Tendencias en la evaluación del aprendizaje en cursos en línea masivos y abiertos

  1. María Jesús Gallego Arrufat
  2. Vanessa Gámiz Sánchez
  3. Elba Gutiérrez Santiuste
Journal:
Educación XX1: Revista de la Facultad de Educación
  1. González Sanmamed, Mercedes
  2. Anderson, Terry

ISSN: 1139-613X,  2174-5374

Year of publication: 2015

Volume: 18

Issue: 2

Pages: 77-96

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5944/EDUCXX1.14596 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Educación XX1: Revista de la Facultad de Educación

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

Assessment is a central characteristic in the design of massive open online courses (MOOCs) (Sandeen, 2013). Although this phenomenon is new, the literature on e-assessment suggests a direction based on a knowledge base derived from research into the support needs of the participants’ learning. Together with assessment, participant satisfaction with MOOCs takes on a special role when we consider the interest of the courses and their high drop-out rate. We have two objectives in this paper; on one hand, we analyze the assessment processes in 87 MOOCs developed on different international platforms (Coursera, Udacity, MiríadaX, EdX, and RedunX) at Spanish universities (AbiertaUGR, UPVX, UniMOOC, UnedComa, and Ehusfera) and others; while on the other hand, we reflect on these processes assisted by the study of the MOOCs developed at the University of Granada (Spain). We describe the results classified according to: what is assessed, who performs the assessment, time at which assessment occurs, instruments employed, type of assessment, and type of the certification (participation/accreditation). We study the satisfaction of 513 participants in courses of the first edition offered by AbiertaUGR in 2013. Participant satisfaction is related to interactivity, and the learning perceived corresponds to a formative assessment or assessment for learning. Suggestions for improvement are given for the pedagogical design of the assessment in future MOOCs.

