the context of climate change [16]. The study also adds further support for collaborative and practice-based educational opportunities, showing that students as partners pedagogies, when deployed to co-create MOOCs, can contribute to these positive outcomes [17,43,44,45]. Looking across both populations, this study further suggests that HEIs can achieve their mission of developing leaders who can address societal challenges such as climate change through a combination of pedagogies and modalities: by supporting suitable MOOCs as well as using innovative methods such as co-creation with students.

Moreover, the five leadership practices Kouzes and Posner [22] identified as a result of their research also appear to provide an appropriate framework for capturing climate leadership, i.e., we were able to classify all of the leadership actions remote learners and student co-creators mentioned into the authors’ five practice categories, with no new or unique climate leadership actions emerging from the analyses of discussion prompt responses or interviews. Our findings suggest that climate leadership can be defined in terms of the authors’ same five practices [22] adapted to the context of climate change (e.g., modeling the way = engaging in mitigation and adaptation actions aligned with the shared value of addressing climate change). When combined with collaborative pedagogy such as SaP, this study shows that the five leadership practices can be enacted across various settings, inside and outside the HEI context.

Our study’s findings also provide additional valuable insights. For one, the role of educating others emerged as a key dimension of climate leadership, not only among student co-creators but also AoC learners. The student co-creators, in particular, recognized, as a result of the design and development process, that providing information about climate science is not sufficiently compelling; information must be shared in an accessible and enabling way to be compelling. The students’ task of integrating social science change theories into the MOOC’s course content as part of the co-design process [32] was helpful in this regard. In retrospect, making these change theories similarly explicit for remote learners may have also benefited their leadership development. In addition, our results suggest that engaging in research as a means to learn proved to be particularly valuable for both student co-creators (e.g., identifying effective mitigation and adaptation actions) and MOOC learners (e.g., reviewing local climate action plans and possible steps to take within their own communities). Lastly, our study revealed how important challenging traditional hierarchies is within the co-creation process, particularly with regard to dividing tasks and assigning accountability when the goal is leadership development.

7. Implications

With regard to implications, our study suggests that MOOCs and the students as partners pedagogy can be used on their own or in combination (i.e., co-creation of MOOCs with students) to support the development of climate leadership practices, making a critical contribution to the limited, respective bodies of research. Moreover, this study provides preliminary insight into the features that these processes may need to have to support leadership development.

For example, in addition to the features mentioned above, remote learners also referred to discussion threads and social media exchanges. Opportunities for remote learners to interact in real-time and obtain feedback from each other as they explore new content, including through the deliberate formation of small groups [55,56,57] or, possibly, cMOOCs (i.e., a MOOC centered around learner knowledge creation and generation in a group context vs. knowledge duplication) [56] may be even more effective in enhancing learners’ leadership practices. The creation of community via small sub-groups, for example, may be more likely to result in affective reflections and exchanges, thus “encouraging the heart” [22]. Experimental research is needed to assess what particular design aspects of MOOCs can be most helpful in fostering these and other climate leadership practices.

Student co-creators referred to design features and practices of the residential course that created opportunities to develop and enact leadership skills. They highlighted the importance of giving space for shared goal setting, distributive decision-making and deliberation, and the opportunity to take on more responsibility in smaller working groups. While associated complexities and ambiguities proved frustrating for students in comparison to traditional, predictable modes of instruction and assignments in HEI settings, it may very well be these challenges and uncertainties that contributed the most to their leadership development.

Future research is needed to better understand how MOOCs and students as partners pedagogies develop leadership practices to inform improvements in their respective designs. This ex post facto study revealed some potential practices and conditions under which these two pedagogies can support climate leadership development, as well as what synergies may exist between the two. Experimental studies, however, are needed to better understand which of these practices and conditions are most effective. One such study could explore to what extent more active involvement by faculty members, student co-designers, and climate leaders, as well as engagement of learners through smaller sub-groups, might further enhance leadership outcomes.

Lastly, we remind the reader that the MOOC and the residential course to co-create it attracted individuals who were highly motivated to address climate change, and both were explicitly designed to promote two specific leadership practices (i.e., modeling the way, enabling others to act). It would be valuable to learn how to design effective interventions for less enthusiastic individuals and test ones explicitly focused on additional climate leadership practices.

8. Conclusions

Given the climate crisis facing us, there is an urgent need to develop leaders who can bring about transformations in themselves as well as in their workplaces and communities, from local to global levels. HEIs are highly suited, based on their mission and resources, for developing these leaders through their residential and online education offerings. Our findings add to the limited evidence available that online climate education can indeed offer a relatively low-cost means for HEIs to bring about societal change by supporting the leadership practices of a large number of intrinsically motivated remote learners and that co-creation can support residential leadership development beyond traditional courses. We specifically call on HEIs to combine the two—to engage higher education students in co-creating accessible, affordable, and interactive online education opportunities to develop leaders capable of addressing urgent societal challenges such as climate change. Consistent with greater calls for disciplinary education research [58], such efforts should be accompanied by scholarship to improve the proposed pedagogies and, thus, strengthen the development of climate leaders we so urgently need to ensure a sustainable future.