The Pedagogic Architecture of MOOC: A Research Project on Educational Courses in Spanish

This study has been carried out within the context of the ECO European Project (E-learning, Communication Open-Data: Massive Mobile, Ubiquitous, and Open Learning) which is being financed by the European Union over four years (2014-17). It analyses the pedagogic architecture of MOOC on pedagogic/educational subjects in Spanish over one academic year (September 2015-June 2016). The analysis focuses on five major dimensions from a qualitative perspective: subjects and the promoting institution, methodology, resources, type of videos, and evaluation. The results demonstrate the hegemony of subjects linked to the Society of Knowledge, such as the widespread use of traditional methodology based on video lessons (the “talking head” model). Communication tools are clearly underused and evaluation based on the use of questionnaires is dominant. The findings show the need for further research into MOOC based on a pedagogic approach such as the one adopted here.

[1]  George Siemens.  Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age , 2004 .

[2]  A. González,et al.  MOOC offer in Spain. Zero Moment of Truth (ZMOT) , 2015 .

[3]  Tina Swee Kim Lim,et al.  The Use of Facebook for Online Discussions among Distance Learners. , 2010 .

[4]  Amit Chauhan,et al.  Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS): Emerging Trends in Assessment and Accreditation , 2014 .

[5]  Allison Littlejohn,et al.  Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[6]  Maha Bali,et al.  MOOC Pedagogy: Gleaning Good Practice from Existing MOOCs , 2014 .

[7]  Rebecca J. Hogue,et al.  Using mLearning and MOOCs to understand chaos, emergence, and complexity in education , 2011 .

[8]  Karen Swan,et al.  AMP: a tool for characterizing the pedagogical approaches of MOOCs , 2014 .

[9]  María Soledad Ramírez Montoya,et al.  Self-motivation challenges for student involvement in the Open Educational Movement with MOOC , 2015, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education.

[10]  R. B. O'Toole,et al.  Pedagogical strategies and technologies for peer assessment in Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) , 2013 .

[11]  Kevin Oliver,et al.  A Social Network Perspective on Peer Supported Learning in MOOCs for Educators , 2014 .

[12]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  MOOCs and open education around the world , 2015 .

[13]  Ignacio Aguaded,et al.  The MOOC in the educational platform MiriadaX , 2014 .

[14]  José-Andrés Martínez-Silva,et al.  Literatura y práctica: una revisión crítica acerca de los MOOC Literature and Practice: A Critical Review of MOOCs , 2015 .

[15]  José Ignacio Aguaded Gómez,et al.  Criterios de calidad para la valoración y gestión de MOOC , 2015 .

[16]  Krzysztof Z. Gajos,et al.  Understanding in-video dropouts and interaction peaks inonline lecture videos , 2014, L@S.

[17]  H. Öztürk.  Examining Value Change in MOOCs in the Scope of Connectivism and Open Educational Resources Movement , 2015 .

[18]  María del Mar Sánchez-Vera,et al.  Beyond objective testing and peer assessment: alternative ways of assessment in MOOCs , 2015, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education.

[19]  Ebba Ossiannilsson,et al.  Analysis of MOOCs practices from the perspective of learner experiences and quality culture , 2015 .

[20]  D. Prasad.  Data Collection Strategies in Mixed Method Research , 2012 .

[21]  Li Yuan,et al.  MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education , 2013 .

[22]  Roy Williams,et al.  The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC , 2010 .

[23]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  Learning from MOOCs: a qualitative case study from the learners’ perspectives , 2015 .

[24]  Eloy López Meneses,et al.  Comparative between quality assessment tools for MOOCs: ADECUR vs Standard UNE 66181: 2012 , 2015 .

[25]  L. Czerniewicz,et al.  Learning through engagement: MOOCs as an emergent form of provision , 2016 .

[26]  Sheila Jagannathan,et al.  Harnessing the Power of Open Learning to Share Global Prosperity and Eradicate Poverty , 2015 .

[27]  Jesús Valverde Berrocoso.  MOOCS: A critical view from the Educational Sciences , 2014 .

[28]  Mario Ganz,et al.  MOOCs and the claim of education for all: A disillusion by empirical data , 2015 .

[29]  Bonnie Stewart,et al.  Massiveness + Openness = New Literacies of Participation? , 2013 .

[30]  Josh McCarthy,et al.  Learning in Facebook: First year tertiary student reflections from 2008 to 2011 , 2013 .

[31]  Achilles Kameas,et al.  CREATING MOOC GUIDELINES BASED ON BEST PRACTICES , 2014 .

[32]  Lorena Alemán de la Garza,et al.  Indicators of pedagogical quality for the design of a Massive Open Online Course for teacher training , 2015, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education.

[33]  Teresa Sancho Vinuesa,et al.  Indicators of pedagogical quality for the design of a Massive Open Online Course for teacher training , 2015 .

[34]  S A Chapman,et al.  A strategy for monitoring and evaluating massive open online courses. , 2016, Evaluation and program planning.

[35]  Angela Carbone,et al.  Systematic review methodology in higher education , 2012 .

[36]  Rita Kop,et al.  The Challenges to Connectivist Learning on Open Online Networks: Learning Experiences during a Massive Open Online Course , 2011 .

[37]  Scott Day,et al.  AMP: a tool for characterizing the pedagogical approaches of MOOCs , 2014 .

[38]  Javiera Atenas,et al.  Model for democratisation of the contents hosted in MOOCs , 2015, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education.

[39]  Patrick R. Lowenthal,et al.  In Search of Quality: Using Quality Matters to Analyze the Quality of Massive, Open, Online Courses (MOOCs) , 2015 .

[40]  Julio Cabero Almenara.  Visiones educativas sobre los MOOC , 2015 .

[41]  Helene Fournier,et al.  A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses , 2011 .