From Low-Scale to Collaborative, Gamified and Massive-Scale Courses: Redesigning a MOOC

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


Despite the success of MOOCs to promote open leaning, they are usually criticized for their high drop-out rates and behaviorist pedagogical approach. Some active learning strategies, such as collaboration and gamification, have shown their potential to overcome some of these problems at low scale. However, the design and implementation of such strategies in MOOCs is still a challenge, which is being studied by several researchers, who tend to focus specially on the enactment of MOOCs. Therefore, there is a need for research studies exploring the design processes of MOOCs including active strategies. In this paper, we describe a co-redesign process in which an economic translation course conceived as a MOOC but finally implemented in Moodle for blended learning, was redesigned to include collaboration and gamification to implement it in Canvas Network (a MOOC platform). During the redesign process we found severe difficulties related to the scale, which were mainly caused by the initial implementation in a typical LMS.


MOOC Redesign Co-design Active learning Collaboration Groups Gamification 



This research has been partially supported by the Junta de Castilla y León, Spain (VA082U16) and Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Spain (TIN2014-53199-C3-2-R). The authors thank the rest of the GSIC-EMIC research team as well as the Canvas team for their valuable ideas and support.


  1. 1.
    Shah, D.: By the numbers: MOOC in 2015. How has the MOOC space grown this years? Get the facts, figures, and pie charts (2015). Accessed Nov 2016
  2. 2.
    Ferguson, R., Sharples, M.: Innovative pedagogy at massive scale: teaching and learning in MOOCs. In: Rensing, C., Freitas, S., Ley, T., Muñoz-Merino, P.J. (eds.) EC-TEL 2014. LNCS, vol. 8719, pp. 98–111. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-11200-8_8 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., Littlejohn, A.: Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Comput. Educ. 80, 77–83 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dillenbourg, P., Fox, A., Kirchner, C., Mitchell, J., Wirsing, M.: Massive open online courses: current state and perspectives (Dagstuhl perspectives workshop). Dagstuhl Manifestos 4, 1–27 (2014). Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer InformatikGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jordan, K.: Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 15(1), 133–160 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Delgado-Kloos, C., Muñoz-Organero, M.: Delving into participants’ profiles and use of social tools in MOOCs. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 7(3), 260–266 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hew, K.F.: Promoting engagement in online courses: what strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 47(2), 320–341 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonwell, C.C., Eison, J.A.: Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports No. 1. The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, Washington, D.C. (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roschelle, J., Teasley, S.D.: The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In: O’Malley, C. (ed.) Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 128, pp. 69–97. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Isotani, S., Inaba, A., Ikeda, M., Mizoguchi, R.: An ontology engineering approach to the realization of theory-driven group formation. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 4(4), 445–478 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., Angelova, G.: Gamification in education: a systematic mapping study. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18(3), 75–88 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berggren, A., Burgos, D., Fontana, J.M., Hinkelman, D., Hung, V., Hursh, A., Tielemans, G.: Practical and pedagogical issues for teacher adoption of IMS learning design standards in Moodle LMS. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2005(1), Article no. 3 (2005). doi:
  13. 13.
    Álvarez-Álvarez, S., Arnáiz-Uzquiza, V.: Próxima estación, MOOC: diseño de un curso masivo abierto para la enseñanza de la traducción. In: Proceedings of the XIII Jornades de Xarxes d’investigació en Docència Universitària. Universidad de Alicante, pp. 521–536 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Penuel, W.R., Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N.: Designing formative assessment software with teachers: an analysis of the co-design process. Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 2(01), 51–74 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M.: Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Sourcebook. SAGE Publications Inc., Newbury Park (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cooch, M., Foster, H., Costello, E.: Our MOOC with Moodle. Position papers for European cooperation on MOOCs (2015). Accessed Jan 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GSIC-EMIC Research GroupUniversidad de ValladolidValladolidSpain
  2. 2.ITNT-ITAST GroupUniversidad de ValladolidSoriaSpain

Personalised recommendations