Kolb's Learning Styles, Learning Activities and Academic Performance in a Massive Private Online Course

  • Mario SolarteEmail author
  • Raúl Ramírez-Velarde
  • Carlos Alario-Hoyos
  • Gustavo Ramírez-González
  • Hugo Ordóñez-Eraso
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11288)


Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) have been considered an “educational revolution”. Although these courses were designed to reach a massive number of participants, Higher Education institutions have started to use MOOCs technologies and methodologies as a support for educative traditional practices in what has been called Small Private Online Courses (SPOCs) and Massive Private Online Courses (MPOCs) according to the proportion of students enrolled and the teachers who support them. A slightly explored area of scientific literature is the possible correlations between performance and learning styles in academic value courses designed to be offered in massively environments. This article presents the results obtained in the MPOC “Daily Astronomy” at University of Cauca in terms of the possible associations between learning styles according to Kolb and the results in the evaluations and the activity demonstrated in the services of the platform that hosted the course.


MOOC MPOC Kolb´s learning styles Assessment PCA 


  1. 1.
    Siemens, G.: Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. Accessed 15 Dec 2017
  2. 2.
    Wiley, D.: The MOOC misnomer. Accessed 15 June 2018
  3. 3.
    McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., Cormier, D.: The MOOC model for digital practice. Accessed 15 June 2018
  4. 4.
    Liyanagunawardena, T., Adams, A., Williams, S.: MOOCs: a systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. Int. Rev. Res. Open. Distrib. Learn. 14(3), 202–227 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guo, P.J., Kim, J., Rubin, R.: How video production affects student engagement: an empirical study of MOOC videos. In: Memorias Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale Conference, pp. 41–50. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roig, R., Mengual, S., Suarez, C.: Evaluación de la calidad pedagógica de los MOOC. Profesorado 18(1), 27–41 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jansen, D., Schuwer, R.: Institutional MOOC strategies in Europe. Status Report Based on a Mapping Survey Conducted in October–December 2014 (2014). Accessed 15 June 2018
  8. 8.
    Adone, D., Michaescu, V., Ternauciuc, A., Vasiu, R.: Integrating MOOCs in traditional higher education. In: Memorias Third European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit, pp. 71–75 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mohamed, A., Yousef, F., Chatti, M., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M.: A usability evaluation of a blended MOOC environment: an experimental case study. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 16(2), 69–93 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bishop, J., Verleger, M.: The flipped classroom: a survey of the research. In: IASEE National Conference, pp. 1–18 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fox, A.: From MOOCs to SPOCs. Commun. ACM 56(12), 38–40 (2013). Accessed 15 June 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guo, W.: From SPOC to MPOC–the effective practice of Peking University online teacher training. In: International Conference of Memorias Educational Innovation through Technology, pp. 258–264. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Solarte, M., Ramírez, G., Jaramillo, D.: Access habits and assessment results in massive online courses with academic value. Ingeniería e Innovación 5(1), 1–10 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    (n.d.). Accessed 15 June 2018
  15. 15.
    Ramirez-Velarde, R., Alexandrov, N., Sanhueza-Olave, M., Perez-Cazares, R.: The impact of learning activities on the final grade in engineering education. Procedia Comput. Sci. 80, 1812–1821 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramirez-Velarde, R., Olave, M.S., Alexandrov, N., de Marcos Ortega, L.: Do learning activities matter? In: International Conference on Interactive Collaborative and Blended Learning, pp. 76–82. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kolb, D.: Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. FT press, Upper Saddle River (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jolliffe, I.T.: Principal Component Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario Solarte
    • 1
    Email author
  • Raúl Ramírez-Velarde
    • 2
  • Carlos Alario-Hoyos
    • 3
  • Gustavo Ramírez-González
    • 1
  • Hugo Ordóñez-Eraso
    • 4
  1. 1.Universidad del CaucaPopayánColombia
  2. 2.Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de MonterreyMonterreyMexico
  3. 3.Universidad Carlos III de MadridMadridSpain
  4. 4.Universidad San BuenaventuraBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations