Diseño, motivación y rendimiento en un curso MOOC cooperativo

  1. Castaño Garrido, Carlos Manuel
  2. Maiz Olazabalaga, Inmaculada
  3. Garay Ruiz, Urtza
Revue:
Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comunicación y Educación

ISSN: 1134-3478

Année de publication: 2015

Titre de la publication: Mooc en la educación

Número: 44

Pages: 19-26

Type: Article

DOI: 10.3916/C44-2015-02 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

D'autres publications dans: Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comunicación y Educación

Résumé

MOOCs are seen as the latest evolution in online learning and, since their launch in 2008, they have become an integral part of university course curricula. Despite the social success of these courses, the learning design and efficacy of their results have been questioned. Most current research has focused more on discussing their potential to offer quality, large-scale education worldwide rather than measuring learning outcomes. This paper shows the results of a research study that focused on the pedagogical design of a cooperative MOOC and its influence on motivation and academic results. A Delphi study was used to validate the design, and the motivation variable was controlled using the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS). Academic performance was assessed through evidence-based learning. The paper argues that design, which is defined by the students’ intensive use of social networks and the activities they carry out in their Personal Learning Environments, has an influence on performance, and the variable that mediates in that relationship is the level of satisfaction with the perception of the design. The academic results obtained and the students’ motivation support the use of cooperative MOOCs in university education.

€ Voir financement

Information sur le financement

Financeurs

Références bibliographiques

  • Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Delgado-Kloos, C., Parada, H. A., Muñoz-Organero, M. & Rodríguez-de-las-Heras, A. (2013). Analysing the Impact of Built-in and External Social Tools in a MOOC on Educational Technologies. In D. Hernández-Leo, T. Ley, R. Klamma & A. Harrer (Eds.), Scaling Up Learning for Sustained Impact (pp. 5-18). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (DOI: http://doi.org/tkh).
  • Cabero, J. (Dir.) (2008). E-learning: Metaanálisis de investigaciones y resultados alcanzados. Informe final. (http://goo.gl/0ayp3E) (30-04-2014).
  • Castaño, C. y Cabero, J. (Coords.) (2013). Enseñar y aprender en entornos m-learning. Madrid: Síntesis.
  • Castaño, C. (2013). Tendencias en la investigación en MOOC. Primeros resultados. (http://goo.gl/mBKuTi) (10-12-2013).
  • Cheng, J.C.Y. (2014). An Exploratory Study of Emotional Affordance of a Massive Open Online Course. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning 17, 1 43-55. (http://goo.gl/sJuxAh) (15-03-2014).
  • Clark, D. (2013). MOOC: Taxonomy of 8 Tipes of MOOC. (http://goo.gl/VYA9XH) (09-12-2013).
  • Conole, G. (2013). Los MOOC como tecnologías disruptivas: estrategias para mejorar la experiencia de aprendizaje y la calidad de los MOOC. Campus Virtuales, 2, 16-28. (http://goo.gl/EK9ZPl) (10-04-2014).
  • Conole, G. (2014). Reviewing the Trajectories of E-learning. (http://goo.gl/Ferxef) (08-01-2014).
  • De Waard, I., Abajian, S. & al. (2011). Using mLearning and MOOC to Understand Chaos, Emergence, and Complexity in Education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12 (7) (http://goo.gl/wxdMZt) (28-04-2014).
  • De Waard, I. (2013). Analyzing the Impact of Mobile Acces on Learner Interactions in a MOOC. A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies. Centre for Distance Education. Athabasca University. (http://goo.gl/vWYLoe) (28-04-2014).
  • Di Serio, A., Ibáñez, B. & Delgado, C. (2013). Impact of an Augmented Reality System on Students´Motivation for a Visual Art Course. Computers & Education, 68, 586-596. (http://goo.gl/s3zBcp) (DOI: http://doi.org/tkq) (09-04-2014).
  • Downes, S. (2011). ‘Connectivism’ and Connective Knowledge. (http://goo.gl/q1eEht) (25-04-2014).
  • Downes, S. (2013). Week2: The Quality of Massive Open Online Courses. (http://goo.gl/W57f7A) (14-04-2014).
  • Fidalgo, A., Sein-Echaluce, M.L. & García-Peñalvo, F.J. (2013). MOOC cooperativo. Una integración entre cMOOC y xMOOC. In A. Fidalgo, M.L. Sein-Echaluce (Eds.), Actas del II Congreso Internacional sobre Aprendizaje, Innovación y Competitividad, CINAIC. (pp. 481-486). Madrid, España: Fundación General de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. (http://goo.gl/oxA06L) (09-04-2014).
  • Fini, A. (2009). The Technological Dimension of a Massive Open Online Course: The Case of the CCK08 Course Tools. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10 (5). (http://goo.gl/xuBAOV) (29-04-2014).
  • Glance, D.G., Forsey, M. & Riley, M. (2013). The Pedagogical Foundations of Massive Open Online Courses. First Monday, 18, 5. (http://goo.gl/WVQl1C) (DOI: http://doi.org/tkp).
  • Guàrdia, L., Maina, M. & Sangrà, A. (2013). MOOC Design Principles: A Pedagogical Approach from the Learner’s Perspective. (http://goo.gl/G4Rjxt) (15-12-2013).
  • Harder, B. (2013). Are MOOC the Future of Medical Education? BMJ, 346. (DOI: http://doi.org/tks).
  • Jordan, K. (2013). MOOC Completion Rates: The Data. (http://goo.gl/73AxVf) (15-12-2013).
  • Karsenti, T. (2013). The MOOC. What the research says. International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 10 (2), 23-37.
  • Keller, J. M. (1987). Strategies for Stimulating the Motivation to Learn. Performance and Instruction. 26 (8), 1-7.
  • Knox, J., Bayne, S., Macleod, H., Ross, J. & Sinclair, C. (2012). MOOC Pedagogy: the Challanges of Developing for Coursera. (http://goo.gl/z8pQbP) (03-12-2013).
  • Kop, R. & Fournier, H. (2011). New Dimensions to Self-directed Learning in an Open Networked Learning Environment. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 7, 2, 1-18.
  • Kop, R., Fournier, H. & Mak, S.F.J. (2011). A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Special Issue - Emergent Learning, Connections, Design for Learning, 12, 7, 74-93.
  • Lane, L. (2012). Three Kinds of MOOC. (http://goo.gl/lwTkTA) (10-12-2013).
  • Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Adams, A.A. & Williams, S.A. (2013). MOOC: A Systematic Study of the Published Literature 2008-12. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education, 14, 3, 202-227. (http://goo.gl/GMqIB2) (01-03-2014).
  • Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Parslow, P. & Williams, S.A. (2014). Dropout: MOOC Participants’ Perspective. In U. Crees & C. Delgado (Proceedings Editors), Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2014, 95-100 (http://goo.gl/8BEVHM) (25-04-2014).
  • Means, B.,Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M. & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of Evi-dence–based Practices in Online Learning: A meta-analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. (http://goo.gl/Yh6tgU) (27-04-2014).
  • Milligan, C.; Littlejohn, A. & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of Engagement in Connectivist MOOC. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 149-159. (http://goo.gl/7ALBbo) (30-04-2014).
  • Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A. & Margaryan, A. (2014). Workplace Learning in Informal Networks. Journal of Interactive Media Environments, 0. (http://goo.gl/tqfHaq) (30-04-2014).
  • Rodriguez, C.O. (2012). MOOC and de AI-Stanford like courses: Two Successful and Distinct Course Formats for Massive Open Online Courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 2012 (II). (http://goo.gl/Jt8Wfv) (25-04-2014).
  • Rodriguez, C.O. (2013). The Concept of Openness Behind c and x-MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses). Open Praxis, 5 (1), 67-73. (http://goo.gl/JwG34l) (14-04-2014).
  • Sangrà, A. & Wheeler, S. (2013). New Informal Ways of Learning: Or Are we For-malising the Informal? Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 10 (1), 286-293. (http://goo.gl/Z7mSi7) (DOI: http://doi.org/tkt) (30-04-2014).
  • Shirky, C. (2013). MOOC and Economic Reality. (http://goo.gl/gw3fWZ) (28-04-2014).
  • Siemens, G. (2012a). MOOC are Really a Platform. (http://goo.gl/Jt8Wfv) (18-04-2014).
  • Siemens, G. (2012b). What is the Theory that Underpins ‘our’ MOOC? (http://goo.gl/-G7IJh6) (28-03-2014).
  • Sonwalkar, N. (2013). Why the MOOC Forum now? MOOC Forum, 1 (1). (http://goo.gl/LXbBhq) (30-04-2014).
  • Vardi, M.Y. (2012). Will MOOC Destroy Academia? Communications of the ACM, 55 (11), 5. (http://goo.gl/hpnvWe) (DOI: http://doi.org/tkv) (30-04-2014).
  • Veletsianos, G. (2013). Learner Experiences with MOOC and Open Online Learning. Hybrid Pedagogy. (http://goo.gl/frOkJy) (15-04-2014).
  • Vidal, A.A. & Camarena, B.O. (2014). Retos y posibilidades de los cursos en línea a partir de una experiencia concreta. Pixel-Bit, 44, 19-34. (http://goo.gl/UXXDBy) (DOI: http://doi.org/tkw) (15-04-2014).
  • Yeager, C., Hurley-Dasgupta, B. & Bliss, C.A. (2013). cMOOC and Global Learning: An Authentic Alternative. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17 (2), 133-147. (http://goo.gl/uu3FWH) (30-04-2014).
  • Yuan, L. & Powell, S. (2013). MOOC and Open Education: Implications for Higher Education. Cetis White Paper 2013: WP03. (http://goo.gl/i5SHhi) (30-04-2014).
  • Zapata-Ros, M. (2013). MOOC, una visión crítica y una alternativa complementaria: la individualización del aprendizaje y de la ayuda pedagógica. Campus Virtuales, 1, 2, 20-38. (http://goo.gl/RRtaoN) (30-04-2014).
La source de données: Dialnet