zmWmQs

Recommendations

Info

A typology and dimensions of a description framework for MOOC Marilyne Rosselle, Pierre-André Caron, Jean Heutte the author described a framework that brings together some metadata about MOOCs. It has two levels. The first level, called “general”, gathers general information about the MOOC (e.g. name, author, certificate). The second level, called “ILE and Stances” (Interactive Learning Environment), has four frames: instruction (how the knowledge is taught), content (how the knowledge is structured, e.g. in modules), assessment, and community. These groupings and the properties are very interesting. Nevertheless, Schneider’s framework lacks some dimensions we need. We have reused a part of it, and we have enriched it. The levels and properties of Schneider that we have reused will appear in the proposition section. Propositions: a typology and a description framework for MOOCs Our aim is twofold. We need to precisely describe a MOOC and we need to easily assign a type to it. We conduct these two sub goals in parallel. Indeed, we think the description framework could help to build a typology of MOOCs, and the typology could help to describe a MOOC. If we want to take into account the main dimensions or features we have seen in the previous section, the combination of these features leads to too many types. Therefore the resulting typology would be difficult to use, and would be as unclear as the previously cited ones. Our approach is on the one hand to propose a simple and concrete typology, and on the other hand a description framework that specifies some differences between MOOCs of the same type and to describe their main features. Whose point of view to consider in our framework A MOOC involves many people: • Course designer teaching team (the teaching team that designed the course), referred to later as “teacher” • Course leading teaching team (the teaching team that actually led the course) • Learners • Tutors, graded learners or accredited learners • University staff • Researchers • Political staff • Parents of learners Attempting to conciliate all points of view is unrealistic because they may be incompatible. In our framework, we favor the researchers’ point of view. Researchers could focus on four axes: 1. MOOCs as a technical and pedagogical platform 2.Use and usability of these platforms and of their courses for learners and teachers 3.Learners’ profiles (their knowledge misconceptions or conceptions, or the level or quality of learners’ learning) 4.Teachers’ point of view or profiles. Teachers’ point of view has import because they take decisions in MOOC design. Hence, researchers could, for example, focus on the following questions about teachers: • What types of pedagogical or technical function do they want to offer to learners (e.g. communication functions, organization functions…) • What types of activity do they want to organize (e.g. projects, presentation…) • What types of pedagogical theory/framework (e.g. constructivism, connectivism…) do they choose in their courses or part of courses • What social dimension (individual, group, groups, communities) do they want to privilege in their courses or part of courses • What feedback would they like to have for themselves or to give to learners (e.g. about learners’ interactions, learners’ results, learners that may drop out…) For our propositions, we choose to ignore the first axe and to ignore the MOOC platform on which the MOOC courses run, even though we know it influences some choices because we consider what it is possible to do with a MOOC without considering how it is done technically. Even though our propositions are mainly for researchers, we strive to make them as simple as possible, hoping other people would be able to take ownership of them. What to remember from the state of the art For the proposition of a typology We have seen we cannot use the types defined with added letters (c, i, t, and x) or words (asynch, content-based, group, made, mini, synch, task, or transfer) before the MOOC acronym. Moreover, the potential number of types is too big for the typologies of Lane (op. cit.), of Gilliot and colleagues (op. cit.), and of Clark (op. cit.) because of the possible combinations. Furthermore, by applying the typologies to four MOOC examples, we found the types intertwine too much and are non-exclusive. Therefore, these typologies result in too many misunderstandings, because too many differences remain between MOOCs that are currently of the same type. They are still confusing, and include many implicit details. Otherwise, the Hy- Sup configurations (op. cit.) can help to define a first typology for MOOCs. Research Track |134
A typology and dimensions of a description framework for MOOC Marilyne Rosselle, Pierre-André Caron, Jean Heutte For the proposition of a description framework We gather features to describe MOOCs. We partially or totally reuse: • The connectionist educational paradigm of Siemens (op. cit.) • The dimensions from Gilliot and colleagues (op. cit.) of Table 1 • The focus on which the teacher has designed the MOOC (of Lane’s Typology, op. cit.) • The points of view of Clark (op. cit.) • The educational functions, educational theories, and types of software of de Vries (op. cit.) • The educational situations and paradigms of Gauthier and Colin (op. cit.) • The Hy-Sup dimensions Deschryver and Charlier (op. cit.) have used to define the Hy-Sup configurations • The levels and items of Schneider (op. cit.) Proposition 1: using Hy-Sup configurations as cornerstones for a first typology We aim to propose a first typology that should describe as few types of MOOCs as possible. Each type should have an easily understandable, easy to remember, and concrete name. We do not want to build it from scratch. Therefore, we propose using the six Hy-Sup configurations (op. cit.) as cornerstones of a first typology, i.e. a typology on which researchers could base the continuing building of a more fitting typology. We have made this choice for three reasons: • Hy-Sup configurations are tangible, • Hy-Sup has few configurations, and • The state of the art shows us they are compatible with the typing of MOOCs Hence, our HySup-based MOOC typology has six types: 1. Scene MOOC 2. Screen MOOC 3. Cockpit MOOC 4. Crew MOOC 5. Public space MOOC 6. Ecosystem MOOC We have wondered whether to make educational theories (or paradigms) appear in our typology. In fact, we have decided to ignore them here, because to implement a theory, teachers can choose any of the previous types. For example, in a connectivist course, they can choose a Scene MOOC just for managing their teaching without providing any videos. We have also made the same reasoning for the software functionalities a MOOC can implement. Proposition 2: a description framework for MOOCs We first discuss the temporal scope of the description framework. Then we explain its general structure, and partly detail it. Temporal considerations If the description framework of a MOOC is filled before the MOOC starts, then it can contain information that has been chosen and anticipated by the teacher. If the description framework of a MOOC is filled after the MOOC has closed, then it can also contain additional data like total number of inscriptions, traces, etc., and can even incorporate data that are calculated from traces or other data. Defining a framework in the first case is easier than in the second case. We should start by doing the first one, even if we have anticipated some needs for the second one. Therefore, we propose an extendable framework. General presentation of the framework In order to make the description framework easy to understand, we should choose as few dimensions as possible; a dimension is a grouping of properties. In this article, we focus on the main dimensions chosen for the description framework. We detail two of them. Further research will publish others. For these dimensions, we explain below how we build them. Because the number of properties to take into account is huge, we have to find the best rules for grouping those properties. This kind of approach is abductive. The hugest group of properties concerns instruction. Therefore, we have decided to split the instructional properties into five distinct dimensions: • One for the places and roles of humans in the MOOC (“human”) • One for the educational (teaching and learning) material (“resources”) • One for the assessments and feedback • One for the specific technical and educational functionalities the teacher prescribes in the course (“functionalities”) • One for the other instructional properties (“instructional”) Hence, we propose describing a MOOC with the following dimensions: • General* • Context • Instructional* Research Track |135
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings of the European MOOC St
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Understanding Per
Page 5 and 6:
Understanding Persistence in MOOCs
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Analysing student participation in
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Signals of Success and Self-directe
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Analyzing completion rates in the F
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Challenges for conceptualising EU M
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Scaffolding Self-learning in MOOCs
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Towards an Outcome-based Discovery
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Dropout Prediction in MOOCs using L
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Self-Regulated Learning in MOOCs: D
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Extending the MOOCversity A Multi-l
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Encouraging Forum Participation in
Page 83 and 84: Encouraging Forum Participation in
Page 89 and 90: MOOC Learning in Spontaneous Study
Page 95 and 96: Dropout: MOOC Participants’ Persp
Page 101 and 102: Reflections on Enrollment Numbers a
Page 107 and 108: The SIRET Training Platform: Facing
Page 115 and 116: MOOCs in fragile contexts Barbara M
Page 123 and 124: Cultural Translation in Massive Ope
Page 131 and 132: A typology and dimensions of a desc
Page 133: A typology and dimensions of a desc
Page 141 and 142: Characterizing video use in the cat
Page 147 and 148: How Students Learn using MOOCs: An
Page 155 and 156: A Platform that Integrates Quizzes
Page 161 and 162: Designing Video for Massive Open On
Page 169 and 170: Proceedings Experience Track Procee
Page 171 and 172: Opening up higher education through
Page 173 and 174: Designing your first MOOC from scra
Page 179 and 180: “A hostage to fortune” - Valida
Page 185 and 186:
and others discussed COER13 issues
Page 187 and 188:
tion process, in addition to the mu
Page 189 and 190:
TORQUEs: Riding the MOOC wave to be
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Engineering MOOCs for Future Engine
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
The Discrete Optimization MOOC An E
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Recasting a Traditional Course into
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Evaluation and field trials of MOOC
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Learning Electronics through a Remo
Page 217 and 218:
Learning Electronics through a Remo
Page 219 and 220:
abiertaUGR: modelling online learni
Page 221 and 222:
abiertaUGR: modelling online learni
Page 223 and 224:
University of London International
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
The EPFL MOOC Factory Patrick Jerma
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Open Online Courses in the context
Page 237 and 238:
Open Online Courses in the context
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Friendly Handmade Explanation Video
Page 243 and 244:
Friendly Handmade Explanation Video
Page 245 and 246:
Designing for the Unknown Learner H
Page 247 and 248:
Designing for the Unknown Learner H
Page 249 and 250:
MOOC Experience in the University o
Page 251 and 252:
MOOC Experience in the University o
Page 253 and 254:
Mathematics Courses: Fostering indi
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
First time MOOC provider: reflectio
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
An Academic Online Resource at Téc
Page 267 and 268:
An Academic Online Resource at Téc
Page 269 and 270:
Opening up higher education through
Page 271 and 272:
SPOCs for Remedial Education: Exper
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Experiments with connectivism from
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Towards a quality model for UNED MO
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Project-based MOOCs. A Field Report
Page 291 and 292:
Project-based MOOCs. A Field Report
Page 293:
Reviewers of Experience Track: Carl
show all

zmWmQs

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?