Improving MOOC Student Learning Through Enhanced Peer-to-Peer Tasks

  • Borja Bordel
  • Ramón Alcarria
  • Diego Martín
  • Diego Sánchez-de-Rivera
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10254)

Abstract

In the context of MOOCs, activities that imply a deeper learning are, undoubtedly, P2P tasks. However, the traditional MOOC structure makes very difficult to evaluate the learning level obtained by students when performing these activities. This situation is especially problematic as students increasingly demand the universities to certify the knowledge acquired by means of MOOCs, so higher education institutions must guarantee their learning. In order to address this challenge, in this paper it is proposed a new type of P2P activity, designed to automatically provide students a valuable feedback about their work. This new type of activity is supported by a module, including a coordination engine and a formal revision component communicating by means of the LTI protocol with an automatic revision assistant, which allows differentiating a genuine contribution from the simple repetition of ideas. Moreover, and experimental validation is carried out. Results show first evidences that most students (up to 82%) improve their learning when employed the new proposed technology.

Keywords

P2P activity Revision assistant LTI protocol Learning improvement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Borja Bordel has received funding from the Ministry of Education through the FPU program (grant number FPU15/03977). Additionally, the research leading to these results has received funding from the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness through SEMOLA project (TEC2015-68284-R) and from the Autonomous Region of Madrid through MOSI-AGIL-CM project (grant P2013/ICE-3019, co-funded by EU Structural Funds FSE and FEDER).

References

  1. 1.
    Pappano, L.: The Year of the MOOC. The New York Times, vol. 2, no. 12 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dasarathy, B., Sullivan, K., Schmidt, D.C., Fisher, D.H., Porter, A.: The past, present, and future of MOOCs and their relevance to software engineering. In: Proceedings of the Future of Software Engineering, pp. 212–224 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexander, B.: Connectivism course draws night, or behold the MOOC. Infocult: Uncanny Informatics (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Open Courses program, Granada University. https://abierta.ugr.es/. Accessed 16 Jan 2017
  5. 5.
    Abeer, W., Miri, B.: Students’ preferences and views about learning in a MOOC. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 152, 318–323 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    EdPuzzle homepage. https://edpuzzle.com/. Accessed 16 Jan 2017
  7. 7.
    Bali, M.: MOOC pedagogy: gleaning good practice from existing MOOCs. J. Online Learn. Teach. 10(1), 44 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Udacity Nanodegree program. https://www.udacity.com/nanodegree. Accessed 16 Jan 2017
  9. 9.
    Lakshminarayanan, S.: Ruminating about MOOCs. J. NUS Teach. Acad. 2(4), 223–227 (2012). http://www.nus.edu.sg/teachingacademy/article/ruminating-about-moocs-2/. Accessed 16 Jan 2017MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kolowich, S., Newman, J.: The professors behind the MOOC hype: survey results. The Chronicle of Higher Education (2013). http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Professors-Behind-the-MOOC/137905/#id=results. Accessed 16 Jan 2017
  11. 11.
    Anderson, S., Collier, A., Horii, C.V.: Designing and implementing MOOCs to maximize student learning. Online presentation delivered as part of the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative Spring 2013Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krathwohl, D.R.: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract. 41(4), 212–218 (2012). doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Constructivist learning in the FutureLearning platform. https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/blended-learning-getting-started/0/steps/7848. Accessed 16 Jan 2017
  14. 14.
    Wong, J.S., Pursel, B., Divinsky, A., Jansen, B.J.: Analyzing MOOC discussion forum messages to identify cognitive learning information exchanges. Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 52(1), 1–10 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cook, E., Kennedy, E., McGuire, S.Y.: Effect of teaching metacognitive learning strategies on performance in general chemistry courses. J. Chem. Educ. 90(8), 961–967 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Griesbaum, J.: Students as teachers in MOOCs? The double gain of MOOCs as an in-class teaching method experiences from a student-made MOOC. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 4(1), 29 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luo, H., Robinson, A.C., Park, J.Y.: Peer grading in a MOOC: reliability, validity, and perceived effects. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 18(2), 1–14 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suen, H.K.: Peer assessment for massive open online courses (MOOCs). Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 15(3), 312–327 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Whitelock, D., Gilbert, L., Wills, G.: Feedback generators: providing feedback in MOOCs. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference CAA. University of Southampton (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Turnitin home page. http://turnitin.com/. Accessed 16 Jan 2017
  21. 21.
    Khan, S.: Let’s use video to reinvent education. http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education. Accessed 16 Jan 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Borja Bordel
    • 1
  • Ramón Alcarria
    • 1
  • Diego Martín
    • 1
  • Diego Sánchez-de-Rivera
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations