Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Model and Tool to Support Pedagogical Scenario Building for Connectivist MOOC

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The work presented in this paper examines part of a broader issue in the field of technology-enhanced learning and focused on Massive Open Online Courses environments (MOOC). The main goal is to provide an approach, models and tools to assist teachers in the scenario design process and the operationalization of pedagogical scenarios in a connectivist MOOC context. The major contribution of this work is the MOOC Authoring Tool (MOOCAT), which is a visual authoring tool that is intended for the design and deployment of cMOOC-oriented scenarios. MOOCAT has two main innovative features. The first feature offers a tool for designing educational scenarios in a simple way, through a graphical representation for defining learning workflow. The second feature is related to its capacity to bridge the gap between the design phase and its execution in different Learning Management Systems (LMS), by offering services that allow the automatic deployment of pedagogical scenarios to existing LMS. This paper presents the underlying model of MOOCAT, and describes the cMOOC scenario-building process. The tool was evaluated primarily from the point of view of utility and usability. A total of 40 individuals have participated in the experimentation. The findings confirm that MOOCAT can be used to design connectivist pedagogical scenarios and can provide all the necessary elements for the design of such courses. Feedback from participants emphasized the ease of use and the benefits of the proposed visual authoring tool.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

MOOCAT Authoring tool is available on the link: https://projets.iut-laval.univ-lemans.fr/moocat/

Notes

  1. http://bpmn.io/.

  2. Graphical Visual Instructional Design Languages for Teachers (www-lium.univ-lemans.fr/laforcad/graphit/).

References

  • Abedmouleh, A., Laforcade, P., Oubahssi, L., & Choquet, C. (2011). Operationalization of learning scenarios on existent Learning Management Systems the moodle case-study. In ICSOFT 2011 - Proceedings of the 6th international conference on software database technology (Vol. 2, pp. 143–148). https://doi.org/10.5220/0003486001430148.

  • Abedmouleh, A., & Modeling, A. D. (2014). Approche Domain-Specific Modeling pour l’ opérationnalisation des scénarios pédagogiques sur les plateformes de formation à distance Aymen Abedmouleh To cite this version : HAL Id : tel-01019917 Thèse pour obtenir le grade de Docteur de l’ Univers du.

  • Adesina, A., & Molloy, D. (2010). Capturing and monitoring of learning process through a business process management (BPM) framework. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium for engineering education.

  • Admiraal, W., Huisman, B., & Pilli, O. (2015). Assessment in Massive Open Online Courses. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13, 207–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Cormier, D., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Proposal for a conceptual framework for educators to describe and design MOOCs. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 20, 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-020-01-0006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alario-Hoyos, C., Estévez-Ayres, I., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Delgado Kloos, C., & Fernández-Panadero, C. (2017). Understanding learners’ motivation and learning strategies in MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18, 119–137. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.2996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2006). Rubrics: tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and learners. CBE: Life Sciences Education, 5, 197–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amálio, N., & Glodt, C. (2015). A tool for visual and formal modelling of software designs. Science of Computer Programming, 98, 52–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armatas, C., Spratt, C., & Vincent, A. (2014). Putting connectivist principles into practice: A case study of an online tertiary course. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(2), 81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakki, A. (2018). Modèle et outil pour soutenir la scénarisation pédagogique de MOOC connectivistes. (Doctoral Disertation, Le Mand University; Ibn Zohr University).

  • Bakki, A., Oubahssi, L., & George, S. (2019). Design and operationalization of connectivist activities: An approach through business process management. In European conference on technology enhanced learning (pp. 251–265). Cham: Springer.

  • Bakki, A., Oubahssi, L., George, S, & Cherkaoui, C. (2017). A model to assist pedagogical scenario building process in cMOOCs. In 2017 IEEE 17th international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT) (pp. 5–7).

  • Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal Usability Studies, 4, 114–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barchino, R., Hilera, J. R., De-Marcos, L., Gutiérrez, J. M., Otón, S., Gutiérrez, J. A., Martinez, J. J., & Jiménez, L. (2012). Interoperability between visual UML design applications and authoring tools for learning design. International Journal of Innovative Computing, 8, 845–865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botturi, L. (2006). E2ML: A visual language for the design of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54, 265–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-8807-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botturi, L., Derntl, M., Boot, E., & Figl, K. (2006). A classification framework for educational modeling languages in instructional design. In 6th IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT 2006).

  • Britton, C., & Jones, S. (1999). The untrained eye: How languages for software specification support understanding in untrained users. Human-Computer Interaction, 14, 191–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, S. M. (1999). The art and science of classroom assessment: The missing part of pedagogy. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 27, 1–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caron, P.-A., Derycke, A., & Le Pallec, X. (2005). Bricolage and model driven approach to design distant course. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2856–2863).

  • Consortium IMSGL, others. (2003). IMS learning design specification. Retrieved Febr 7:2009.

  • Cooch, M., Foster, H., & Costello, E. (2014). Our mooc with moodle. https://research.moodle.net/.

  • Crawley, S., Davis, S., Indulska, J., McBride, S., & Raymond K. (1997). Meta information management. In H. Bowman, J. Derrick (Eds.), Formal Methods for Open Object-based Distributed Systems. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology (pp. 282–287). Boston: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Costa, J. (2014). BPMN 2.0 pour la modélisation et l’implémentation de dispositifs pédagogiques orientés processus. Geneva: University of Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Costa, J., & Schneider, D. K. (2015). Modélisation et implémentation de dispositifs pédagogiques avec BPMN 2.0. In 7ème Conférence sur les Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain (EIAH 2015) (pp. 282–287).

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning, Vol 6. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Boston: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downes, S. (2008). Places to go: Connectivism & connective knowledge. Innovation Journal of Online Education, 5, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays Mean Learn networks. National Research Council Canada, https://www.downes.ca/files/books/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf.

  • El Mawas, N., Oubahssi, L., & Laforcade, P. (2016). A Method for Making Explicit LMS Instructional Design Languages. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning (TICL) journal, 10(3), 203–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figl, K., & Derntl, M. (2006). A comparison of visual instructional design languages for blended learning. In Proceedings of world conference on education and multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (pp. 941–948).

  • Genon, N., Heymans, P., & Amyot, D. (2010). Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 visual notation. In International conference on software language engineering (pp. 377–396).

  • Glance, D. G., Forsey, M., & Riley, M. (2013). The pedagogical foundations of massive open online courses. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i5.4350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajri, H. (2018). Personnalisation des MOOC par la réutilisation de Ressources Éducatives Libres. Paris Saclay.

  • Helic, D. (2006). Technology-supported management of collaborative learning processes. International Journal of Learning and Change, 1, 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henri, F., Compte, C., & Et Charlier, B. (2007). La Scénarisation Pédagogique Dans Tous Ses Débats. Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 4(2), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.18162/ritpu.2007.132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Leo, D. (2007). A pattern-based design process for the creation of CSCL macro-scripts computationally represented with IMS LD. Universidad de Valladolid.

  • Jasnani, P. (2013). Designing MOOCs: A white paper on instructional design for MOOCs. Retrieved October 5, 2015.

  • Katsamani, M., & Retalis, S. (2013). Orchestrating learning activities using the CADMOS learning design tool. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. S. F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12, 74–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i3.523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linard, M. (2003). Autoformation, éthique et technologies: enjeux et paradoxes de l’autonomie. In B. Albero (Ed.), Autoformation et enseignement supérieur (pp. 241–263). Paris: Hermes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the conference on computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. (pp. 72–81).

  • Lojacono, F. G. (2016). MOOCs: From a constructivist approach to a reliant paradigm. Lfe-Revista Lenguas Para Fines Especificos, 22, 12–30. https://doi.org/10.20420/rlfe.2016.0088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mariño, O., Casallas, R., Villalobos, J., Correal, D., & Contamines, J. (2007). Bridging the gap between e-learning modeling and delivery through the transformation of learnflows into workflows. In E-learning networked environments and architectures (pp. 27–59). Cham: Springer.

  • Mclellan, S., Muddimer, A., & Peres, S. C. (2012). The effect of experience on system usability scale ratings. Journal of Usability Studies, 7, 56–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, D. (2009). The “physics” of notations: Toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 35, 756–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morales, L., Castillo, L., Fernandez-Olivares, J., & Gonzalez-Ferrer, A. (2008). Automatic generation of user adapted learning designs: An AI-planning proposal. In International conference on adaptive hypermedia and adaptive web-based systems (pp. 324–328).

  • Nodenot, T. (2007). Scénarisation pédagogique et modèles conceptuels d’un EIAH: Que peuvent apporter les langages visuels? International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 4, 85–102.

  • O’Brien, K. L., Forte, M., Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2017). Metaliteracy as pedagogical framework for learner-centered design in three MOOC platforms: Connectivist, Coursera and Canvas. Open Praxis, 9, 267. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.3.553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Object Management Group (OMG). (2011). Business process model and notation (BPMN) Version 2.0. Business 50:170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-008-0096-z.

  • Ouraib, E. L. A. (2012). Scénarisation pédagogique pour des EIAH ouverts: Une approche dirigée par les modèles et spécifique au domaine métier. Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain. Université du Maine, Français.

  • Peter, Y., & Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D. (2013). Scénarisation des activités dans les MOOC-Une proposition pour augmenter la participation. In Atelier MOOC-Massive Open Online Course-État des lieux de la recherche francophone-Conférence EIAH.

  • Pettenati, M. C., & Cigognini, M. E. (2007). Social networking theories and tools to support connectivist learning activities. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 2(3), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/jwltt.2007070103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2011). When designing usability questionnaires, does it hurt to be positive? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. (pp. 2215–2224).

  • Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning.

  • Siemens, G. (2012). Designing, developing, and running (massive) open online courses. https://www.slideshare.net/gsiemens/designing-Run-a-mooc.

  • Silvestre, F. (2015). Conception et mise en oeuvre d’un système d’évaluation formative pour les cours en face à face dans l’enseignement supérieur. Université de Toulouse, Université Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier.

  • Stylianakis, G., Arapi, P., Moumoutzis, N., & Christodoulakis, S. (2013). CoLearn: Real time collaborative learning environment. In: Second International Conference on E-Learning and E-Technologies in Education (ICEEE), Lodz. (pp.13–18).

  • Stylianakis, G., Moumoutzis, N., Arapi, P., Mylonakis, M,. & Christodoulakis, S. (2015). COLearn and open discovery space portal alignment: A case of enriching open learning infrastructures with collaborative learning capabilities. In Proceedings 2014 international conference on interaction Mobile Communications Technology Learning IMCL 2014 (pp. 252–256). https://doi.org/10.1109/imctl.2014.7011142.

  • Tchounikine, P. (2008). Operationalizing macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 193–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M., & Jakobs, H. (2014). MOOCs-A Review of the State-of-the-Art. In Proceedings CSEDU 2014 conference Vol 3, (pp. 9–20). INSTICC.

  • Zarraonandia, T., Fernändez, C., & Dodero, J. M. (2006). A late modelling approach for the definition of computer-supported learning process. http://hdl.handle.net/1820/758.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank persons who participated in the experiment of the MOOCAT tool.

Funding

Not applicable

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire d’Informatique de l, Université du Mans, Le Mans Université, LIUM, EA 4023, Avenue Messiaen, 72085, Le Mans Cedex 9, France

    Aicha Bakki, Lahcen Oubahssi & Sébastien George

  2. IRF-SIC Laboratory, Ibn Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco

    Aicha Bakki & Chihab Cherkaoui

Authors
  1. Aicha Bakki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lahcen Oubahssi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sébastien George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chihab Cherkaoui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

As Corresponding Author, I confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved for submission by all the named authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aicha Bakki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We know of no conflicts of interest associated with this publication. The authors declare that they have no competing interests. We declare that this manuscript is original, has not been published before and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bakki, A., Oubahssi, L., George, S. et al. A Model and Tool to Support Pedagogical Scenario Building for Connectivist MOOC. Tech Know Learn 25, 899–927 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09444-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09444-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation