zmWmQs

Recommendations

Info

Self-Regulated Learning in MOOCs: Do Open Badges and Certificates of Attendance Motivate Learners to Invest More Simone Haug, Katrin Wodzicki, Ulrike Cress and Johannes Moskaliuk References Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. R. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on subsequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 92-98. Bates, T. (2012). What’s right and what’s wrong about Coursera-style MOOCs. Retrieved from: http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/05/ whats-right-and-whats-wrong-about-coursera-style-moocs/ Cormier, D., & Siemens, G. (2010). The Open Course: Through the Open Door–Open Courses as Research, Learning, and Engagement. Educause Review, 45, 30-32. Deci, E. L., & Cascio, W. F. (1972). Changes in Intrinsic Motivation as a Function of Negative Feedback and Threats. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association Meeting, Boston. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Self-Determination. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 237-288). Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester: University Rochester Press. Downes, S. (2010, 10 26). What is democracy in education. Retrieved from: http://halfanhour.blogspot.de/2010/10/what-is-democracy-in-education.html Downes, S. (2012, Mai 19). Connectivism and Connective Knowledge. Retrieved from: http://www.downes.ca/files/books/Connective_ Knowledge-19May2012.pdf Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87-105. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC horizon report: 2012 higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2008). Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information exchange. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 85-97. Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2009). Visualization of group members’ participation: How information presentation formats support information exchange. Social Science Computer Review, 27, 243-261. Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52, 233-248. Kop, R. (2011). The Challenges to Connectivist Learning on Open Online Networks: Learning Experience during a Massive Open Online Course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12, 19-38. Nielsen, J. (2006). Participation inequality: Encouraging more users to contribute, Retrieved from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Elements of the competitive situation that affect intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 24-33. Robes, J. (2012). Massive Open Online Courses: Das Potenzial des offenen und vernetzten Lernens. Handbuch E-Learning 42. Retrieved from: http://www.weiterbildungsblog.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/massive_open_online_courses_robes.pdf Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., Fitz-Gerald, E., Hirst, T., Mor, Y., Gaved, M. & Whitelock, D. (2012). Innovating Pedagogy 2012: Open University Innovation Report 1. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved from: http://www.open.ac.uk/personalpages/mike.sharples/Reports/Innovating_Pedagogy_report_ July_2012.pdf Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2, 3-10. Siemens, G. (2011). How to participate in an open online course. Retrieved from: http://gsiemens.tumblr.com/post/10153633521/howto-participate-in-an-open-online-course Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform. Retrieved from elearnspace: http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocsare-really-a-platform/ Siemens, G., Tittenberger, P., & Anderson, T. (2008). Conference Connections: Rewiring the Circuit. Educause Review, 43, 14-16. Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically-motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 443-446. Research Track | 72
Extending the MOOCversity A Multi-layered and Diversified Lens for MOOC Research Tanja Jadin and Martina Gaisch Abstract: While there are many ways at looking at MOOCs at a global scale, this paper seeks to identify a number of factors according to which MOOCs are considered to be successfully implemented in Europe. The principles behind the US-American MOOC higher education landscape appear to be mainly of financial and reputational relevance which are neither pedagogically nor cross-culturally driven. By analogy, European universities try hard to follow the same path. For the purposes of this paper, a brief examination of existing MOOCs is undertaken before presenting intercultural factors and learning theory mechanisms that might call for a diversified and thus different approach than the one adopted by the US digital agenda. A European lens takes into account culture-sensitive and learning theoretical factors, calling perhaps for an additional classification of MOOCs, one that we call enhanced MOOCs - in short, eMOOCs. Introduction In line with the globalization efforts around the world, the European higher education area has recently placed particular focus on innovative dissemination and educational tools for a variety of purposes, but most importantly, for means of competitiveness, not to substantially fall behind in the international race of online learning. Although much effort has been made to catch up with the mainly US-American dominance, Europe can by no means be regarded as being at the forefront of educational technology providers. Given that MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) “are the educational buzzword of 2012” (Daniel, 2012), an analytical lens is taken to investigate into how and whether MOOCs can simply be translated into a European context by foregrounding intercultural and learning theory perspectives and by claiming that the intersection of culture and technology has been given little, if any, priority. “As a digital phenomenon, a MOOC provides the means for connecting, interacting, and sharing across diverse cultures, attitudes, and skill sets in short order and with low cost.” (McAuley, Stewart, Siemens & Courmier, 2010, p.45). As such, a stance shedding more light on diverse cultures and attitudes will help to raise awareness for cross-cultural issues among the MOOC community in general and in particular for this work in progress. In this position paper we take the view that this is a fascinating ongoing journey through a thrilling research area which has mainly been sidelined by most researchers in this field. State-of-the-Art In this section the MOOC landscape will be sketched. By taking a closer look at the MOOCversity - as we would like to call it - one might get the impression that a somewhat new and successful way of online learning has emerged. To elaborate on this view, we seek to draw a broader picture of its genesis. Starting from Canada and America, MOOCs quickly spread all over the world and were enthusiastically implemented in a variety of countries in Europe, Asia, Australia and Latin America. When turning a watchful eye on the MOOC landscape altogether, it might be helpful to differentiate between xMOOCs and cMOOCs. It was back in 2008 that the first MOOC kicked-off focusing on topics about connectivism (McAuley, Stewart, Siemens & Courmier, 2010). Based on the learning approach of connectivism, learning with cMOOCs has become synonymous with presenting learning materials, connecting people via networks (Twitter, Blogs etc.) as well as stressing collaborative learning with Web 2.0 tools. Such an approach is most different to the one taken by the creators of xMOOCs, which were mainly developed by the Ivy League universities consisting of short video lectures followed by quizzes (Siemens, 2012). As Clarà and Barberà (2013) point out xMOOCs are not pedagogically driven and cMOOCs aim to explore and explain learning in Web 2.0 based on connectivism. As Siemens puts it “cMOOCs focus on knowledge creation and generation whereas xMOOCs focus on knowledge duplication” (Siemens, 2012, para.3). To take an xMOOC example, we wish to state Coursera which started in 2011 with free online course founded by Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng (Pappano, 2012). In 2012 Stanford University offered a free online course on “Artificial Intelligence” run by Sebastian Thrun. Spurred by the success of this online lecture Sebastian Thrun, professor at Stanford University founded Udacity. In cooperation with Harvard and UC Berkeley (Daniel, 2012) the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in an attempt to jump on the online educational bandwagon, announced their MITx, nowadays known as edX. Whereas the MIT offers free online courses as part of their policy considering a non-profit start-up in line with their educational understanding, Coursera can on the other hand be seen as a provider for MOOC with a different motivation starting as a for-profit MOOC provider (Daniel, 2012, Pappano, 2012). What is worth stressing at this point is that Cour- Research Track | 73
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: Signals of Success and Self-directe
Page 27 and 28: Analyzing completion rates in the F
Page 33 and 34: Challenges for conceptualising EU M
Page 43 and 44: Scaffolding Self-learning in MOOCs
Page 51 and 52: Towards an Outcome-based Discovery
Page 59 and 60: Dropout Prediction in MOOCs using L
Page 67 and 68: Self-Regulated Learning in MOOCs: D
Page 69 and 70: Self-Regulated Learning in MOOCs: D
Page 71: Self-Regulated Learning in MOOCs: D
Page 75 and 76: Extending the MOOCversity A Multi-l
Page 81 and 82: 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 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 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
A Platform that Integrates Quizzes
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Designing Video for Massive Open On
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
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 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
“A hostage to fortune” - Valida
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
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?