Résumés
Abstract
MOOCs are presented as an affordable and easily accessible modality that offers the opportunity to democratize education in our time; however, this convenience training favors a low completion rate of the participants. Faced with this situation, scholars have suggested that it is necessary to deepen the construct of academic engagement, a concept that has been addressed in the study of face-to-face training, to better understand how students participate in this educational modality. This article systematically explores the existing literature, in the period of 2015-2018, about the construct of academic engagement in online, massive and open learning courses, through a Systematic Mapping of Literature, a method which aims to identify the characteristics of production in a given subject. The results show that there is a considerable increase in published articles that associate academic engagement and MOOCs, mainly from the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Most of the mapped publications employ qualitative methods, with an exploratory approach, although there are several correlational studies. The study of participation patterns and instructional design appear as the main topics of interest in the field. In addition to providing a general overview of production on the subject, the research provides accurate information that will identify works for more in-depth reviews. Thus, it also offers a replicable and flexible literature search method for different research interests.
Keywords:
- MOOC,
- academic engagement,
- e-learning,
- technology
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Leskovec, J. (2014). Engaging with massive online courses. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web - WWW ’14 (pp. 687-698). Seoul, Korea. doi: 10.1145/2566486.2568042
- Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386. doi: 10.1002/pits.20303
- Bozkurt, A., Akgün-Özbek, E., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2017). Trends and patterns in massive open online courses: Review and content analysis of research on MOOC (2008-2015). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 1-19. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3080
- Breslow, L. B., 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. Retrieved from https://www.rpajournal.com/dev/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SF2.pdf
- Carter, C. P., Reschly, A. L., Lovelace, M. D., Appleton, J. J., & Thompson, D. (2012). Measuring student engagement among elementary students: Pilot of the Student Engagement Instrument—Elementary Version. School Psychology Quarterly, 27(2), 61-73. doi: 10.1037/a0029229
- Conole, G. (2015). Designing effective MOOC. Educational Media International, 52(4), 239-252. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2015.1125989
- Cooper, D. (2016). What is a mapping study? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(1), 76-78. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013
- Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
- Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.1016/j.aenj.2008.02.005
- Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Ángeles, CA: Sage.
- de Barba, P. G., Kennedy, G. E., & Ainley, M. D. (2016). The role of students’ motivation and participation in predicting performance in a MOOC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 218-231. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12130
- Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T., & Hanssen, G. K. (2007). Applying systematic reviews to diverse study types: An experience report. In Proceedings - 1st International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2007 (pp. 225-234). Madrid, Spain. doi: 10.1109/ESEM.2007.21
- Ebben, M., & Murphy, J. S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: A review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning, Media, and Technology, 39(3), 328-345. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2013.878352
- Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64-71. doi: 10.1007/s11528-014-0822-x
- Greene, J. A., Oswald, C. A., & Pomerantz, J. (2015). Predictors of retention and achievement in a massive open online course. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 925-955. doi: 10.3102/0002831215584621
- Halawa, S., Greene, D., & Mitchell, J. (2014). Dropout prediction in MOOCs using learner activity features. eLearning Papers, 37, 1-10. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a6d3/082a9a077d8f935bfefba1a4449bf5443f20.pdf?_ga=2.265077195.578108738.1551219502-1104262769.1531256554
- Hurtado, J. (2010). Guía para la comprensión holística de la ciencia [Guide for the holistic understanding of science]. Dirección de investigación y posgrado (Vol. 2). Caracas, Venezuela.
- Joksimovic, S., Poquet, A., Kovanovic, V., Dowell, N., Millis, C., Gasevic, D., & Brooks, C. (2018). How do we model learning at scale? A systematic review of research on MOOC. Review of Educational Research, 88(1), 43-86. doi: 10.3102/0034654317740335
- Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 133-160. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651
- Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering Version 2.3 (Report No. EBSE-2007-01). Keele University and University of Durham.
- Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2016). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses. Computers and Education, 104, 18-33. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001
- Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Lak ’13. Leuven, Belgium. doi: 10.1145/2460296.2460330
- Kizilcec, R. F., & Schneider, E. (2015). Motivation as a lens to understand online learners. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(2), 1-24. doi: 10.1145/2699735
- Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOC. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 149-159. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/milligan_0613.pdf
- Newmann, F., Wehlage, G., & Lamborn, S. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11-39). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. doi: 10.4236/ojapps.2014.45022
- Perna, L.W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R.F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S. & Evans, C. (2014). Moving through MOOCs: Understanding the progression of users in massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 421-432. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/157468/
- Perryman, C. L. (2016). Mapping studies. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(1), 79-82. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.014
- Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., & Kuzniarz, L. (2015). Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology, 64, 1-18. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007
- Raffaghelli, J., Cucchiara, S., & Persico, D. (2015). Methodological approaches in MOOC research: Retracing the myth of Proteus. British Journal of Educational Technologies, 46(3), 488-509. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12279
- Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Springer.
- Sa’Don, N. F., Alias, R. A., & Ohshima, N. (2014). Nascent research trends in MOOC in higher educational institutions: A systematic literature review. In International Conference on Web and Open Access to Learning, ICWOAL 2014. Dubai, United Arab Emirates. doi: 10.1109/ICWOAL.2014.7009215
- Valdivia, J. A., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., & Valenzuela, J. R. (2018). Motivation and knowledge: Pre-assessment and post-assessment of MOOC participants from an energy and sustainability project. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3489
- Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2016). A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013-2015. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448
- York, T. T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic success. Practical Assessment. Research & Evaluation, 20(5), 1-20. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=20&n=5