Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 1185–1209 | Cite as

MOOCAT: A visual authoring tool in the cMOOC context

  • Aicha BakkiEmail author
  • Lahcen Oubahssi
  • Sébastien George
  • Chihab Cherkaoui
Article
  • 188 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents an authoring tool in the cMOOC context called MOOCAT (MOOC Authoring Tool). It is a visual authoring tool that helps teachers to design cMOOC-oriented pedagogical scenarios. MOOCAT has two main innovative features. The first is that it offers a tool for conceiving pedagogical scenarios in a simple way through graphical representation, by providing the functionality to design learning workflows. The second is related to its capacity to bridge the gap between the conception phase and its execution into different LMS (Learning Management System), by offering services that allow the automatic deployment of pedagogical scenarios to existing platforms (e.g. OpenEDX, Moodle, etc.). This facilitates the authoring process considerably, and enhances the ability of teachers to concentrate their efforts on the content. This paper presents the model underlying MOOCAT, and describes the cMOOC scenario-building process. Also, the paper highlights the findings from a case study which was organized in order to evaluate the utility and the usability of the tool, and the usefulness of its innovative feature of conceiving and deploying a cMOOC scenario into OpenEDX platform. MOOCAT seems to be an easy-to-use tool, which offers guidance and flexibility during the design process.

Keywords

Technology enhanced learning (TEL) MOOC cMOOC Connectivism Authoring tool LD tool Business process modeling notation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank persons who participated in the experiment of the MOOCAT tool.

Availability of data and material

MOOCAT Authoring tool is available on the link: https://projets.iut-laval.univ-lemans.fr/moocat/

Authors’ contributions

As Corresponding Author, I confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved for submission by all the named authors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Competing interests

We know of no conflicts of interest associated with this publication. The authors declare that they have no competing interests. We declare that this manuscript is original, has not been published before and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.

References

  1. Abedmouleh, A., & Modeling, A. D. (2014). Approche Domain-Specific Modeling pour l ’ opérationnalisation des scénarios pédagogiques sur les plateformes de formation à distance Aymen Abedmouleh To cite this version : HAL Id : tel-01019917 Thèse pour obtenir le grade de Docteur de l ’ Université du.Google Scholar
  2. Abedmouleh, A., Laforcade, P., Oubahssi, L., & Choquet, C. (2011). Operationalization of learning scenarios on existent learning management systems the moodle case-study. In ICSOFT 2011 - proceedings of the 6th international conference on software and database technologies, 2(march 2014) (pp. 143–148).  https://doi.org/10.5220/0003486001430148.Google Scholar
  3. Adesina, A., & Molloy, D. (2010). Capturing and monitoring of learning process through a business process management (BPM) framework. In Proc. of 3rd International Symposium for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
  4. Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Cormier, D., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Proposal for a conceptual framework for educators to describe andDesign MOOCs. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 20(1), 6–23.  https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-020-01-0006.Google Scholar
  5. Alario-Hoyos, C., Estévez-Ayres, I., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Kloos, C. D., & Fernández-Panadero, C. (2017). Understanding learners’ motivation and learning strategies in MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18(3), 119–137.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.2996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2006). Rubrics: Tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and learners. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 5(3), 197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(3), 114–123. https://doi.org/66.39.39.113Google Scholar
  8. Barchino, R., Hilera, J. R., De-Marcos, L., Gutiérrez, J. M., Otón, S., Gutiérrez, J. A., et al. (2012). Interoperability between visual UML design applications and authoring tools for learning design. Information and Control, International Journal of Innovative Computing, 8(1), 845–865.Google Scholar
  9. Blanco, Á. F., García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Sein-Echaluce, M. (2013). A methodology proposal for developing adaptive cMOOC. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Technological Ecosystem for Enhancing Multiculturality - TEEM ‘13, (November), 553–558.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2536536.2536621.
  10. Botturi, L., Derntl, M., Boot, E., & Figl, K. (2006). A classification framework for educational modeling languages in instructional design. In 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006).Google Scholar
  11. Brookhart, S. M. (1999). The art and science of classroom assessment: The missing part of pedagogy. ASHE-ERIC higher education report. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=507605047&site=ehost-live
  12. Caron, P.-A., Derycke, A., & Le Pallec, X. (2005). Bricolage and Model Driven Approach to design distant course. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2856–2863).Google Scholar
  13. Consortium, I. M. S. G. L., & others. (2003). IMS learning design specification. Retrieved February, 7, 2009.Google Scholar
  14. Da Costa, J. (2014). BPMN 2.0 pour la modélisation et l’implémentation de dispositifs pédagogiques orientés processus. University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  15. Da Costa, J., & Schneider, D. K. (2015). Modélisation et implémentation de dispositifs pédagogiques avec BPMN 2.0. In 7ème Conférence sur les Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain (EIAH 2015) (pp. 282–287).Google Scholar
  16. Downes, S. (2008). Places to go: Connectivism & connective knowledge. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(1), 6.Google Scholar
  17. Figl, K., & Derntl, M. (2006). A comparison of visual instructional design languages for blended learning. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 941–948. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/INDEX.CFM?fuseaction=Reader.ViewFullText& paper_id=23118.
  18. Glance, D. G., Forsey, M., & Riley, M. (2013). The pedagogical foundations of massive open online courses. First Monday, 18(5).Google Scholar
  19. Hernández-Leo, D. (2007). A pattern-based design process for the creation of CSCL macro-scripts computationally represented with IMS LD. Universidad de Valladolid.Google Scholar
  20. Katsamani, M., & Retalis, S. (2013). Orchestrating learning activities using the CADMOS learning design tool. Research in Learning Technology, 21(1063519), 1–12.Google Scholar
  21. Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(3).Google Scholar
  22. Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. S. F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(7), 74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kopp, M., & Lackner, E. (2014). Do Moocs Need a Special Instructional Design? EDULEARN14 Proceedings, (July), 7138–7147. Retrieved from http://library.iated.org/view/KOPP2014DOM
  24. Mariño, O., Casallas, R., Villalobos, J., Correal, D., & Contamines, J. (2007). Bridging the Gap between e-learning Modeling and Delivery through the Transformation of Learnflows into Workflows. In E-Learning Networked Environments and Architectures (pp. 27–59). Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Mclellan, S., Muddimer, A., & Peres, S. C. (2012). The effect of experience on system usability scale ratings. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(2), 56–67.Google Scholar
  26. Morales, L., Castillo, L., Fernandez-Olivares, J., & Gonzalez-Ferrer, A. (2008). Automatic generation of user adapted learning designs: An AI-planning proposal. In International Conference on Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems (pp. 324–328).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nodenot, T. (2007). Scénarisation pédagogique et modèles conceptuels d’un. EIAH: Que peuvent apporter les langages visuels? Revue Internationale Des Technologies En Pédagogie Universitaire (RITPU)/International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education (IJTHE), 4(2), 85–102.Google Scholar
  28. O’Brien, K. L., Forte, M., Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2017). Metaliteracy as pedagogical framework for learner-centered Design in Three MOOC platforms: Connectivist, Coursera and canvas. Open Praxis, 9(3), 267.  https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.3.553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Object Management Group (OMG). (2011). Business process model and notation (BPMN) version 2.0. Business, 50(January), 170–507.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-008-0096-z.Google Scholar
  30. Ouraib, E. A. (2012). Scénarisation pédagogique pour des EIAH ouverts: Une approche dirigée par les modèles et spécifique au domaine métier, 265. Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01128256/document
  31. Pernin, J. P., & Godinet, H. (2006). actes du colloque » Scénariser l’enseignement et l’apprentissage: une nouvelle compétence pour le praticien? ». INRP, Lyon, Avril.Google Scholar
  32. Pettenati, M. C., & Cigognini, M. E. (2007). Social networking theories and tools to support Connectivist learning activities. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 2(3), 42–60.  https://doi.org/10.4018/jwltt.2007070103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2011). When designing usability questionnaires, does it hurt to be positive? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2215–2224).Google Scholar
  34. Stylianakis, G., Moumoutzis, N., Arapi, P., Mylonakis, M., & Christodoulakis, S. (2015). COLearn and open discovery space portal alignment: A case of enriching open learning infrastructures with collaborative learning capabilities. In Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning, IMCL 2014, (Imcl) (pp. 252–256).  https://doi.org/10.1109/IMCTL.2014.7011142.Google Scholar
  35. Xiao, F., & Pardamean, B. (2016). MOOC model: Dimensions and model design to develop learning. New Educational Review, 43(1), 28–40.  https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2016.43.1.02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Le Mans Université, LIUM, EA 4023Laboratoire d’Informatique de l’Université du MansLe Mans Cedex 9France
  2. 2.IRF-SIC LaboratoryIbn Zohr UniversityAgadirMorocco

Personalised recommendations