Advertisement

Journal of Computers in Education

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 309–328 | Cite as

The emerging pedagogy of MOOCs, the educational design of technology and practices of study

  • Thomas Storme
  • Nancy VansieleghemEmail author
  • Steven Devleminck
  • Jan Masschelein
  • Maarten Simons
Article

Abstract

During the last years, MOOCs (massive open online courses) are part of the most discussed developments in educational technology. MOOCs swept the landscape of educational technology in no time. However, through all this enthusiasm, it is difficult to see the contribution of MOOCs to computer-based education. Even though there is a surge in MOOCs as well as in MOOC-research, it is unclear how an effective MOOC-pedagogy can be developed. What is this MOOC-phenomenon? And how can we, as educators, teachers, pedagogues, educational researchers, develop MOOC-pedagogy? In the first part of this paper, we’ll start with an overview of the MOOC-phenomenon. In the second part, we’ll discuss the implicit philosophical attitudes towards educational technology that underlies much of the MOOC-debates. We then argue that, rather than a theoretically grounded approach to educational technology, common sense attitudes of essentialism and instrumentalism prevail. In the last part of the paper, we suggest to concentrate on the educational design of technology and on the development of practices of study necessary to deal with technology, in order to develop a meaningful educational practice.

Keywords

MOOCs Educational design Practices of study Socio-material perspective 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by an OOF-grant from KU Leuven Association—OOF 2014/30 - The b-side of screen-learning: a MOOC to think with eyes and hands. Participants involved in the project are: Kris Cardinaels (co-supervisor), Marc De Blieck, Teis De Greve, Didier Deschrijver, Steven Devleminck, Roel Kerkhofs, Jan Masschelein (co-supervisor), Maarten Simons, Thomas Storme, Nancy Vansieleghem (supervisor)

References

  1. Altamirano, M. (2014). Three concepts for crossing the nature-artifice divide: Technology, milieu, and machine. Foucault Studies, 17, 11–35.Google Scholar
  2. Bates, T. (2014a). Time to retire from online learning? Retrieved from http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/04/15/time-to-retire-from-online-learning/.
  3. Bates, T. (2014b). Comparing xMOOCs and cMOOCs: philosophy and practice. Retrieved from http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/13/comparing-xmoocs-and-cmoocs-philosophy-and-practice/.
  4. Bates, T. (2015). Teaching in a digital age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/.
  5. Bayne, S. (2015a). Teacherbot: interventions in automated teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(4), 455–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayne, S. (2015b). What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 5–20. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2014.915851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bayne, S. & Ross, J. (2014). The pedagogy of the massive open online course (MOOC): The UK view. Higher Education Academy Report. Retrieved from: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/HEA_Edinburgh_MOOC_WEB_240314_1.pdf.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/HEA_Edinburgh_MOOC_WEB_240314_1.pdf.
  8. Behrent, M. (2013). Foucault and technology. History and Technology, 29(1), 54–104. doi: 10.1080/07341512.2013.780351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biemiller, L. (2014). Harvard and MIT release visualization tools for trove of MOOC data. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Blogpost retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/harvard-and-mit-release-visualization-tools-for-trove-of-mooc-data.
  10. Borden, J. (2014). MOOCs are deadLong live the MOOC. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/insights/2014/08/moocs-are-dead-long-live-the-mooc/.
  11. Bradt, S. (2015). Online courses + time on campus = a new path to an MIT master’s degree. Retrieved from http://news.mit.edu/2015/online-supply-chain-management-masters-mitx-micromasters-1007.
  12. Cáceres-Piñuel, M. (2014). European MOOCs: A proposal to link informal and formal education in Europe. Report GO-GN Seminar Ljubljana, Retrieved April 2014, from http://oer-unescochair-ounl.ning.com/publications-go-gn/european-moocs-a-proposal-to-link-informal-and-formal-education-i.
  13. Castro, C. (2013). Bernard Stiegler: avec le numérique, nous sommes dans l’obligation de repenser l’éducation. Interview retrieved from http://www.inriality.fr/education/ecole/mooc/bernard-stiegler-avec/.
  14. Chafkin, M. (2013). Udacity’s Sebastian Thrun, godfather of free online education, changes course. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/3021473/udacity-sebastian-thrun-uphill-climb.
  15. Chauhan, A. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCS): Emerging trends in assessment and accreditation. Digital Education Review, 25, 7–18.Google Scholar
  16. Chiappe-Laverde, A., Hine, N., & Martinez-Silva, J. A. (2014). Literature and practice: A critical review of MOOCs. Communicar, 44(22), 9–17.Google Scholar
  17. Chung, C. (2015). A big step in MOOCs for Credit? The ASU & edX Global Freshman Academy. Class Central post retrieved from https://www.class-central.com/report/moocs-credit-asu-edx-global-freshman-academy/.
  18. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cormier, D. (2008). The CCK08 MOOCConnectivism course, 1/4 way. Blogpost retrieved from http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/10/02/the-cck08-mooc-connectivism-course-14-way/.
  20. Crogan, P., & Kinsley, S. (2012). Paying attention: towards a critique of the attention economy. Culture machine, 13, 1–29.Google Scholar
  21. Downes, S. (2007). What connectivism is. Retrieved from http://halfanhour.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html.
  22. Downes, S. (2009). Access2OER: the CCK08 solution. Retrieved from http://halfanhour.blogspot.be/2009/02/access2oer-cck08-solution.html.
  23. Downes, S. (2012a). Connectivism and connective knowledge. Essays on meaning and learning networks. E-book retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/me/mybooks.htm.
  24. Downes, S. (2012b). The rise of moocs. Interview retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/post/57911.
  25. Downes, S. (2013). What the ‘x’ in ‘xMOOC’ stands for. Retrieved from: https://plus.google.com/+StephenDownes/posts/LEwaKxL2MaM.
  26. Downes, S. (2015a). From MOOC to personal learning. Revista FGV Online, 5(1), 69–77.Google Scholar
  27. Downes, S. (2015b). The MOOC Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the Keynote presentation delivered to Association of Medical Educators of Europe (AMEE) E-Learning Symposium, Glasgow, Scotland. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/presentation/364.
  28. Ebben, M., & Murphy, J. S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: a review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(3), 328–345. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2013.878352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Flusser, V. (2013). Post-history (S. Zielinski, Ed., R. Maltez Novaes, Trans.). Univocal publishing: Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  30. Friedman, T. L. (2013). Revolution hits the universities. NYTimes. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/friedman-revolution-hits-the-universities.html?_r=0.
  31. Gilliot, J.-M., Garlatti, S., Rebai, I., & Belen-Sapia, M. (2013). Le concept de iMOOC pour une ouverture maîtrisée. In Rosselle, M. & Gilliot, J.-M., Proceeding of the MOOC Workshop, at the EIAH’2013, May 28, 2013, Toulouse, France, Retrieved from http://ateliermoocei-ah2013.wordpress.com/.
  32. Gourlay, L. (2015). Open education as a ‘heterotopia of desire’. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 310–327. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2015.1029941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grant, R. (2013a). How data is driving the biggest revolution in education since the middle ages. VentureBeat. Retrieved from http://venturebeat.com/2013/12/04/how-data-is-driving-the-biggest-revolution-in-education-since-the-middle-ages/.
  34. Grant, R. (2013b). How data is driving the biggest revolution in education since the middle ages. VentureBeat. Retrieved from http://venturebeat.com/2013/12/04/how-data-is-driving-the-biggest-revolution-in-education-since-the-middle-ages/.
  35. Hamilton, E., & Friesen, N. (2013). Online education: A science and technology studies perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
  36. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Hayles, K. (2007). Hyper and deep attention: The generational divide in cognitive modes. Profession, pp. 187–199.Google Scholar
  38. Hayles, K. (2010). How we read: Close, hyper, machine. ADE Bulletin, 150. Retrieved from http://nkhayles.com/how_we_read.html.
  39. Ho, A. D., Reich, J., Nesterko, S., Seaton, D. T., Mullaney, T., Waldo, J., & Chuang, I. (2014). HarvardX and MITx: The first year of open online courses (HarvardX and MITx Working Paper No. 1). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2586847 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2586847.
  40. Hug, T. (2015). MOOCs and OE in higher education: Critical reflections on sparse critique of dispersed phenomena. In Handouts of Presentation at ECER 2015.Google Scholar
  41. Illich, I. (1993). In the vineyard of the text. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., et al. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.Google Scholar
  43. Jaillet, A. (2014). Les films promoteurs de MOOC, une rhétorique de ladivisio”. Distance et médiation des savoirs. http://dms.revues.org/951#tocto1n3.
  44. Jansen, D., & Schuwer, R. (2015). Institutional MOOC strategies in Europe. Status report for HOME—Higher education Online: MOOCs the European way. EADTU.Google Scholar
  45. Jordan, K. (2015). Mooc completion rates: The data. Retrieved from http://www.katyjordan.com/MOOCproject.html.
  46. Kennedy, J. (2014). Characteristics of massive open online courses (MOOCs): A research review, 2009–2012. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  47. Khan, S. (2012). The one world schoolhouse. Education reimagined. NY: Twelve.Google Scholar
  48. Koller, D. (2015). MOOCs making progress after the hype has died. Interview met Knowledge@Wharton. Youtube video retrieved from https://youtu.be/4pFwn7EOELo.
  49. Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 12(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/882/1689.
  50. Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Siemens, G., & Hatala, M. (2015). What public media reveals about MOOCs: A systematic analysis of news reports. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 510–527. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lane, L. (2012). Three kinds of MOOCs. Lisa’s (online) teaching blog. Blog post retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/neztkzu.
  52. Lewin, D. (Forthcoming). Humanising online pedagogy: technology, attention and education.Google Scholar
  53. Mangenot, F. (2014). MOOC : hypothèses sur l’engouement pour un objet mal identifié Distances et médiations des savoirs 7. Retrieved from http://dms.revues.org/844.
  54. Manturuk, K. (2014). Learning objectives in MOOCs. Duke Center for instructional technology. Blogpost retrieved from https://cit.duke.edu/blog/2014/06/learning-objectives-moocs/.
  55. Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers and Education, 80, 77–83. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2013). In defence of the school. A public issue (J. McMartin, Trans.). Leuven: E-ducation, Culture & Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2015). Education in times of fast learning: the future of the school. Ethics and Education, 10(1), 84–95. doi: 10.1080/17449642.2014.998027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G. & Cormier, D. (2010). In the Open: The MOOC model for digital practice. SSHRC Application, Knowledge Synthesis for the Digital Economy. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf
  59. McKay, R. F. (2013). Learning analytics at Stanford takes huge leap forward with MOOCs. Stanford Online. Blogpost retrieved from http://online.stanford.edu/news/2013/04/11/learning-analytics-stanford-takes-huge-leap-forward-moocs.
  60. Moe, R. (2014). The MOOC problem. Retrieved from http://www.hybridpedagogy.com/journal/mooc-problem/.
  61. Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. NY: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
  62. Morrison, D. (2014). An unique approach to a xMOOCLearner-centric course design. Retrieved from https://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/an-unique-approach-to-a-xmooc-learner-centric-course-design/.
  63. Noels, G. (2015). De goden van Silicon Valley zijn niet onsterfelijk. De Standaard. Retrieved from http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20151006_01906111.
  64. OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: making the connection. PISA: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Onah, D., Sinclair, J. & Boyatt, R. (2014). Dropout rates of massive open online courses : Behavioural patterns. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona, pp. 5825–5834.Google Scholar
  66. Open education europe (2015). The mooc scoreboard. Retrieved from http://openeducationeuropa.eu/en/open_education_scoreboard.
  67. OpenupEd. (2015). Definition massive open online course version 1.1. Retrieved from http://www.openuped.eu/images/docs/Definition_Massive_Open_Online_Courses.pdf.
  68. Ostashewski, N. & Reid, D. (2012). Delivering a MOOC using a social networking site: the SMOOC design model. Internet Technologies and Society, pp. 217–221.Google Scholar
  69. Parr, C. (2013). Mooc creators criticise courses’ lack of creativity. Interview met Downes, Siemens, Cormier. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/mooc-creators-criticise-courses-lack-of-creativity/2008180.article.
  70. Porter, W., Graham, C., Spring, K., & Welch, K. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: institutional adoption and implementation. Computers and Education, 75, 185–195. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Raposo-Rivas, M., Martinez-Figueira, E., & Sarmiento Campos, J. (2015). A study of the pedagogical components of massive online courses. Communicar, 44(22), 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rheingold, H. (2013). Phonar: Openly networked digital storytelling. Retrieved from http://clalliance.org/whatsnew-main/phonar-case-study/.
  73. Ripley, A. (2012). College is dead. Long live college! time. Retrieved from http://nation.time.com/2012/10/18/college-is-dead-long-live-college/.
  74. Rivard, R. (2013a) Udacity project in ‘pause’. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/18/citing-disappointing-student-outcomes-san-jose-state-pauses-work-udacity.
  75. Rivard, R. (2013b). Beyond MOOC hype. InsideHigherEd. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/09/higher-ed-leaders-urge-slow-down-mooc-train.
  76. Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. The European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/?article=516.
  77. Ross, J., Sinclair, C., Knox, J., Bayne, S., & Macleod, H. (2014). Teacher experiences and academic identity: The missing components of MOOC pedagogy. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 57–69.Google Scholar
  78. Rubens, W. (2008). E-learning: Trends en ontwikkelingen. Develop, 4, 7–16.Google Scholar
  79. Russel, (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. North Carolina State University. Zie ook http://www.nosignificantdifference.org.
  80. Rutter, M. P. (2014). Interactive visualization tools bring transparency to Harvard and MIT MOOCs. HarvardX Press Release retrieved from http://harvardx.harvard.edu/news/interactive-visualization-tools-bring-transparency-harvard-and-mit-moocs.
  81. Sandeen, C. (2013). Integrating MOOCS into traditional higher education: The emerging “MOOC 3.0” Era. The Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(6), 34–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schoenack, L. (2013). A new framework for massive open online courses (MOOCs). Journal of Adult Education, 42(2), 98–103.Google Scholar
  83. Schulmeister, R. (Ed.). (2013). MOOCsMassive open online courses. Offene Bildung oder Geschäftsmodell? Münster: Waxmann. Retrieved from http://www.waxmann.com/buch2960.
  84. Schulmeister, R. (2014). The position of xMOOCs in educational systems. Eleed, 10.Google Scholar
  85. Selwyn, N., Bulfin, S., & Pangrazio, L. (2015). Massive open online change? Exploring the discursive construction of the ‘MOOC’ in newspapers. Higher Education Quarterly, 1(18), 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Shullenberger, G. (2013). The MOOC revolution: A sketchy deal for higher education. In Dissent. Retrieved from https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-mooc-revolution-a-sketchy-deal-for-higher-education.
  87. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10Google Scholar
  88. Siemens, G. (2013a). Changing schools, changing knowledge. Interview on The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Youtube video retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR_ziHA_8LY.
  89. Siemens, G. (2013b). Learning analytics. The emerging of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1380–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Siemens, G., Gasevic, D. & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the digital university: a review of the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning.Google Scholar
  91. Siller, F., Bastian, J., Muuß-Merholz, J. & Siebertz, T. (2014). Project-based MOOCs. A field report on open learning in media education. In Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2014, pp. 288–292.Google Scholar
  92. Skrypnyk, O., Joksimović, S., Kovanović, V., Gaševic, D. & Dawson, S. (2015). Roles of course facilitators, learners, and technology in the flow of information of a CMOOC. The International Reviews of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2170/3347.
  93. Sonwalkar, N. (2013). The first adaptive MOOCA case study on pedagogy framework and scalable cloud architecturePart I. MOOCs Forum, pp. 22–29.Google Scholar
  94. Stewart, B. (2013). Massiveness + openness = new literacies of participation? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 228–238. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/stewart_bonnie_0613.htm.
  95. Stiegler, B. (2008). Prendre soin de la jeunesse et des générations. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  96. Temple, J. (2009). Salman Khan, math master of the Internet. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Salman-Khan-math-master-of-the-Internet-3278578.php.
  97. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (2013). White paper. Open Educational Resources. Breaking the lockbox on education. Retrieved from http://www.hewlett.org/library/hewlett-foundation-publication/white-paper-open-educational-resources.
  98. Unesco. (2002). Forum on the impact of open courseware for higher education in developing countries. Final report. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=2492&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
  99. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf.
  100. Veletsianos, G., Collier, A., & Schneider, E. (2015). Digging deeper into learners’ experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of MOOCs, notetaking and contexts surrounding content consumption. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 570–587. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Watters, A. (2013a). [Expletive Deleted] Ed-Tech #Edinnovation. Blogpost retrieved from http://hackeducation.com/2013/05/04/ed-tech-argo-f-k-yourself/.
  102. Watters, A. (2013b). Click here to save education: Evgeny Morozov and Ed-Tech Solutionism. Blogpost retrieved from http://hackeducation.com/2013/03/26/ed-tech-solutionism-morozov/.
  103. Watters, A. (2014). MOOCs, outsourcing, and online education. Retrieved from http://2014trends.hackeducation.com/moocs.html.
  104. Webley, K. (2012). MOOC Brigade: Will massive, open online courses revolutionize higher education? time. Retrieved from http://nation.time.com/2012/09/04/mooc-brigade-will-massive-open-online-courses-revolutionize-higher-education/.
  105. Weller, M. (2015). MOOCs and the silicon valley narrative. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(5), 1–7. doi: 10.5334/jime.am.Google Scholar
  106. Wiley, D., Green, C., Soares, L. (2012). Dramatically Bringing Down the Cost of Education with OER. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2012/02/07/11167/dramatically-bringing-down-the-cost-of-education-with-oer/.
  107. Yousef, A., Chatti, M., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M. & Jakobs, H. (2014) In MOOCs: A Review of the State-of-the-Art Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Computer Supported EducationCSEDU 2014, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 9–20.Google Scholar
  108. Zonis, B. (2014). A MOOC sees its greatest impact in the classroom at MIT. Office of Digital Learning, MIT. Retrieved from http://news.mit.edu/2014/mooc-sees-its-greatest-impact-classroom-mit-1114.

Copyright information

© Beijing Normal University 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LUCA School of Arts, GhentGhentBelgium
  2. 2.LUCA School of Arts, BrusselsBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Laboratory for Education and SocietyKU LeuvenLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations