¿Son los MOOC una alternativa de aprendizaje? = Are MOOCs Promising Learning Environments?

Bartolomé-Pina, Antonio-Ramón and Steffens, Karl ¿Son los MOOC una alternativa de aprendizaje? = Are MOOCs Promising Learning Environments? Comunicar, 2015, vol. 22, n. 44, pp. 91-99. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of English version] Text (English version)
Comunicar-44-Bartolome-Steffens-91-99-english.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.
Download (290kB)
[thumbnail of Spanish version] Text (Spanish version)
Comunicar-44-Bartolome-Steffens-91-99.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike.
Download (328kB)

English abstract

This article reflect upon MOOCs as technology enhanced learning environments. The increase in numbers of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) has been dramatic in recent years. MOOCs may be considered to be a new form of virtual technology enhanced learning environments. Two types of MOOCs may be distinguished: cMOOCs as proposed by Siemens, based on his ideas of connectivism, and xMOOCs developed in institutions such as Stanford and MIT. Although they have received a great deal of attention, they have also met with criticism. The time has therefore come to critically reflect upon this phenomenon. While there is still relatively little empirical research on the effects of MOOCs on learning, this study tries to shed light on the issue from a theoretical point of view. It will first explore positive and negative expectations regarding MOOCs. MOOCs might constitute a good option if they can be delivered on a large scale, and this will only be possible for a few big institutions. There is no empirical research which would uphold the claims concerning their positive effects. It will then review classical and more recent learning theories with respect to their capability to explain the process of learning in order to compare traditional online courses, xMOOC and cMOOC with respect to their potential to support learning and its self-regulation.

Spanish abstract

Este trabajo reflexiona sobre los MOOC como entornos de aprendizaje. El número de cursos masivos abiertos y en línea (MOOC) ha crecido exponencialmente en pocos años desde que fueron introducidos. Los MOOC son considerados una nueva forma de entornos virtuales de aprendizaje potenciados por la tecnología. Se consideran dos tipos de MOOC: unos los organizados por Siemens y Downes (cMOOC) y otros los desarrollados en lugares como Stanford, con muchos estudiantes y loables objetivos (xMOOC); estos tienen también sus debilidades. Aunque han sido recibidos con altas expectativas, también han encontrado una fuerte oposición que está aumentando con el tiempo, lo que nos permite estudiar este fenómeno en profundidad. Aunque todavía hay pocas investigaciones empíricas sobre los efectos de los MOOC en el aprendizaje, este estudio trata de arrojar luz sobre el tema desde un punto de vista teórico. En primer lugar exploraremos las expectativas positivas y negativas generadas. Los MOOC pueden constituir una buena propuesta a gran escala, lo que solo es posible para unas pocas grandes instituciones. No hay estudio de mercado, ni modelo de negocio, ni investigaciones empíricas que permitan confirmar los anuncios de sus efectos positivos. Revisaremos las teorías del aprendizaje recientes y clásicas respecto a su capacidad para explicar el proceso de aprendizaje y compararemos los cursos en línea tradicionales, los xMOOC y los cMOOC en relación a su potencial para apoyar el aprendizaje y su auto-regulación.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Connectivism, learning theories, elearning, MOOC, cMOOC, xMOOC, SRL, ODL. Conectivismo, teorías del aprendizaje, aprendizaje autorregulado
Subjects: C. Users, literacy and reading.
Depositing user: Alex Ruiz
Date deposited: 06 Jan 2015 09:44
Last modified: 06 Jan 2015 09:44
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/24355

References

Adell, J. (2013). Los MOOC, en la cresta de la ola. Edu&tec. (http://goo.gl/tjPFse) (19-03-2013).

Alcorn, B., Christensen, G. & Emanuel, E.J. (2014). Who Takes MOOC? New Republic. (http://goo.gl/TqYtnE) (04-01-2014).

Armstrong, L. (2014). 2013- the Year of Ups and Downs for the MOOC. Changing Higher Education. (http://goo.gl/SqwGWn).

Azevedo R. & Hadwin A.F. (2005). Scaffolding Self-regulated Learning and Metacognition – Implications for the Design of Computer-based Scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 367-379.

Bartolomé, A. & Steffens, K. (2006). Self-regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments. VIII Congreso Iberoamericano de Informática Educativa. Costa Rica: San Jose (13-05-2006).

Bartolomé, A. (2013). Qué se puede esperar de los MOOC. Comunicación y Pedagogía, 269-270, 49-56. (http://goo.gl/VhG7zs).

Beckstrand, S., Barker, P. y Van-Schaik, P. (2001). Towards more independent learning: A Southern Nevada perspective. En ED-MEDIA 2001 World Conference on Educational Multimadia, hypermedia & Telecommunications proceedings, pp. 106-110.

Beishuizen, J. & Steffens, K. (2011). A Conceptual Framework for Research on Self-regulated Learning. In R. Carneiro, P. Lefrere, K. Steffens & J. Underwood (Eds.), Self-regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced learning Environments: A European Perspective. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. & Zeidner, M. (2000). (Eds.). Handbook of Self-regulation. New York: Academic Press.

Caine, R. & Caine, G. (1991). Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Cupaiuolo, C. (2012). The History and Future of MOOC and the New Open Education Week. Spotlight on. (http://goo.gl/3pg8F8) (03-07-2012).

Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. London: Putnam.

Damasio, A. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain. New. York: Harcourt.

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Duke, B., Harper, G. & Johnston, M. (2013). Connectivism as a Digital Age Learning Theory? The International HETL Review, Special Issue, 4-13.

EHEA Ministerial Conference (2012). Making the Most of our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area. Bucharest Communiqué. Bucharest. (http://goo.gl/GgLKXs).

European Comission (2014). European MOOC Scoreboard. Open Education Europa. (http://goo.gl/ut4XDZ).

European Council (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. (http://goo.gl/RkSTwf).

Fox, A. (2013). From MOOC to SPOC. Communications of the ACM, 56 (12), 38-40. (http://goo.gl/9yZKX9).

Gibbons, A.S., Nelson, J. & Richards, R. (2000). The Nature and Origin of Instructional Objects. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. (http://goo.gl/NoOlvF).

Gillani, N. & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication Patterns in Massively Open Online Courses. Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18-26. (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.004).

Goral, T. (2013). SPOC May Provide what MOOC can’t. University Business, July 2013. (http://goo.gl/gsbQMo).

Hew, K.F. & Cheung, W.S. (2014). Students’ and Instructors’ Use of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC). Motivations and Challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45-58 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001).

Hodgins, W. (2002). The Future of Learning Objects. (http://goo.gl/LD3WFD) (20-05-2014).

Illich, I.(1972). Deschooling Society. London: Marion Boyars.

Karsenti, T. (2013). The MOOC. What the Research Says. International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 10(2), 23-37. (www.ritpu.org/IMG/pdf/RITPU_v10_n02_23.pdf) (20-05-2014).

Kolowich, S. (2012). Elite Universities' Online Play. Inside Higher Education. (http://goo.gl/f8mwuS) (18-04-2012).

Lane, L. (2012). Three Kinds of MOOC. Lisa’s (online) Teaching & History Blog. (http://goo.gl/ThZXHh) (15-08-2012).

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lugton, M. (2012). What is a MOOC? What Are the Different Types of MOOC? xMOOC and cMOOC. Reflections. (http://goo.gl/9Szd6o) (23/8/2012).

MIT News Office (2011). MIT Launches Online Learning Initiative. MIT News. (http://goo.gl/VLEH6J) (19-12-2011).

Oremus, W. (2013). Forget MOOC. Slate. (http://goo.gl/l55Bgz) (18-09-2013).

Piaget, J. (1947). La psychologie de l'intelligence. Paris: Colin.

Quinn, C. (2012). MOOC Reflections. Learnlets. (http://goo.gl/anKfrw) (29-02-2012).

Sangrà, A. (2013). ¿Prefieres un MOOC o un SPOC? El País, 28/10/2013 (http://goo.gl/Q54igr).

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism. A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. ElearnSpace. (http://goo.gl/1yV7WT) (12-12-212).

Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing Knowledge (http://goo.gl/3s2m8d).

Siemens, G. (2012a). MOOC for the Win! ElearnSpace. (http://goo.gl/7kJftu) (05-03-2012).

Siemens, G. (2012b). What is the Theory that Underpins our MOOC? ElearnSpace. (http://goo.gl/NV72pe) (03-06-2012).

Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behaviour. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.

Skinner, B.F. (1958). Teaching Machines. Science, 128, 969-977.

Steffens, K. (2006). Self-regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments: Lessons of a European Peer Review. European Journal of Education, 41, (3/4), 353-379.

Udacity (2012). Udacity in Partnership with Pearson VUE Announces Testing Centers. Udacity Blog, 1/6/2012 (http://goo.gl/EGLz11).

Verhagen, P. (2006). Connectivism: A New Learning Theory. (http://goo.gl/upLrdx).

Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as a Behaviourist Sees it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-177.

Watters, A. (2012a). Stanford AI Professor Thrun Leaves University to Start Udacity, An Online Learning Startup. Hack Education. (http://goo.gl/rbj3NM) (23-01-2012.

Watters, A. (2012b). MITx + Harvard = edX. Hack Education. (http://goo.gl/8WuPQ3) (02-05-2012).

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zeidner, M., Boekaerts, M. & Pintrich, P. (2000). Self-regulation. Directions and challenges for future research. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. (pp. 749-768). New York: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining Self-regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 13-39). New York: Academic Press.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS