Advertisement

A MOOC-Based Flipped Class: Lessons Learned from the Orchestration Perspective

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10254)

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a case study about the orchestration process of a MOOC-based flipped-class, and the students’ adoption of this teaching practice. The study was conducted on a mandatory third-year course on Organizational Behavior in the School of Engineering at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile with 346 students. The analysis shows that students pay more attention in class and are more participative, even though this means more work and study. Also, implementing this strategy is much more work for the teacher than giving a traditional face-to-face lecture, but the students pay more attention in class and are more participative. Furthermore, up to 96% of the students were active in the MOOC under study before class, especially watching the video-lectures, and students who were more active in the MOOC showed better scores on the course exams than those less active, a difference that proves to be statistically significant. These findings suggest that a MOOC-based flipped class is a good solution to promote student’s motivation and learning, but the implementation of this teaching strategy is delicate and must be very well planned. We provide a list of lessons learned about five key factors to be considered when orchestrating a MOOC-based flipped classroom: design, management, awareness, adaptation and role of actors.

Keywords

Orchestration MOOC Flipped class Engineering 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by the Fondecyt (11150231), the Clover 2030 Engineering Strategy (14ENI2-26862), the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union, MOOC-Maker (561533-EPP-1-2015-1-ES-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP), SHEILA (562080-EPP-1-2015-BE-EPPKA3-PI-FORWARD) and COMPETEN-SEA (574212-EPP-1-2016-1- NL-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP), by eMadrid Excellence Network (S2013/ICE-2715), and the RESET (TIN2014-53199-C3-1-R) and FPDI-2013-17411.

References

  1. 1.
    Bras, I.: Los mooc en números, un análisis para comenzar la reflexión 17, 1–16 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kloos, C.D., Alario-hoyos, C., Pérez-sanagustín, M.: Tips and techniques for MOOC production, vol. 37, p. 28911 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kloos, C.D., Muñoz-Merino, P.J., Alario-Hoyos, C., Estévez Ayres, I., Fernández-Panadero, C.: Mixing and blending MOOC technologies with face-to-face pedagogies. In: IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference EDUCON, pp. 967–971 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rayyan, S., Fredericks, C., Colvin, K.F., Liu, A., Teodorescu, R., Barrantes, A., Pawl, A., Seaton, D.T., Pritchard, D.E.: A MOOC based on blended pedagogy. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 32(3), 190–201 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Flaherty, J., Phillips, C.: The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a scoping review. Internet High. Educ. 25, 85–95 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Niekerk, J., Webb, P.: The effectiveness of brain-compatible blended learning material in the teaching of programming logic. Comput. Educ. 103, 16–27 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Njie-Carr, V.P., Ludeman, E., Lee, M.C., Dordunoo, D., Trocky, N.M., Jenkins, L.S.: An integrative review of flipped classroom teaching models in nursing education. J. Prof. Nurs. 33(2), 133–144 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martinez-Maldonado, R., Martinez, R.: Seeing learning analytics tools as orchestration technologies: towards supporting learning activities across physical and digital spaces. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1601, pp. 70–73 (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prieto, L.P., Dimitriadis, Y., Asensio-Pérez, J.I., Looi, C.-K.: Orchestration in Learning Technology Research: Evaluation of a conceptual framework. Res. Learn. Technol. 23(1063519), 1–15 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prieto, L.P., Holenko Dlab, M., Gutiérrez, I., Abdulwahed, M., Balid, W.: Orchestrating technology enhanced learning: a literature review and a conceptual framework. Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 3(6), 583–598 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Creswell, J.W., Clark, V.L.P.: Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Google Books (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Santiago-Delefosse, M., Gavin, A., Bruchez, C., Roux, P., Stephen, S.L.: Quality of qualitative research in the health sciences: analysis of the common criteria present in 58 assessment guidelines by expert users. Soc. Sci. Med. 148, 142–151 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bekele, T.A.: Motivation and Satisfaction in internet-supported learning environments: a review. Educ. Technol. Soc. 13(2), 116–127 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spanjers, A.E., Könings, K.D., Leppink, J., Verstegen, D.M.L., de Jong, N., Czabanowska, K., van Merriënboer, J.J.G.: The promised land of blended learning: quizzes as a moderator. Educ. Res. Rev. 15, 59–74 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Velegol, S.B., Zappe, S.E., Mahoney, E.M.I.L.Y.: The evolution of a flipped classroom: evidence-based recommendations. Adv. Eng. Educ. 4(3), 1–37 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EngineeringPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileMaculChile
  2. 2.Department of Telematic EngineeringUniversidad Carlos III de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations