Advertisement

Developing a MOOC to Foster Information Literacy (IL) by Means of a Conjecture Map

  • Sabine Seufert
  • Josef Guggemos
  • Luca MoserEmail author
  • Stefan Sonderegger
Conference paper
  • 535 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1011)

Abstract

Teachers feel often insecure when handling digital media pedagogically and therefore need tools to support them. The present contribution shows how to develop an easy-to-use digital learning design to foster information literacy [IL] – the development of a Massive Open Online Course [MOOC]. This open form of digital learning setting is necessary to foster IL effectively as the handling of digital information is the main concern of IL at present. The Educational Design Research is conducted by means of conjecture mapping, what allows for a combined study of learning and teaching and its interdependence in a given learning setting. Derived from our high level conjectures, (I): IL consists of several interdependent competences, (II): a digital learning environment is crucial to foster IL, (III): an open and learner centered design is necessary, and (IV): a good MOOC follows defined principles, the MOOC has been developed. The MOOC lays ground for the yet to follow measure and improvement of the learning design.

Keywords

Conjecture map Information literacy MOOC Open education 

References

  1. 1.
    Argelagós, E., Pifarré, M.: Improving information problem solving skills in secondary education through embedded instruction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 264–270 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balceris, M.: Medien- und Informationskompetenz: Modellierung und Messung von Informationskompetenz bei Schülern. Dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Çoklar, A.N., Yaman, N.D., Yurdakul, I.K.: Information literacy and digital nativity as determinants of online information search strategies. Comput. Hum. Behav. 70, 1–9 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., Gannaway, D.: Progress and new directions for teaching and learning in MOOCs. Comput. Educ. 129, 48–60 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dillenbourg, P.: The evolution of research on digital education. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26(2), 544–560 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0106-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dunning, D.: The Dunning–Kruger effect: on being ignorant of one’s own ignorance (Chap. 5). In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 44, pp. 247–296 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Euler, D.: Wirkungs- vs. Gestaltungsforschung – eine feindliche Koexistenz? Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik 107(4), 520–542 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gapski, H., Tekster, T.: Informationskompetenz in Deutschland - Überblick zum Stand der Fachdiskussion und Zusammenstellung von Literaturangaben, Projekten und Materialien zu einzelnen Zielgruppen. Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gust von Loh, S., Henkel, M.: Information and media literacy in kindergarten. In: Kurbanoğlu, S., Špiranec, S., Grassian, E., Mizrachi, D., Catts, R. (eds.) ECIL 2014. CCIS, vol. 492, pp. 253–262. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14136-7_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hartig, J., Jude, N.: Empirische Erfassung von Kompetenzen und psychometrische Kompetenzmodelle. In: Hartig, S., Klieme, E. (Eds.) Möglichkeiten und Voraussetzungen technologiebasierter Kompetenzdiagnostik. Eine Expertise im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung, pp. 17–36. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hattie, J., Timperley, H.: The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 77(1), 81–112 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    HSG (University of St. Gallen) Homepage. https://www.unisg.ch/ueber-uns/portraet/rankingsundakkreditierungen/rankingresultate. Accessed 03 Jan 2019
  13. 13.
    Jones-Kavalier, B., Flannigan, S.: Connecting the digital dots: literacy of the 21st century. Educause Q. 2, 8–10 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kapp, K.: The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. Essential resources for training and HR professionals. Pfeiffer, San Francisco (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kögler, K., Egloffstein, M.: Didaktische Qualität von Massive Open Online Courses im bereich Business & Management – Ergebnisse einer Pilotstudie. Presentation at: Jahrestagung der Sektion Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik 2018, Frankfurt (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koltay, T., Špiranec, S., Karvalics, L.: The nature of information literacy (Chap. 2). In: Research 2.0 and the Future of Information Literacy. Chandos Information Professional Series. IMPACT Learning, pp. 61–110 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lanning, S., Mallek, J.: Factors influencing information literacy competency of college students. J. Acad. Librariansh. 43(5), 443–450 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li, Q., Baker, R.: The different relationships between engagement and outcomes across participant subgroups in massive open online courses. Comput. Educ. 127, 41–65 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liyanagunawardena, T., Parslow, P., Williams, S.: Dropout: MOOC participants’perspective. EMOOCs 2014, the Second MOOC European Stakeholders Summit, 10–12th February 2014, Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 95–100 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maybee, C.: Three essentials for integrating information literacy (Chap. 10). Chandos Information Professional Series. IMPACT Learning, pp. 133–143. Chandos Publishing, Cambridge (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McKenney, S., Reeves, T.: Conducting Educational Design Research. Routledge, Oxon (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paton, R.M., Scanlan, J.D., Fluck, A.E.: A performance profile of learner completion and retention in Australian VET MOOCs. J. Vocat. Educ. Training 70(4), 581–599 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2018.1463278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prensky, M.: Digital natives, digital immigrants, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1–6. MCB University Press (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sandoval, W.: Conjecture mapping: an approach to systematic educational design research. J. Learn. Sci. 23(1), 18–36 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seufert, S.: Berufsbildung 2030. Flexibilisierung der Berufsbildung im Kontext fortgeschrittener Digitalisierung. Gutachten im Auftrag des SBFI. Bern: Staatssekretariat für Bildung Forschung und Innovation (2018)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seufert, S.: Potenziale von Design Research aus der Perspektive der Innovationsforschung. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, Beiheft 2(27), 79–96 (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Seufert, S., Scheffler, N.: Developing digital competences of vocational teachers. Int. J. Digit. Literacy Digit. Competence 7(1), 50–65 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seufert, S., Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., Müller, S., Scheffler, N.: The design of Personal Learning Environments (PLE) with scope on information literacy in high school. In: Uden, L., Liberona, D., Welzer, T. (eds.) LTEC 2015. CCIS, vol. 533, pp. 148–163. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22629-3_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., Müller, S., Seufert, S., Scheffler, N.: The 7i framework – towards a measurement model for information literacy. In: Proceedings of the American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), pp. 1–14, Fajardo, PR (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., Müller, S., Seufert, S., Scheffler, N.: Modelling and measuring information literacy in secondary education. In: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), pp. 1–20, Fort Worth, Texas (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wozniak, H.: Conjecture mapping to optimize the educational design research process. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 31(5), 597–612 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M.: A usability evaluation of a blended MOOC environment: an experimental case study. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 16(2), 69–93 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Business Education and Educational Management, Digital Learning & Corporate LearningUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations