Öğrencilerin kitlesel açık erişim çevrimiçi derslerdeki kazanımları: Ders tasarımına yönelik bazı öneriler

Year 2017, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 46 - 71, 01.04.2017

Olga Pilli Wilfried Admiraal

Abstract

Üçüncü nesil uzaktan eğitim kapsamında kitlesel açık erişim çevrimiçi dersler (massive open online courses, MOOC'lar) sayesinde yüksek öğrenimde herkes istediği yerden ücretsiz eğitim alabilmektedir. Son yıllarda, eğitimde MOOC'ların yeri üzerine birçok çalışma yapılmıştır, ancak öğrencilerin kazanımları üzerine olan çalışmalar sınırlıdır. Bu çalışmada, açık erişim çevrimiçi derslerin tasarlanmasına yönelik birtakım önerileri belirlemek amacıyla, öğrencilerin MOOC'lardaki kazanımlarına ilişkin literatürü gözden geçirildi. İnceleme, bilimsel literatür veritabanlarının sistematik olarak araştırılmasının ardından, 3P (presage [öngörü], process [süreç] ve product [ürün]) öğretim ve öğrenim modelinin temel bileşenlerine yönelik eleştirel bir analizle gerçekleştirildi (Biggs, 2003). 56 yayının bulguları sentezlenerek, öğrencilerin katılımını ve akademik başarıyı geliştirmek ve terk etme oranlarını düşürmek amacıyla 13 ders tasarımı önerisi geliştirildi. Gerek ileriki araştırmalarda incelenmek üzere gerek ise de MOOC'ların mevcut içeriğini geliştirerek ve zenginleştirerek öğrenim kazanımlarını en iyi hale getirmek için bazı uygulama önerileri sunuldu.

Keywords

3P modeli, başarı, değerlendirme, katılım, öğrenim kazanımları.

Students' Learning Outcomes in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Some Suggestions for Course Design

Abstract

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) as a third generation distance education enable anyone anywhere to study for free in higher education. In recent years, various studies have been conducted on the position of MOOCs in education, but studies on students' learning outcomes are limited. In this study, literature concerning students' learning outcomes in MOOCs was explored with the aim of identifying a set of suggestions to design open online courses. The review was accomplished through a systematic search within scientific literature databases followed by a critical analysis with the main components of 3P (presage-process-product) model of teaching and learning (Biggs, 2003). Findings of the 56 publications were synthesized which resulted in the formulation of 13 course design suggestions in order to enhance students' engagement, academic achievement and lower attrition rate attrition. Some implications are proposed for further research and for providers to improve and enrich the current context of MOOCs to optimize students' learning outcomes.

Keywords

3P model, achievement, assessment, engagement, learning outcomes.

References

• Adams, C., Yin, Y., Madriz, L. F. V., & Mullen, C. S. (2014). A phenomenology of learning large: The tutorial sphere of xMOOC video lectures. Distance Education, 35(2), 202–216.
• Admiraal, W., Husiman, B., & Pilli, O. (2015). Assessment in massive open online courses. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(4): 207–216.
• Admiraal, W., Huisman, B., & Van de Ven, M. (2014). Self- and peer assessment in massive open online courses. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(3), 119–128.
• Ahn, J., Butler, B. S., Alam, A., & Webster, S. A. (2013). Learner participation and engagement in open online courses: Insights from the Peer 2 Peer University. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 160–171.
• Al-Atabi, M., & DeBoer, J. (2014). Teaching entrepreneurship using massive open online course (MOOC). Technovation, 34(4), 261–264.
• Balfour, S. P. (2013). Assessing writing in MOOCs: Automated essay scoring and calibrated peer review. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 40–48.
• Bali, M., Crawford, M., Jessen, R. L., Signorelli, P., & Zamora, M. (2015). What makes a cMOOC community endure? Multiple participant perspectives from diverse MOOCs. Educational Media International, doi:10.1080/09523987.2015.1053290
• Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2014). The pedagogy of the Massive Open Online Course: the UK view. York, UK: The Higher Education Academy.
• Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2 ed.). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
• Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Kou, X., Xu, S., & Sheu, F.-R. (2015). Understanding the self-directed online learning preferences, goals, achievements, and challenges of MIT OpenCourseWare subscribers. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 349–368.
• Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom research into edX’s First MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13–25.
• Campbell, J., Gibbs, A. L., Najafi, H., & Severinski, C. (2014). A comparison of learner intent and behaviour in live and archived MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5), 235–262.
• Castaño-Garrido, C., Maiz-Olazabalaga, I., & Garay-Ruiz, U. (2015). Design, motivation and performance in a cooperative MOOC course. Comunicar, 22(44), 19–26.
• Chang, R. I., Hung, Y. H., & Lin, C. F. (2015). Survey of learning experiences and influence of learning style preferences on user intentions regarding MOOCs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 52819–26541.
• Chen, Y.-H., & Chen, P.-J. (2015). MOOC study group: Facilitation strategies, influential factors, and student perceived gains. Computers & Education, 86, 55–70.
• Clarà, M., & Barberà, E. (2014). Three problems with the connectivist conception of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(3), 197–206.
• Clark, D. (2013). MOOCs: Taxonomy of 8 types of MOOC. Accessed through <http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=MOOCs: +taxonomy> on March 24th, 2015.
• Comer, D. K., Clark, C. R., & Canelas, D. A. (2014). Writing to learn and learning to write across the disciplines: Peer-to-peer writing in introductory-level
• MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5), 26–82.
• Daza, V., Makriyannis, N., & Rovira Riera, C. (2014). MOOC attack: Closing the gap between pre-university and university mathematics. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28(3), 227–238.
• de Freitas, S. I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 455–471.
• DeBoer, J., Ho, A. D., Stump, G. S., & Breslow, L. (2014). Changing “Course”: Reconceptualizing educational variables for massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 74–84.
• Dillahunt, T. R., Wang, B. Z., & Teasley, S. (2014). Democratizing higher education: Exploring MOOC use among those who cannot afford a formal education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5), 177–196.
• Diver, P., & Martinez, I. (2015). MOOCs as a massive research laboratory: Opportunities and challenges. Distance Education, 1-21.
• Ebben, M., & Murphy, J. S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: a review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning Media and Technology, 39(3), 328–345.
• EDUCAUSE. 7 things you should know about MOOCs. (2011). Accessed through <http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ ELI7078.pdf/> on February 13th, 2015.
• Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.
• Fasihuddin, H. A., Skinner, G. D., & Athauda, R. I. (2013). Boosting the opportunities of open learning (MOOCs) through learning theories. GSTF Journal on Computing, 3(3), 112–117.
• Firmin, R., Schiorring, E., Whitmer, J., Willett, T., Collins, E. D., & Sujitparapitaya, S. (2014). Case study: Using MOOCs for conventional college coursework. Distance Education, 35(2), 178–201.
• Fini, A. (2009). The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08 course tools. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5).