Abstract
MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) are a clear manifestation of the democratization of knowledge, enabled by the emergence of ICT and media convergence. Its development has been accelerated by the current digital environment, which has allowed for the creation of digital platforms and structures for learning and for the transfer of information. Digital platforms, understood as virtual learning spaces, combine the tools and resources needed to manage teaching and training resources through the Internet and the remaining communication networks provided by ICT. The possibility of a free access to these new pedagogical structures and to the learning communities that are generated, indicates the absence of limits to reach the contents that they offer and denotes greater opportunities for interaction between participants.
Student empowerment is an essential objective of MOOCs that is designed to foster their multidirectional communicative potential through more participatory pedagogical channels. New MOOC modalities invite all participants in the virtual learning community to intervene through digital platforms and social networks, not only to access the different contents proposed but also to contribute their ideas to the design, planning, and structure of the course (Gil Quintana & Martínez, Pérez, Revista Complutense de Educación, 29:43–60, 2018). The greater ease with which knowledge can be disseminated, the approach of quality content at a minimum or nonexistent cost for the student and access to prestigious teaching staff have boosted student empowerment in MOOCs (Abdul and Ramírez, Herramientas Web 2.0 para el Aprendizaje Colaborativo. [Web 2.0 Collaborative Learning Tools]. CYTED (Ciencia y Tecnología para el desarrollo). University of Reading, Tecnológico de Monterrey, p. 1, 2009).
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- MOOCs
- Democratization of knowledge
- ICT
- Media convergence
- Digital platforms
- Virtual learning spaces
- Learning communities
- Pedagogical structures
- Student empowerment
- Dynamism of social media
1 MOOCs: A New Paradigm for Learning
Bosom Nieto and Fernández Recio (2008) state that in recent years there has been a change in the online training educational model, incorporating a series of technological tools that offer the possibility of contributing to the production of collective knowledge. According to these authors, knowledge is no longer on the Web, as it used to be in books and libraries, but rather the Web itself has become a source of knowledge and a tool for developing educational content collaboratively. These two researchers argue that MOOCs content and training activities are designed to learn by doing, stimulating the creativity and curiosity of the student in his or her role as an active member. In such a way that each person is the protagonist of their training and transforms the process of listening, viewing, and reading the contents of the course into informal conversations, games, and simulations, which then become tools to build collaborative knowledge.
The new learning paradigm represented by MOOCs in the last decade has been the subject of scientific literature. Aguayo Franco (2017) explains that in recent years different studies have been focused on analyzing scientific production in this learning environment. Among them are the bibliometric studies by, Aguaded, Vázquez-Cano, and López Meneses (2016), Mengual-Andrés, Vázquez-Cano, and López Meneses (2017), Sangrà, González-Sanmamed, and Anderson (2015), Zancanaro and Carvalho de Souza (2018); along the same lines, the work of Arnol and Sangrá Morer (2018) on the potential of ICTs in learning is noteworthy. MOOCs have also been the subject of European research projects, such as that of Valle Casanova (2015). As antecedents to this state of the art, there are works that go back to the previous decade, such as Siemens (2005) and Atkins, Seely, and Hammon (2007) among others. However, scientific production has not ceased in recent years as evidenced, for example, in the work of Siemens, Downes, and Cormier (2012), Vinader and Abuín (2013), Cabero, Llorente-Cejudo, and Vázquez-Martínez (2014), Rivera (2014), Castañón and Ziegler (2016), Gértrudix Barrio, Rajas Fernández, and Álvarez García (2017), Ramírez-Donoso, Rojas-Riethmuller, Pérez Sanagustín, Neyem, and Alario-Hoyos (2017), Morado (2018), Osuna-Acedo, Marta-Lazo, and Frau-Meig (2018), Gil Quintana and Martínez Pérez (2018), Roura-Redondo and Osuna-Acedo (2018) and Arnol and Sangrá Morer (2018).
1.1 A Virtual Learning Community
MOOCs are conceived as a virtual learning community that is characterized precisely by its collaborative nature. Poy and González-Aguilar (2014) state that this virtual space is defined as a social network that gathers people with common interests, whether at work, in academia, or in any other field. In this learning environment, students can contribute to collective knowledge by sharing ideas that they construct and share based on the responses of other students, through an online learning model based on the double interaction between students or between teachers and students. Suárez-Guerrero (2010) argues that, in order to be cooperative, this virtual interaction requires as a necessary condition the existence of a common goal for all participants. From this common goal emanate the needs for joint action technologically mediated by asynchrony. Meanwhile, Raposo-Rivas, Martínez-Figueira, and Sarmiento Campos (2015), based on the theses of Siemens (2005), have shown that cooperation and collaboration activities that are proposed as pedagogical content for this type of training actions have a direct impact on how students perceive and process information, which generates an alternative way of building knowledge.
1.2 Culture of Participation and Learning in MOOCs
Roura-Redondo and Osuna-Acedo (2018) claim that the most defining characteristic of our era is a culture of participation . The concept of participatory culture, previously coined by Jenkins (2006), is related to values such as diversity, inclusion, horizontality, democracy, and the relative absence of barriers to any form of civic expression and commitment. In this sense, a participatory culture would be one in which members feel some degree of social connection or, at least, think that their contributions are significant to others. Roura-Redondo and Osuna-Acedo also point to media convergence, social networks , and virtual platforms as fundamental elements of the knowledge society, as they all generate spaces that facilitate participation, interaction, and collaboration. Both authors consider that digital technologies, as virtual spaces for participation, foster collaborative spaces in which it is possible to collectively build collective intelligence. In a previous contribution by Aparici and Osuna-Acedo (2013), they already realized that the last decade has seen the emergence of collaborative and participatory culture on a global scale. According to these researchers, participation can occur spontaneously—like a tide of ideas, without clear objectives—but it acquires special importance when it has its own identity, intentional degrees of visibility, a reputation and—in addition—can be positioned on the web. It is in this second case, when participation can become a cultural strategy of different social groups to reinvent digital citizen power.
The researcher Gil Quintana (2017), echoing the contributions of Castells (2008), has defined participation as a new communicative model open to horizontality and democratic citizenship that has given way to a type of innovative user who seeks to interact in this great space that is the Network Society, taking part in it and collaborating actively in its construction. This scenario is certainly a fertile ground for the implementation of MOOCs as a learning model.
In general terms, the culture of participation implies horizontal communication models where power relations give people the possibility to exchange viewpoints, to express ideas and comments, and also to work collaboratively. Undoubtedly, Web 2.0, social networks and the remaining ICTs currently constitute an ecosystem that encourages participation and interactivity. It is precisely within this social and technological framework that MOOC learning communities cannot be conceived without taking into account the participation of students and teachers. Nor can they be conceived without taking into account the existence of an effective interactivity between both groups and without a shared vision of collaborative work. From there, it is convenient to look at the dimension of MOOCs as virtual learning communities and to identify their main characters, their interrelationship modes, and the instruments used for the construction of collaborative contents.
2 MOOCs: An Evolving Educational Model, Subject to the Technological Impact and Dynamism of Social Media
One of the first educational experiences to be given the name MOOC was the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge course, organized in 2008 by Siemens and Downes at the University of Manitoba (Canada). Since then, the dynamism of this training modality has been permanent, mainly as a result of the evolution of ICT and social networks. Osuna-Acedo et al. (2018) have discussed the constant and dynamic evolution of MOOCs in the last decade. In this sense, they point to the first models called cMOOCs and xMOOCs as antecedents of the current MOOCs. Bernal González, Prendes, and Sánchez Vera (2016) qualify the former as courses based on constructivist models, while the latter is situated within the behavioral model. cMOOCs are based on the connectivist current and seek to stimulate the exchange of information in a joint learning environment where technology-facilitated interaction is fundamental. For their part, xMOOCs tend to reproduce what happens in the classroom and have a pedagogical system that is not far removed from the one normally used by the teacher in a regular face-to-face classroom. These are standardized courses that often lead to certifications supported by educational institutions (Conole, 2013).
These two training models have evolved towards pedagogical formats that enhance student interaction by combining it with the participation model implemented by existing social networks. These are the so-called postMOOCs and sMOOCs. Osuna-Acedo et al. (2018) have pointed out that sMOOCs (Social Massive Open Online Courses) introduce a greater degree of social interaction and participation, are accessible from different platforms, and can be integrated into real-life experiences. Parallel to this model, tMOOCs (Transfer Massive Open Online Course) are based on the transfer of learning towards a profession, pedagogical transformation, transmediality, open temporality, intercreative talent, and collaborative work and tolerance. Osuna-Acedo et al. claim that, in so doing, a new dimension is reached in this type of courses—the tMOOCs or transferMOOCs—which provide students with the necessary skills to put into practice all the learning tools and methods, as well as peer co-evaluation systems.
2.1 MOOC Actors and Main Characters
Today, the Internet and social networks allow everyone who participates in a MOOC to teach others, informally. Now, this teaching model is multidirectional: from student to student, from teacher to student, and from teacher to teacher. Researchers such as Poy and González-Aguilar (2014) and Sosa, López, and Díaz (2014) have referred to the key characters and the role that each of them plays in this virtual teaching model. In relation to the role played, these researchers have identified the course professors and students as the main actors. However, the participation of some representatives of the institution who intervene in logistics, technical support, or in the student’s relationship with the MOOC’s teaching institution is also fundamental.
2.1.1 The New Role of the Teacher in MOOCs
Under the MOOC methodology, teachers have become organizers of the teaching process, coordinating collaborative work and adapting the design of activities to group dynamics. According to Sosa et al. (2014), platform administrators/teachers are responsible for coordinating the course, planning activities, and solving difficulties. Another fundamental mission of the teacher is the supervision of the tools available to achieve student motivation and follow-through.
Recently, Muñiz (2017) interviewed the Director of the UOC’s eLearn Center, who expressed his conviction that currently, in MOOCs and in new online training, the teacher should not transmit information because it is already included in manuals, articles, and websites. In the new paradigm, the teacher is a coach who follows each student, helps them in their learning, and evaluates them, not with exams but with tasks that demonstrate their know-how. To such an extent that, now, the teacher has become a coordinator of teams with key competences for the new workplace and social environment, such as entrepreneurship and leadership, as opposed to the old teacher who transferred his or her knowledge to the students. From this same perspective, Marta-Lazo, Frau-Meigs, and Osuna-Acedo (2018) stress the importance of the training of e-professors and the transfer of knowledge from a professional point of view.
2.2 MOOC as a Personal Learning Environment
In MOOC, the student’s role is fully active and students are partly responsible for their own learning. Sosa et al. (2014) state that their participation and involvement through programmed activities are fundamental. In fact, they maintain that the success of MOOC platforms is conditioned on student participation through contributions in forums, chats, and other collaborative instruments offered by the course platform, in order to be able to build social knowledge through interaction with other users. This creates what Bosom Nieto and Fernández Recio (2008) call a personal learning environment, conceived as a way of using the tools offered by the Internet to self-manage the educational process itself. In this space, the role of the student is active and has the support of all members of the community participating in the training action . In short, learning is now self-directed, as opposed to the old educational system offered by the educational institutions of the twentieth century.
It is difficult to delimit and measure the term participation. Dahlgren (2012) has said that it is possible to speak , on the one hand, of interaction for the production and exchange of information and, on the other, of the different degrees of participation intensity. From this perspective, Sánchez Vera and Prendes Espinosa (2014) classify the participating students into three categories, according to their degree of involvement in MOOC courses. Thus, they differentiate between active participants, which defines those students who update their blogs and Twitter accounts, interacting with other students in the course; voyeurs, which includes students who actively participate in the course but do not follow the members of the group, focusing exclusively on the content and not on other students; finally, they refer to the so-called passive participants , who throughout the course did not interact with either the information offered in the course or with other participants in the training process.
2.3 A new Student–School Relationship
The change in the pedagogical model has also transformed the educational environment and the contents of instruction. Now schools can be everywhere—at school, at home, at work, in places of leisure, etc.—and their contents are multimedia, open, accessible to students and, in many cases, improved and even created by them. In addition, it is necessary to highlight the importance of the work of other collaborators of the educational center—such as the Student Clerk’s Office or the Informatics Department, for example—that allow a student-educational institution interaction that makes it possible for the student to feel integrated and have a feeling of belonging to the institution, as opposed to the sensation of being just a number among the participants of a specific MOOC.
3 Open Source Pedagogical Platforms
There have been several authors who have conducted research on the path followed by technological platforms to become strategic tools for training that allow integrating social and collaborative tools in the technological environment of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. At the beginning of this decade, Checa García (2010) already gave an account of this journey. Previously, the researcher Boneu (2007) stated that, from a diachronic point of view, the evolution of e-learning has been implemented in three technological support models, whose characteristics are determined by the possibilities of collaboration and self-management of contents offered to users. In the first place, this author mentioned the so-called Content Manager System or Course Management System (CMS) which, among the e-learning platforms, are the most basic because they hardly have any collaboration tools among the participants; in the second place, there would be the Learning Management System (LMS) which provides an environment that allows the updating, maintenance and expansion of the web in collaboration with many other users; finally, it would be necessary to mention the Learning Content Management System (LCMS) which groups together the functionalities and utilities of the two previous ones, adding content management to personalize the resources of each student. The new learning platforms implemented in current MOOCs have been incorporated on this foundation.
Bravo-Agapito, Centellas-Rodrigo, and Aguayo-Sarasa (2018) point out that there are now different types of platforms used in the MOOC environment. The same applies to Roig-Vila and Lorenzo-Lledó (2017) who, due to their level of implementation and success in the market, highlight the following among others: edX, Udacity, Coursera, Future-Learn, MiriadaX, and Iversity. The EdX platform, created by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, offers nearly 2000 courses using the cMOOC methodology; Udacity, promoted by Stanford University, has open courses related to research projects; Coursera, from Stanford University, collaborates with more than 150 educational institutions around the world; Future-Learn, an Open University initiative, offers language courses; MiriadaX is a Spanish platform that stemmed from the initiative of Universia and Telefónica Educación Digital that offers courses, mainly in Spanish; and finally, Inversity, which is a virtual European platform for hosting and delivering MOOC courses aimed at higher education and business training. According to Gil Quintana (2017), the number of platforms for MOOCs has been increasing at an international level, with the Redun platform in Latin America as an example of success.
3.1 The Virtual Environment as an Added Value for Learning
The idea that the MOOC model provides certain added values to training actions has been reflected in the scientific literature. Researchers such as Osuna-Acedo et al. (2018) argue that the most relevant characteristics of the so-called tMOOCs are tasks, the transfer of learning towards the profession, pedagogical transformation, the relational factor, transmediality, open temporality, transnationalism, intercreative talent, collaborative work, and tolerance. It is evident that some of them clearly connect with traditional pedagogy, while others—such as the relational factor or tolerance—can be considered as an added value and a sign of identity for this type of teaching.
Along similar lines, Morado (2018) has asserted that the virtual environment created on the platforms used in MOOCs generates the possibility of constructing a learning environment in which people interact with each other, bringing emotions and knowledge into play, while at the same time making it possible to elaborate contents in an active and collaborative manner alongside other students and teachers. In this sense, the researcher highlights a series of aspects that influence the success of these virtual learning environments: interactivity, multidimensionality, the creation of socialization spaces, and the possibility of collaborative, flexible, and multisensory learning.
However, there is criticism of MOOCs in terms of their instructional design and practice because teachers sometimes lack the necessary skills to harness the power of technologies, which sometimes leads to high dropout rates (Conole, 2013). Similarly, researchers such as Gil Quintana and Martínez Pérez (2018) believe that MOOCs continue to present technological difficulties because there is still no clear interest among companies in perfecting the tools of these virtual platforms and spaces. They point out , in this sense, the need to create a more user-friendly interface model, similar to that of social networks where millions of users interact every day.
4 Collective Knowledge and ICT
The use of virtual environments to develop personal interactions is evidently revolutionizing the educommunicative landscape on a global scale. Today, the technological structures of learning communities are more socially powerful and innovative for networking and more conducive to the creation of learning communities and knowledge networks (Santamaría, 2009; Abdul and Ramírez 2009). Participation on the Web is no longer based on a unitary and uniform dynamic, but it displays different approaches and asymmetries. Thus, bottom-up dynamics (collaborative environments, horizontal regime, inclusion, transparency) and top-down dynamics linked to institutional practices that sometimes restrict the forms of participation coexist. In this sense, the great change that is taking place in learning communities denotes a shift from a world of decentralized power to one of distributed power where students are the managers and creators of content themselves (Ugarte, 2007a, 2007b). None of this would be possible without the competition between technology and digital convergence.
4.1 Tools and Formats for Interaction, Participation, and Collaboration in the MOOC Learning Community
The new educational paradigm of MOOCs is characterized by the omnipresence of digital tools for learning. Scientific literature has reported the emergence of tools and new strategies to improve the learning experience and results in this type of training. These are instruments that have evolved as technology has provided new possibilities for participation and interaction in the courses. Researchers such as Rivera (2014), Sánchez-Acosta and Escribano-Otero (2014), Bernal González et al. (2016), and Vivar et al. (2011) have pointed out some of the most common tools and formats in MOOCs that allow participation, communication, and the collective construction of knowledge. They point out , among others, some of the first ones used in this training format, such as the portfolio, surveys and questionnaires, projects, workshops, tasks and activities, or anecdotal evidence. They also mention other second-generation ones, such as discussion forums, blogs and wikis, collaborative games, video games, and specific content for social networks. Finally, we must allude to the gamification-based tools and the latest narrative techniques applied to ICT: machine learning, chatbots, and others mentioned below.
These tools enable collaborative content creation, peer review, and individual and group reflection on learning experiences. In short, they enable users to collaborate intuitively in digital environments and easily access the wide range of knowledge created in these environments and pedagogical formats. This is the case, for example, with the methodology used in the so-called wiki. What distinguishes wiki from blogs, discussion forums, or other content management systems is that there is no inherent coded structure: wiki pages can be interconnected and organized as needed, enabling a better construction of collaborative knowledge. Forums are also considered a support and information exchange channel between peers. Along the same lines, gamification, video games, virtual worlds, and social networks are tools that help increase student performance and encourage interaction with the teacher and other students (Vivar et al., 2011).
All these tools and formats have evolved over the years. Thus, for example, there has been a shift from instant messaging to remote-access videoconferencing or the creation of mindmaps for the exchange of knowledge (Rivera, 2014). Clearly, the use of some of these resources and tools began with the implementation of Web 2.0 in MOOCs—as in the case of collaborative wiki—while others, such as social networks, are tools that emerged starting in 2006—and are therefore relatively recent—although they have evolved in terms of interaction and the format of their contents. As Sotelo (2009) pointed out, e-learning brought networking, multidirectional communication flows, and the socialization of knowledge closer to teaching. But technology is advancing and now Web 3.0 contributes, through mobile learning, to give more autonomy to the user and to better adapt to their needs, as Mira-Jiménez (2017) argues.
4.2 The Relevant Role of Social Networks in MOOCs
In today’s MOOC landscape, the role of networks is particularly relevant. The technology on which they are based allows users to share various types of data and information in multiple formats: audio, text, and video. This feature makes social networks an ideal means of exchanging communication and knowledge.
Unlike traditional unidirectional media, social networks enable a bidirectional dialog in which control is decentralized and open to a large number of users. Within social media, teachers play an important role in guiding productivity to achieve certain goals, activating the network and revolutionizing the learning process. As a consequence, teachers today assume the role of facilitators seeking solutions to problems, rather than maintaining the old role of the teacher authorizing and supplying knowledge.
Authors such as Sánchez-Acosta and Escribano-Otero (2014) have tackled the typology of social networks used for social action in massive online courses. Firstly, they mention the strict social networks, which allow any specialization and adapt freely to any type of educational action. Among them they distinguish two types: on the one hand, horizontal social networks, which can accommodate millions of users without a specific theme, as is the case of Facebook; on the other hand, vertical social networks, more closed and controlled, allowing only people authorized by the administrators to join them, the use of which is one of the strengths of MOOC platforms. Secondly, these authors also refer to the so-called complete social networks, which make it possible to distinguish between groups of friends or followers and control shared content, as is the case with Google + and its so-called circles. According to Sánchez-Acosta andEscribano-Otero, the latter is not suitable for MOOCs because it is difficult to control outgoing and incoming information in the course . Finally, these authors mention another social network—with short messages where the information shared is minimal and it is not necessary to add other types of resources—as is the case of Twitter.
Social networking sites, such as Facebook, facilitate informal communication in a virtual setting where students can work in a cultural participatory community and learn through a process involving their collective intelligence. Its special condition to promote the dissemination of relevant information on a specific topic and to encourage the participation of the members that make up the educational community makes it an ideal tool to consolidate the learning communities created around MOOCs. Twitter is also one of the social networks that are available in most courses. Like other social media, this social network enables a very complete conversation, as it allows the insertion of links and a series of other resources that help, among other things, to classify the information through hashtags that define the keywords. Due to numerous network planning programs , such as Hootsuite, information can be connected to this social network and produce a lot of topics and news in real-time.
5 The Path of Transmediality, Virtuality, and Gamification in MOOCs
In scientific literature, authors such as Gértrudix Barrio et al. (2017) are already talking about the importance of incorporating audiovisual , interactive, and transmedia content into MOOCs. The same is true for the professional sector, as Sánchez (2018), Director of Vértice eLearning, has pointed out. This expert explains that some of the latest trends and tools are undoubtedly improving the participation and effectiveness of online training and therefore of MOOCs. Among them, Sánchez highlights the following:
-
Adaptative Learning.
-
This is a methodology that aims to adapt the instructional material to the student’s pace and needs. Tools such as machine learning and chatbots, based on artificial intelligence, are available for this purpose. Its aim is to detect users’ needs in order to anticipate and provide effective solutions.
-
Storytelling and gamification.
Storytelling is a narrative technique used to create stories and transmit knowledge that connects with the most emotional part of the student. As a complementary trend to storytelling, gamification has become an instrument of internalization of knowledge through play, to generate a positive experience in the student.
-
Virtual Reality.
This is a tool that transports the user to a different space where we can interact with all its elements. An environment where the student stops being just a spectator to become part of a new context that offers possibilities to design, create, and share knowledge.
-
Crowdlearning.
It is a term used to describe the arrival of instructional tools, such as online videos, webinars, or free MOOCs, among others, that promote collaborative work towards achieving specialization through active and dynamic training using microlearning or training pills that should not exceed 30 min in length.
The communities that make these digital tools possible in the MOOCs constitute an extraordinary scenario to enrich the transmedia approach, by adding new educational realities. Researchers such as Torres Macera and Gago Saldaña (2014) pointed out that its multichannel character is the main feature of the multimedia vision applied to online learning.
6 Some Considerations for Improving MOOC Participation Procedures
Sánchez Vera and Prendes Espinosa (2014) suggest two aspects that require special attention for the sake of greater MOOC engagement. In this sense, the following points are addressed: firstly, improving the platforms to ensure a better usability; secondly, knowing the type of students that the course has. As the content becomes more specialized, the more homogeneous the group of students and therefore the higher the success rate.
As for Kiberly (2015), in his MOOCs study, he lists some findings that may serve as a reference to improve student follow-up and participation. Specifically, the focus is on two aspects: the certification of courses and their subject matter. It is evident that a certified course can always have the added value of interest to be used as a professional merit of the student; moreover, if the subject is specialized and reinforces the student’s competence level, it will also result in a special value for his/her Curriculum Vitae. Finally, Kiberly makes a paradoxical observation: students who opt for courses with certification are more motivated and—this is the paradox—bear the cost and payment of the course with less difficulty.
Finally, it is worth mentioning content improvement. Despite the fact that social spaces in MOOCs are usually available for the student, many of them need help becoming actively involved online and demand content created by teachers. It is therefore recommended that, without losing sight of the collaborative learning community, the teacher develop his or her own content proposals. Marta-Lazo et al. (2018) also suggest taking into account the importance of multicultural coexistence and the perspective of tMOOCs as an instrument for social empowerment.
References
Abdul, J. & Ramírez, R., (2009). Herramientas Web 2.0 para el Aprendizaje Colaborativo. [Web 2.0 Collaborative Learning Tools]. CYTED (Ciencia y Tecnología para el desarrollo). University of Reading, Tecnológico de Monterrey, p. 1. Retrieved from http://www.hilstudios.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Web-2.0.pdf.
Aguaded, I., Vázquez-Cano, E., & López Meneses, E. (2016). El impacto bibliométrico del movimiento MOOC en la comunidad científica española. [The bibliometric impact of the MOOC movement on the Spanish scientific community]. Educación XX1, 19(2), 77–104. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.13217
Aguayo Franco, J. C. (2017). Visión de los MOOC desde una perspectiva práctica. [A practical approach to MOOCs] RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 20(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.20.1.17481
Aparici, R., & Osuna-Acedo, S. (2013). La Cultura de la Participación [The Culture of Participation]. Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación, 4(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.14198/MEDCOM2013.4.2.07
Arnol, D., & Sangrá Morer, A. (2018). Dawn or dusk of the 5th age of research in educational technology? A literature review on e-leadership for technology-enhanced learning in higher education (2013-2017). International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0104-3
Atkins, D., Seely, J., & Hammon, A. (2007). A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities, Report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Retrieved from https://hewlett.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/ReviewoftheOERMovement.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2013.
Bernal González, M., Prendes, P., & Sánchez Vera, M. (2016). Intereses y expectativas de los participantes en los MOOC: un estudio de caso. [Interests and expectations in MOOC participants: a case study]. In-Red 2016 - Congreso de Innovación Educativa y Docencia en Red de la Universitat Politècnica de València. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305027038_Intereses_y_expectativas_de_los_participantes_en_MOOC_un_estudio_de_caso. Recuperado 10 -7- 2018
Boneu, J. (2007). Plataformas abiertas de e-learning para el soporte de contenidos educativos abiertos [Open elearning platforms for open educational content support]. In: Contenidos educativos en abierto [monográfico en línea]. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC). 4, 1. UOC. Retrieved from http://www.uoc.edu/rusc/4/1/dt/esp/boneu.pdf. ISSN 1698-580X
Bosom Nieto, Á. & Fernández Recio, E. (2008). Nuevas herramientas para el eLearning. [New elearning tools] eUniverSA Learning’08.Congreso Internacional de Tecnología, Formación y Comunicación. Actas del 2° Congreso Internacional Universidad de Salamanca. Salamanca, 26–28, Noviembre 2008.
Bravo-Agapito, J., Centellas-Rodrigo, A., & Aguayo-Sarasa, R. (2018). Nuevos entornos abiertos de aprendizaje para la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras. ¿Son capaces los MOOC de generar un cambio metodológico? [New open learning environments for foreign language teaching. Are MOOCs capable of generating methodological change?]. Revista Tecnología, Ciencia y educación, 9, 113–145. Retrieved from http://www.tecnologia-ciencia-educacion.com/index.php/TCE/article/viewFile/176/140.
Cabero, J., Llorente-Cejudo, M. C., & Vázquez-Martínez, A. I. (2014). Las tipologías de MOOC. Su diseño e implicaciones educativas. [MOOC typologies. Their design and educational implications]. Profesorado, 18(1). Retrieved from https://goo.gl/XkTSpB.
Castañón, N., & Ziegler, M. (2016). Los MOOCs desde el modelo educativo de Unimet en Línea. [MOOCs from the Unimet online educational model]. Revista Opción, 32(11), 266–280.
Castells, M. (2008). Internet y la Sociedad Red. [Internet and the Network Society]. Universidad Oberta de Catalunya. Retrieved September 12, 2017 from https://goo.gl/FBCaQh.
Checa García, F. (2010). Los retos de la nueva creación de conocimiento y en la docencia. [The challenges of the new creation of knowledge in teaching]. Revista Sociedad y Utopía, 36, 97–109.
Conole, G. (2013). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: Strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 39.
Dahlgren, P. (2012). Mejorar la participación: la democracia y el cambiante entorno de la web. [Improving participation: democracy and the changing web environment]. In D. Innerarity & S. Champagne (Eds.), Internet y el futuro de la democracia. Barcelona: Paidós.
Gértrudix Barrio, M., Rajas Fernández, M., & Álvarez García, S. (2017). Metodología de producción para el desarrollo de contenidos audiovisuales y multimedia para MOOC. [Production methodology for the development of audiovisual multimedia content for MOOC]. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 20(1), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.20.1.16691
Gil Quintana, J. (2017). Interactividad y participación desde el modelo comunicativo de los MOOC. [Interactivity and participation from the MOOC communicative model]. Index comunicación, 7(1), 269–288.
Gil Quintana, J., & Martínez Pérez, J. (2018). El empoderamiento del alumnado en los sMOOC. [Student empowerment in sMOOC]. Revista Complutense de Educación, 29(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.5209/RCED.51932
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Kiberly, A. (2015). Que muestra el último estudio sobre los MOOCs? [What does the latest study on MOOCs reveal?]. Revista de educación Virtual. Retrieved from https://revistaeducacionvirtual.com/archives/1626. Recuperado 10-7-2018
Marta-Lazo, C., Frau-Meigs, D., & Osuna-Acedo, S. (2018). Collaborative lifelong learning and professional transfer. Case study: ECO European Project. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1451346
Mengual-Andrés, S., Vázquez-Cano, E., & López Meneses, E. (2017). La productividad científica sobre MOOC: aproximación bibliométrica 2012-2016 a través de Scopus. [Scientific productivity on the topic of MOOC: bibliometric approximation 2012-2016 through Scopus]. RIED, 20(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.20.1.16662
Mira-Jiménez, M. (2017). Análisis del e-PEL (Portfolio Europeo de las Lenguas Electrónico): opinión de los alumnos sobre Descriptores, Aprender, aprender y Autoevaluación. [e-PEL (European e-Languages Portfolio) analysis: Students’ opinion on Descriptors, Learning, Learning and Self-Assessment.]
Morado, M. (2018). Entornos virtuales de aprendizaje complejos e innovadores: Una experiencia de creación participativa desde el paradigma emergente.1 [Complex and Innovative Virtual Learning Environments: An Experience of Participatory Creation from the Emerging Paradigm]. Revista Electrónica Educare (Educare Electronic Journal), 22(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.22-1.18
Muñiz, M. (2017) El ‘e-learning’, un modelo de formación que gana cada vez más adeptos. [elearning, an instructional model that is increasingly attracting followers]. El mundo. Retrieved September 26, 2017 from http://www.elmundo.es/extras/formacion-online/2017/09/26/59ca90a1ca4741900e8b4601.html. Accessed 20 June 2018
Osuna-Acedo, S., Marta-Lazo, C., & Frau-Meig, D. (2018). De sMOOC a tMOOC, el aprendizaje hacia la transferencia profesional: El proyecto europeo ECO. [From sMOOC to tMOOC, learning towards professional transfer: The ECO European project]. Comunicar. Revista científica de comunicación y educación/Media Education Scientific Journal, 24(55), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.3916/C55-2018-10
Poy, R. & González-Aguilar, A. (2014). Factores de éxito en los MOOC: Algunas consideraciones críticas. [Success factors in MOOCs: some critical considerations]. RISTI-Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologías de Informaçao. RISTI (online) no.spe1 Porto mar. 2014. https://doi.org/10.4304/risti.e1.105-118
Ramírez-Donoso, L., Rojas-Riethmuller, J. S., Pérez Sanagustín, M., Neyem, A., & Alario-Hoyos, C. (2017). MyMOOCSpace: A cloud-based mobile system to support effective collaboration in higher education online courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 25(6), 910–926.
Raposo-Rivas, M.; Martínez-Figueira, E. & Sarmiento Campos, J.A. (2015). Un estudio sobre los componentes pedagógicos de los cursos online masivos. Comunicar: revista científica iberoamericana de comunicación y educación 44.pp 27-35 https://doi.org/10.3916/C44-2015-03
Rivera, M. (2014). Essential characteristics of effective cloud-based project collaboration tools. Retrieved July 29, 2018. https://www.comindware.com/blog-essential-characteristics-effective-cloud-based-project-collaboration-tools/
Roig-Vila, R., & Lorenzo-Lledó, A. (2017). La perspectiva social de las principales plataformas de MOOC a través de Facebook. [The social perspective of the main MOOC platforms through Facebook]. @tic. revista d’innovació educativa, 18, 48–55. https://doi.org/10.7203/attic.18.10046
Roura-Redondo, M., & Osuna-Acedo, S. (2018). Aprender con el diálogo, dialogar para aprender: estudio de caso en MOOC. [Learning with dialogue, dialoguing to learn: MOOC case study]. Index Comunicación, 8(2), 103–128.
Sánchez, D. (2018). Nueve tendencias clave en eLearning para 2018. Apel.es. [Nine key eLearning trends for 2018. Apel.es.]. Retrieved July 6, 2018 from http://www.apel.es/9-tendencias-claves-e-learning-2018/.
Sánchez Vera, M. & Prendes Espinosa, M. (2014). La participación del alumnado en los cursos masivos (MOOC). [Student participation in massive courses (MOOC)]. CIID Congreso internacional de innovación docente 2014.220-21febrero. Retrieved from https://digitum.um.es/xmlui/bitstream/10201/39138/1/C156_mooc.pdf. [Consulta 20 de Marzo de 2018]
Sánchez-Acosta, E., & Escribano-Otero, J. J. (2014). Clasificación de los medios de evaluación en los MOOCs. [Classification of MOOC assessment tools]. EDUTEC. Revista Electrónica de Tecnología educativa, 48.
Sangrà, A., González-Sanmamed, M., & Anderson, T. (2015). Metaanálisis de la investigación sobre MOOC en el período 2013-2014. [Metaanalysis of research on moocalong the period 2013-2014]. Educación XX1, 18(2), 21–49. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.13463
Sangrá Morere, A. (2017). RIED. Análisis del e-PEL (Portfolio Europeo de las Lenguas Electrónico): opinión de los alumnos sobre Descriptores, Aprender a aprender y Autoevaluación. [e-PEL (European Portfolio of Electronic Languages) analysis: students' opinion on Descriptors, Learning to learn and Self-evaluation]. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia (2017), 20(1), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.20.1.16519
Santamaría, F. (2009). Las redes sociales aplicadas a la práctica docente. [Social media applied to the teaching practice]. Didáctica, Innovación y multimedia, 13.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for a digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2, 1, 3-6. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/MAzRa8. Accessed 11 Sept 2013.
Siemens, G., Downes, S., & Cormier, D. (2012). How this course works. Learning analytics and knowledge: LAK12, 1–3. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/Ee5ali
Sosa, M. J., López, C., & Díaz, S. R. (2014). Comunidad de aprendizaje y participación social en un curso MOOC. [Learning community and social participation in a MOOC]. International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation (IJERI), 1, 1–13.
Sotelo, J. (2009). Del elearning al mLearnig: una academia en cada iPhone. [From elearning to mLearnig: an academy on every iPhone]. Telos. Cuadernos de Comunicación e innovación, 81, 122–128.
Suárez-Guerrero, C. (2010). Aprendizaje cooperativo e interacción asíncronatextual en contextos educativos virtuales. [Cooperative learning and asynchronatextual interaction in virtual educational contexts]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 36, 53–67.
Torres Macera, D., & Gago Saldaña, D. (2014). Los MOOCs y su papel en la creación de comunidades de aprendizaje y participación. [MOOCs and their role in creating learning and participation communities]. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de educación a distancia, 17(1), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.17.1.11570
Ugarte, D. (2007a). El poder de las Redes. Madrid: Icaria.
Ugarte, D. (2007b). El poder de las Redes. [The power of the networks]. Madrid: Icaria.
Valle Casanova, E. (2015). MOOC-Maker: Construcción de Capacidades de Gestión de MOOCs en la Educación Superior (Construcción de Capacidades de Gestión de los MOOC en la Educación Superior). Proyecto UE. [MOOC-Maker: Building MOOC Management Capacities in Higher Education (Building MOOC Management Capacities in Higher Education). EU Project]. 561533-EPP-1-2015-1-ES-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP.
Vinader, R., & Abuín, N. (2013). Nuevos modelos educativos: los MOOCs como paradigma de la formación online. [New educational models: MOOCs as a paradigm of online learning]. Historia y Comunicación Social, 18, 801–814.
Vivar, H., García, A. G., Vences, N. A., Segura, R. V., Gómez, P. N., & Pérez, M. Á. (2011). La innovación educativa en la enseñanza superior: Facebook como herramienta docente. [Educational innovation in higher education: Facebook as a teaching tool]. Revista de Comunicación Vivat Academia, 117, 530–544. https://doi.org/10.15178/va.2011.117E.530-544
Zancanaro, A., & Carvalho de Souza, M. (2018). Massive open online courses (MOOC) for teaching portuguese for foreigners: a case study. YOJDE. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19(2), 4–20. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1175522
Zurita, H. V., García, A. G., Vences, N. A., Segura, R. V., Gómez, P. N., & Pérez, M. Á. (2011). La innovación educativa en la enseñanza superior: Facebook como herramienta docente. [Educational innovation in higher education: Facebook as a teaching tool]. Revista de Comunicación Vivat Academia, 117, 530–544. https://doi.org/10.15178/va.2011.117E.530-544
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ortiz-Sobrino, M.Á., Núñez-Gómez, P., Gálvez-Caja, A. (2021). Digital Platforms, Participation, and Learning Environments Within MOOCs. In: Frau-Meigs, D., Osuna-Acedo, S., Marta-Lazo, C. (eds) MOOCs and the Participatory Challenge. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67314-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67314-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-67313-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-67314-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)