zmWmQs

Recommendations

Info

Engineering MOOCs for Future Engineers: Integrating MOOCs into Formal Learning Environments Simon Carolan, Morgan Magnin and Jean-Marie Gilliot designed to go some way towards addressing the issues raised concerning the suitability of online courses for developing the transferable skills that a traditional university education provides. It also provides material evidence of the student’s implication in the virtual course and the resulting progress they have made. This is essential when we consider the dynamics of online communities. As a general rule, in online communities about 5% of members are memorably active, about 10% of members are moderately active and the remaining 85% of members follow the activities of the more active members. This natural balance ensures that the ratio between content producers and content explorers remains viable (Waard et al., 2011). It would therefore be logical for the majority of our students to follow the activities of the other members of the group without proposing content. This does not mean, however, that they are not engaged in active learning processes. It is therefore necessary to provide them with a channel for the formalisation of this learning experience. The final major modification was the introduction of gamification precepts, notably goal-focused activities, to the learning experience (Glover, 2013). At the beginning of the course, students were presented with a series of challenges that they could choose to undertake. The list of challenges included: post a comment on a blog-post of a fellow participant, share three useful weblinks that you have discovered and engage in a meaningful exchange with a participant outside of your educational establishment. These challenges were designed to motivate the students, setting achievable goals and provide supplementary sources of interaction that would encourage them, in turn, to set each other challenges. It was intended that this final modification enable students to surpass the comfort zone represented by the community of institutional peers, a vital precept in connectivism, the importance of which the students often understand at a late stage (Carolan & Magnin, 2013). Evaluation design The impact of these modifications on motivation, participation and the acquisition of skills and knowledge is measured through the independent completion of a questionnaire. Organised into five different sections, the questionnaire includes both open and closed questions that cover their participation across the course. The first section entitled ‘Preparing for the Course’ encourages students to reflect upon their motivations for choosing the course, their awareness of online learning environments before the course and the impact of the first præsential session on their understanding of the course. The second section, entitled ‘Your Learning Environment’ asks participants to reflect on the spatial and temporal conditions of their learning and the potential impact that external factors may have had on their motivation and participation. The third section is entitled ‘Assessment of Your Experience’ and asks students to consider their acquired knowledge and skills, the obstacles to their acquisition and how they eventually overcame these obstacles. The fourth section entitled ‘Where next’ requires participants to consider how the knowledge and skills that they have obtained during the course will evolve in the months immediately following the course. The fifth and final section is entitled ‘Over to You’, and allows students to freely comment upon their experience and suggest possible evolutions for future participants. The results of this questionnaire* will enable us to qualitatively assess the impact of this course and the modifications provided based on the learning experience of our students. Further analysis of the results of our empirical study into motivation, participation and the acquisition of skills and knowledge from a student perspective through their correlation with our previously established results (Carolan & Magnin, 2013) and with the statistics resulting from learning analytics will enable us to qualitatively assess the impact of these modifications. Comparing these results with the teacher-based assessment of student participation and acquisition of skills and knowledge that results from the analysis of student productions will allow us to take this process even further. Conclusion The engineering of the ITyPA MOOC experience is allowing us to reach a sustainable balance between the inherent virtues of both online and traditional learning environments. The MOOC environment is allowing our students to engage in self-deterministic learning, developing their autonomy and broadening their horizons within an international context whilst the physical learning environment is allowing them to channel this knowledge with hindsight and in concordance with the requirements of the local context. Within this context and having explored the different options for the integration of MOOC into traditional formal learning environments, one major question still remains: is it preferable to create a MOOC for the ‘massive’ public and then subsequently engineer it for the specificities of a learning community (MacroMOOC or Integrated MOOC), or to take existing courses and simply mediate them (MicroMOOC or For-Credit MOOC) Indeed, it appears that the engineering of MOOCs is more suitable to higher-education environments. Firstly, the engineering of MOOCs allows for the integration of the essential critical thinking skills that differentiate university education from primary and secondary cycles. Secondly, it ensures a coherent compromise between the need for the student to personalise their learning experience and the need for establishments and society as a whole to impose consistent benchmarks. Thirdly, Experience Track |198
Engineering MOOCs for Future Engineers: Integrating MOOCs into Formal Learning Environments Simon Carolan, Morgan Magnin and Jean-Marie Gilliot this scenario allows for the distribution of the MOOC to a wider public, allowing the institution to capitalise on an increasingly important communicational tool. *Results will be available following the course that ended in December 2013 and be discussed during the 2014 MOOCs conference. References Bachelet, R. & Cisel, M. (2013). “Evaluation par les pairs au sein du MOOC ABC de la gestion de projet : une etude préliminaire”. Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain 2013, 47-56. Bruff, D. O., Fisher, D. H., McEwen, K. E & Smith, B. E. (2013). “Wrapping a MOOC: Student Perceptions of an Experiment in Blended Learning”. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 9, No. 2. Carolan, S & Magnin, M. (2013). “Le MOOC et la motivation : les élèves face à une formation autogérée”. Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain 2013, 37-46. Clegg, S. & David, M. (2006). “Passion, pedagogies and the project of the personal in higher education”. Twenty First Century Society: Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences. Volume 1, Issue 2, 149-165. Clark, D. (2013). MOOCs: taxonomy of 8 types of MOOC, Donald Clark’s Plan B blog, April 16th, 2013, http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk (Consulted November 19th, 2013). Cruz Limon, C. (2001). “The Virtual University: Customized Education in a Nutshell” in Goodman, P. S., (Ed.), (2001). Technology Enhanced Learning: Opportunities for Change, Taylor & Francis, Routledge: New York. Gilliot, J-M., Grolleau, A-C., Magning, M. & Vaufrey, C. (2013). “ITyPA, un premier MOOC francophone et connectiviste”. QPES 2013. Glover, I. (2013) Play as you learn: gamification as a technique for motivating learners. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013. AACE Hyman, P., (2012). “In the Year of Disruptive Education”. Communications of the ACM, 55, 12, 20-22. Huang, H-M. (2002). “Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments”. British Journal of Educational Technology. Volume 33, Issue 1, 27-37. Kolowich, S. (2013). “The Professors Who Make the MOOCs”. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 21st, 2013. www.chronicle.com. McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G. & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. http://www.edukwest.com/. Mackness, J., Mak, S. & Williams, Roy (2010). “The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC”. 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010, pp. 266-275. (De) Waard, I., Koutropoulos, A., Keskin, N. O., Abajian, S. C., Hogue, R., Rodriguez, C. O., Gallagher, M. S., (2011). Exploring the MOOC format as a pedagogical approach for mLearning, Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning. Beijing. Welsh, D. H. B. & Dragusin, M. (2013). “The New Generation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and Entrepreneurship Education”. Small Business Institute Journal, Vol. 9:1, 51-65. Experience Track |199
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:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
MOOC Learning in Spontaneous Study
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Dropout: MOOC Participants’ Persp
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Reflections on Enrollment Numbers a
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
The SIRET Training Platform: Facing
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
MOOCs in fragile contexts Barbara M
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Cultural Translation in Massive Ope
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
A typology and dimensions of a desc
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Characterizing video use in the cat
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
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 195 and 196: Engineering MOOCs for Future Engine
Page 197: Engineering MOOCs for Future Engine
Page 201 and 202: The Discrete Optimization MOOC An E
Page 205 and 206: Recasting a Traditional Course into
Page 209 and 210: Evaluation and field trials of MOOC
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 229 and 230: The EPFL MOOC Factory Patrick Jerma
Page 235 and 236: Open Online Courses in the context
Page 237 and 238: Open Online Courses in the context
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?