Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-5bvrz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T22:41:04.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Lessons learnt in creating and operating the RECONECT nature-based solutions massive open online course

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2026

Jessica Sarah Penny*
Affiliation:
Centre for Water Systems, University of Exeter UK
Gareth Lewis
Affiliation:
Centre for Water Systems, University of Exeter UK
Albert S. Chen
Affiliation:
Centre for Water Systems, University of Exeter UK
Slobodan Djordjevic
Affiliation:
Centre for Water Systems, University of Exeter UK
Zoran Vojinovic
Affiliation:
IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands
Natasa Manojlovic
Affiliation:
Hamburg University of Technology, Germany
Jasna Plavsic
Affiliation:
University of Belgrade, Serbia
Laddaporn Ruangpan
Affiliation:
IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands
Diana Dushkova
Affiliation:
UFZ Umweltforschungszentrum Leipzig-Halle, Germany
Christian Kuhlicke
Affiliation:
UFZ Umweltforschungszentrum Leipzig-Halle, Germany
Adam Mubeen
Affiliation:
IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands
Neil Mclean Goring
Affiliation:
Ramboll Management Consulting, Denmark
Marie-Sophie Maier
Affiliation:
Eawag, Switzerland
Martina Viti
Affiliation:
Ramboll Management Consulting, Denmark
Roland Lowe
Affiliation:
DTU Environment, Denmark
Marzenna Rasmussen
Affiliation:
Amphi Consult, Denmark
Alvaro Fonseca
Affiliation:
Ramboll Management Consulting, Denmark
Sungju Han
Affiliation:
UFZ Umweltforschungszentrum Leipzig-Halle, Germany
Guido Paliaga
Affiliation:
GISIG, Italy
Jasper Wisman
Affiliation:
TAUW, Netherlands
Lars Kildahl Sonderby
Affiliation:
Odense Kommune, Denmark
Alessandra Marchese
Affiliation:
GISIG, Italy
*
Corresponding author: Jessica Sarah Penny; Email: j.s.penny@exeter.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have emerged as powerful educational tools for disseminating complex scientific knowledge. This study examines the RECONECT MOOC, an innovative online learning platform designed to educate stakeholders about nature-based solutions (NbS) for hydrometeorological risk reduction. Developed by a multidisciplinary team of international experts, the course drew on diverse professional and geographical perspectives, across a range of national and sectoral contexts. Its primary aim to bridge the knowledge gap in climate adaptation strategies across diverse professional sectors. The research investigated the effectiveness of interactive, multimedia-based learning approaches in communicating advanced NbS concepts. Using the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) framework, the course integrated multiple learning methods, including reading, listening, inquiry-based learning, discussion forums and practical application exercises. The MOOC was divided into six modules and targeted local authorities, policymakers, academics, postgraduate students and other stakeholders interested in climate resilience. Findings revealed that 90% of participants gained additional NbS knowledge, 69% reported a shift in perception and 62% felt confident applying what they learned. Participants valued the interactive resources and flexible, self-paced format. Overall, the study demonstrates that MOOCs can effectively support scientific knowledge dissemination and strengthen understanding of complex environmental solutions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Taxonomies of the different types of cognitive learning edited from (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001; Biggs and Tang, 2011)

Figure 1

Table 2. Outline of other NbS MOOCs currently available

Figure 2

Table 3. RECONECT MOOC modules and their learning objectives

Figure 3

Figure 1. Layout example of content for “water Indicators within module 4.”

Figure 4

Figure 2. Example of interactive elements (left hot spot images and right flip cards).

Figure 5

Figure 3. Range of professional backgrounds of participants, more than one answer was allowed.

Figure 6

Figure 4. Participants’ prior familiarity with NbS.

Figure 7

Figure 5. Word cloud of the positive feedback retried about the MOOC.

Figure 8

Figure 6. A word cloud providing the common negative feedback from the questionnaire.

Supplementary material: File

Penny et al. supplementary material

Penny et al. supplementary material
Download Penny et al. supplementary material(File)
File 25 KB

Author comment: Lessons learnt in creating and operating the RECONECT nature-based solutions massive open online course — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Editor,

I am pleased to submit our manuscript titled “Lessons Learnt in Creating and Operating the RECONECT Nature-Based Solutions Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)” for consideration. This paper presents a critical and practice-driven analysis of an international MOOC focused on Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for hydrometeorological risk reduction, designed under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 RECONECT project.

Our work offers an empirical and pedagogical review of how MOOCs can serve as transformative platforms for scaling environmental and water resilience education globally. We not only evaluate the course’s structure, content, and learning strategies—including multimedia integration, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and SCORM packages—but also report engagement metrics and learner feedback from participants across diverse professional and geographical backgrounds.

We believe this manuscript contributes meaningfully to Cambridge Prisms: Water aim in enhancing the collaboration between academia and industry and tries to provide new insights into closing the science-policy-practice gap through inclusive, digital education design.

Key contributions of the manuscript include:

• Identification of pedagogical and content gaps in existing NbS education platforms.

• Evaluation of how interactive, inquiry-driven digital learning can enhance NbS uptake.

• Recommendations for multilingual access, gamification, and AI-based personalisation to broaden reach and improve equity in water-related education.

We confirm that this manuscript is original, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under consideration by any other journal. Ethical approval was secured through the University of Exeter’s Research Ethics Committee.

Best Wishes,

Dr Jess Penny and Team.

Review: Lessons learnt in creating and operating the RECONECT nature-based solutions massive open online course — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

None

Comments

This paper examines the RECONECT MOOC, an innovative online course designed to educate stakeholders on Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for hydrometeorological risk reduction. Developed by a multidisciplinary team, the course utilized interactive SCORM packages and blended learning strategies across six modules. It targeted diverse audiences, including policymakers, engineers, and researchers. Key findings revealed 88% of participants gained NbS knowledge, 64% changed perceptions, and 60% felt confident applying methodologies. The MOOC achieved a 56% completion rate, outperforming typical MOOCs, successfully bridging knowledge gaps in climate adaptation.

Among the paper’s most important positive aspects are the its high completion rate, the fact that 88% of participants gained additional knowledge on NbS, and 64% reported a changed perception, showcasing the course’s effectiveness in educating diverse audiences and the use of SCORM packages, multimedia elements, and inquiry-based learning enhanced engagement and catered to diverse learning styles. Furhter, the MOOC has attained a global reach, having attracted participants from various professional backgrounds and geographic regions, demonstrating its broad applicability. Modules included real-world case studies and hands-on exercises, bridging theory and practice effectively.

It does however have deficiencies:

1. Geographic Bias in Case Studies: Most case studies focused on European examples, with limited representation from developing countries, reducing global applicability.

2. Limited Interactivity: The absence of sustained interaction with content creators and lack of discussion forums reduces opportunities for deeper engagement.

3. The course was only offered in English, limiting its reach to non-English speakers.

4. Certain modules, such as those on Multi-Criteria Analysis and policy discussions, were overly technical, challenging for some participants.

Based on the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, I would recommend resubmission after minor revisions.

1. Strengths: The paper provides valuable insights into the design, implementation, and outcomes of the RECONECT MOOC, showcasing its success in disseminating knowledge on Nature-based Solutions (NbS). The high completion rate, global reach, and practical application of concepts make it a strong contribution to the field of environmental education.

2. Areas for Improvement: Minor revisions are needed to address deficiencies such as enhancing interactivity, reducing text-heavy content, and broadening the scope of case studies to include examples from developing countries. Additionally, offering multilingual support would significantly improve accessibility.

These revisions would strengthen the paper’s impact and make it more comprehensive and globally relevant.

Review: Lessons learnt in creating and operating the RECONECT nature-based solutions massive open online course — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

None

Comments

This paper discusses the development and application of a MOOC (that focus on NbS) as an educational tool for a different set of stakeholders. Overall, I think the paper is good and suitable to this journal. When published, it will be great to the journal’s readers to have this published. However, for that, authors should make several changes to the paper. Main suggestions are about clarity, structure and discussion.

In general, I think the introduction is ok, but it should have more

“literature”. Authors only focus on two main topics: MOOCs and NbS, but for NbS, for example, authors provide only one statement (Page 4 L42-45) and then already move to discuss about MOOCs again. I understand this manuscript shares the development of a MOOC, but it should also aggregate more of the theoretical background of the journal’s related concepts. I think adding more could help. Also, it is not clear what RQ is this paper tackling:

Is it to provide a successful example of a MOOC?

Is it to tackle gaps seen in other MOOCs?

Is it to create a MOOC based on NbS?

Is it to have a course with more enrollment?

Authors should add the RQ, main goal and justify that based the literature.

The second section gets a bit confusing because it is currently structured as: (i) Motivation, (ii) Method, (iii) Content, (iv) Enhancing Engagement, (v) The Role of Interactive learning. However, in some parts, the section seems more a literature review rather than a “Methodology” section. Authors should adjust this topic and move part of the literature to the first section. In the “methods”, they should show to readers how they did their study. Answer: How can others replicate this work? I also believe this section needs to have more information about the methods themselves. I made specific suggestions for that. One issue throughout the paper is that authors use the term “56% of completion rate”, but I believe this term is not appropriate. By the writing of the manuscript only 25 participants completed the course (enrollment was 325). 157 are still active in the course but haven’t completed yet. Authors should revise this.

Sections three and four are also a bit confusing. I believe the results are analyzed with the input from the 25 participants and team discussions, but this is not clear. Authors need to show exactly how the analysis was conducted. Numbers also need to be clearer. For example, what questions were applied in the feedback? Are your results mainly based on the feedback of the 25 that completed the course? Have all of them submitted their feedback? What are the questions? Did you do this through an online tool (like Google forms, Qualtrics, SurveyMonkey) or was this part of your course (like an assignment?)

Limitations are discussed (which I appreciate) but they are shown as bullet points, and I believe having a thoroughly discussion with examples of the MOOC should be better. Authors need to work on this section. Same with recommendations.

Specifically, I suggest:

Section: Abstract:

Can we have a link in the abstract? I’m not sure, please refer to the Journal’s guidelines

Page 2 L42 – Do you believe that having a team with international experts also contributed to developing a course with the input of varied experiences from different countries (and not only diverse professional sectors?)? If yes, you should add this here.

Page 2 L50 – Should you add “academics” (that are not postgraduate students but still joined?)

Add the number of XX that enrolled, are active and completed (or decide what is the best approach). You say 56% completion rate, but see my comment below in “Outcomes” section. I don’t think the correct term is completion.

Add how MOOC was outreached

Section: Introduction:

Page 3 L 20 – are MOOCs usually free?

Page 31 L 31-33 – Is this information from a specific MOOC or in general? I believe participation varies a lot from place to place, region to region, topic to topic. Can you discuss more about this?

Page 4 L 33 – Add what WWF stands for

Page 5 L1-20 – How did you know these topics were missing? Is this your observation after taking these courses or have you seen this in other publications?

Page 5 –L 23: Specify what gaps this is study tackling, and why your MOOC is different from others.

Page 5: Add a last paragraph with the objective of the paper, the research question you’re trying to answer and the organization of the paper. See my comment at the beginning of this review.

Section: The Reconect MOOC

Authors sometimes deal with this section as a literature review and sometimes as a methods section. Authors should define what it is. It might be good to provide a little bit of structure in the section. For example, was the first part of the study to do a revision of literature to find out about other MOOCS and tools? This can be included, but not the revision per se. Was the second “phase” to define MOOC objectives and strategies based on the work revised? Then add this here and say how you included each strategy. Was Phase 3 being to implement tools selected? Phase 4 produce and outreach MOOC and Phase 5 collect feedback? I’m not sure if this is what you did, but having a structure could help to understand more.

In addition, I also suggest having a short section at the beginning explaining about the project/highlights/case studies, and what this MOOC represents to the overall objectives of the project.

Specifically:

Page 7 L 34-36: Was this revised by the same author? Add the reference after revision. In a table, can you provide a definition to each one and explain the differences?

Page 7 L38: Which cognitive learning objectives? Do you mean the “educational” objectives cited previously? Are they the same? Something seems to be missing here.

Page 7 L40-43: You say “More recently, additional learning styles have been identified…” By whom? Cite studies here.

Page 7 L 44: Are you saying you suggest a combination of learning styles, or do you suggest a combination of educational/cognitive learning objectives and diversity of learning styles? Depending on your answer, specify more on L44.

Page 7 L48: Was this applied to undergraduate or graduate students? Or both

Page 8 L10: Is there any limitation on learning outcomes if you address more some of the objectives and not all?

Page 8 L18-24. How did you define the questions? Was this from you or based in another course?

Page 8 L21 Rephrase. The assessment was “Helpful”

Page 9 L23. Add a column with the Blooms Taxonomy educational objectives/strategies applied.

Page 9 L37 – Add a) after Model

Page 9 L38 – Do you mean “SCORM”? Should you have a citation/reference of SCORM?

Page 10 L10-13 – In “The combination of multimedia resources…” is this what you expect? Should this be a result? This contrasts with the P11 L26-28 where you say “the RECONECT MOOC tried to provide…”

Page 10 L14-22 – Why did you chose Moddle?

Page 11 L23 – This part gets a little bit confusing again. Since the Project itself is not thoroughly presented, it gets hard to understand if we don’t know much about it. For example, in P11 L15 you mention “Portofino case study”. Where is this? Can you elaborate more? Did the project have more sites? Was this one was selected? Perhaps it would be good to have a “case study” section where you explain more about the project itself. You could have: Methods > The Reconect Project (or case study) > MOOC (about the MOOC and not a literature review)

Something similar to Page 10 L45-58. What are the other tools used? Is this list too long? I think it would be nice to know more (if too long, you can add in the Appendix)

A few questions are: Did you produce a curriculum for this MOOC? If yes, how was this developed? Can you share that? This might be useful for other studies. In a related topic, is this MOOC meant to mainly to share results obtained with the project or is this a NBS course with examples form the project?

Additionally, your results are based on the feedback collected with participants. I also suggest adding a separate section where you explain how this was collected, and the questions applied (maybe in a table or appendix depending on sizing). Also add how their answers were analyzed for this paper (descriptive statistics?)

Section: Outcomes

Page 11 L38 – Add the Ethics process code. This information should be in the methodology and not here.

Page 11 L41 – 19 assigned as teachers? So, you had video calls too? Or were they assigned to facilitate discussing in the forums (written discussion)? This should be in the methodology.

In the figure on page 22, add the number of people in each category and the percentage. For example: For postgraduate student you would have: XX/25, 13%. Do the same in the manuscript.

Page 11 L41-42 – How did you advertise your MOOC? How did you get to these enrolment numbers? Was the process of outreach also submitting through Ethics? Explain and add this to the methodology

Page 11 L43 – It can be confusing if you consider that only 25 graduated. Your 56% is based on the relationship between “enrollment” and “being active”, so it is not a completion rate. If it was, you would have 325 enrolled and only 25 completed, am I right? How long was the course planned to last? Maybe if you explain more how long the MOOC was intended to last it will be easier to understand the context and why so many are still active (and not completed). Adjust writing in Abstract and Conclusions.

Page 11 L 54 – Add the percentage of local/national governments.

Page 12 L3-9 – How did you get this information? Was this an open-ended question or maybe (hopefully) multiple choice? If multiple choice, include all percentages and answers

Overall, I think for analyzing this question we need to know how the feedback was collected, what type of questions were asked and their answers. It is not possible if we don’t know that. I suggest you add a Table with main responses collected/questions. Was the feedback from the 25 participants that finalized the course? How was the turnaround of answers?

Section: Potential for Improvement and Recommendations

How were these limitations chosen? Did you ask participants or was this from the project’s team members? Explain more. I think this section is too general (and like a textbook with the bullet points). I am ok with the bullet points if you provide more information about your own MOOC. This list doesn’t need to be long. For example, I don’t have much information to say that Limitation A.4 is correct, because you didn’t mention all cases that were discussed.

Conclusions

Adjust the writing based on my comments above.

Page 16 L34 Add the XX/25, XX% in the percentages

Page 16 L35 – completion rate of 56%? If you use “completion” rate, then remember the rate of 325/25

Recommendation: Lessons learnt in creating and operating the RECONECT nature-based solutions massive open online course — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Lessons learnt in creating and operating the RECONECT nature-based solutions massive open online course — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Lessons learnt in creating and operating the RECONECT nature-based solutions massive open online course — R1/PR6

Comments

Please find attached my revised submission for WAT-2025-0015.

Best Wishes

Dr Jessica Penny

Review: Lessons learnt in creating and operating the RECONECT nature-based solutions massive open online course — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The paper presents a comprehensive overview of the RECONECT Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), which integrates Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for hydrometeorological risk reduction. Key strengths include interdisciplinary collaboration, educational innovation (the use of Bloom’s taxonomy and the Vark learning model) and high percentages of effectiveness (88-90%). However, statistics are descriptive, there is limited data analysis, unclear evaluation (it does not specify the number of respondents, the question types and the data validation methods), and the literature review of the various MOOCS could be condensed and put more in context of the RECONNECT course. While the authors are advised to consider all these in revising their paper, they should definitely give more emphasis on presenting a stronger statistical treatment of learning outcomes and also consider possible applications of the study in formulating policy or educational frameworks.

Recommendation: Lessons learnt in creating and operating the RECONECT nature-based solutions massive open online course — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Lessons learnt in creating and operating the RECONECT nature-based solutions massive open online course — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Lessons learnt in creating and operating the RECONECT nature-based solutions massive open online course — R2/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Lessons learnt in creating and operating the RECONECT nature-based solutions massive open online course — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Lessons learnt in creating and operating the RECONECT nature-based solutions massive open online course — R2/PR12

Comments

No accompanying comment.