Bibliographic References

  • Agarwala, M., (2013) A research summary of MOOC completion rates, , EdLab: Teachers College (Columbia University). Recuperado de edlab. tc. columbia. edu/index. php?q=node/8990
  • Aguaded, J.I., Vázquez-Cano, E., Sevillano-García, M.L., (2013) MOOCs, ¿turbocapitalismo de redes o altruismo educativo? Hacia un modelo más sostenible, , SCOPEO INFORME, 2. MOOC: Estado de la situación actual, posibilidades, retos y futuro, 74-90. Recuperado de scopeo. usal. es/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/scopeoi002. pdf
  • Al-Smadi, M., Guetl, C., Supporting self-regulated learners with formative assessments using automatically created QTI-questions (2011) Paper presented at the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, 2011, pp. 288-294
  • Anderson, T., McGreal, R., Disruptive Pedagogies and Technologies in Universities (2012) Educational Technology & Society, 15 (4), pp. 380-389
  • Baggaley, J., MOOC rampant (2013) Distance Education, 34 (3), pp. 368-378
  • Balfour, S.P., Assessing writing in MOOCs: Automated essay scoring and Calibrated Peer Review (2013) Research & Practice in Assessment, 8 (1), pp. 40-48
  • Brink, R., Lautenbach, G., Electronic assessment in higher education (2011) Educational Studies, 37 (5), pp. 503-512
  • Cebrián, M., E-rúbrica federada para la evaluación de los aprendizajes Ensino Superior (2012) Inovaçao e qualidade na docencia, pp. 405-486. , C. Leite & M. Zabalza (Eds.).,, Porto: Universidade do Porto
  • Cheng, A.C., Jordan, M.E., Schallert, D.L., Reconsidering assessment in online/hybrid courses: Knowing versus learning (2013) Computers & Education, 68, pp. 51-59
  • Clarà, M., Barberà, E., Learning online: Massive open online courses (MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural psychology (2013) Distance Education, 34 (1), pp. 129-136
  • De la Herrán, A., La evaluación didáctica (2014) Evaluar para mejorar, pp. 13-28. , F. CARRATALÁ (Dir.). Madrid: Boletín del COFLC
  • Earl, K., Student views on short-text assignment formats in fully online courses (2013) Distance Education, 34 (2), pp. 161-174
  • Gallego-Arrufat, M.J., Gutiérrez-Santiuste, E., Perception of democracy in computer-mediated communication: Participation, responsibility, collaboration, and reflection (2015) Teaching in Higher Education, 20 (1), pp. 92-106
  • Gea, M., Montes, R., (2013) AbiertaUGR, la formación abierta basada en comunidades de aprendizaje online, pp. 122-138. , SCOPEO INFORME, 2. MOOC: Estado de la situación actual, posibilidades, retos y futuro,. Recuperado de scopeo. usal. es/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/scopeoi002. pdf
  • Glance, D.G., Forsey, M., Riley, M., The pedagogical foundations of massive open online courses (2013) First Monday, 18 (5-6). , doi: 10. 5210/fm. v18i5. 4350
  • Haggard, S.A., (2013) The maturing of the MOOC: Literature review of massive open online courses and other forms of online distance learning, , www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240193/13-1173-maturing-of-the-mooc.pdf, BIS Research Paper No. 130. Recuperado de
  • Hoang, L.P., Arch-Int, N., Assessment of Open-Ended Questions using a Multidimensional Approach for the Interaction and Collaboration of Learners in E-Learning Environments (2013) Journal of Universal Computer Science, 19 (7), pp. 932-949
  • Jordan, K., (2014) How many students complete courses?, , www.katyjordan.com/MOOCproject.html
  • Jordan, S., E-assessment: Past, present and future (2013) New Directions, 9 (1), pp. 87-106
  • Kerrison, M., 91 % MOOC satisfaction rating for University of London international programmes (2013) In Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Report 2013, , www.londoninternational.ac.uk/91-Percent-MOOC-satisfaction-rating, M2 Communications. Presswire
  • King, C., Robinson, A., Vickers, J., Targeted MOOC captivates students (2014) Nature, 505, 7481, p. 26
  • Lafuente, M., Remesal, A., Álvarez, I., Assisting Learning in e-Assessment: A Closer Look at Educational Supports (2014) Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39 (4), pp. 443-460
  • Lawton, D., Vye, N.A., Online learning based on essential concepts and formative assessment (2012) Journal of Engineering Education, 101 (2), pp. 244-287
  • Lukas, J.F., Santiago, K., (2004) Evaluación educativa, , Madrid: Alianza Editorial
  • Mackness, J., Mak, S., Williams, R., The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC (2010) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning, pp. 266-275. , L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson & Al. (Eds.)., Lancaster: University of Lancaster
  • McDaniel, R., Lindgren, R., Friskics, J., Using badges for shaping interactions in online learning environments (2012) IEEE International Professional Communication Conference
  • Meyer, J.P., Zhu, S., Fair and equitable measurement of student learning in MOOCs: An introduction to item response theory, scale linking, and score equating (2013) Research & Practice in Assessment, 8 (1), pp. 26-39
  • Oliver, M., Hernández-Leo, D.A., (2014) MOOCs en España, , www.catedratelefonica.upf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MOOCs-en-Espa%C3%B1a1.pdf, Panorama actual de los cursos masivos abiertos en línea en las universidades españolas. Cátedra Telefónica/Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Recuperado de
  • Oncu, S., Cakir, H., Research in online learning environments: Priorities and methodologies (2011) Computers & Education, 57 (1), pp. 1098-1108
  • Ramsaran-Fowdar, R.R., Baguant, P., Fowdar, S., A critical analysis of e-assessment with particular emphasis on the use of different types of online quizzes (2011) International Journal of Learning, 18 (1), pp. 191-202
  • Sandeen, C., Assessment's place in the new MOOC world (2013) Research & Practice in Assessment, 8 (1), pp. 5-12
  • Saul, C., Wuttke, H.D., Towards a high-level integration of interactive tools with e-assessments (2012) IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 597-598. , Paper presented at the (ICALT, 2012), Rome (Italy)
  • SCOPEO, (2013) INFORME N, , usal.es/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/scopeoi002.pdf, º2. MOOC: Estado de la situación actual, posibilidades, retos y futuro. Recuperado de scopeo
  • Shank, P., (2012) Four Typical Online Learning Assessment Mistakes, pp. 4-6. , www.facultyfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/images/AssessingOnlineLearning-OC.pdf, R. Kelly (Ed.) Online Classroom. Report Assessing online learning: Strategies, challenges, opportunities, Magna Publications. Recuperado de
  • Siemens, G., (2012) MOOCs are really a platform, , www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/, [Web log message]. Recuperado de
  • Sorensen, E., Implementation and student perceptions of e-assessment in a chemical engineering module (2013) European Journal of Engineering Education, 38 (2), pp. 172-185
  • Stödberg, U., A research review of e-assessment (2012) Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37 (5), pp. 591-604
  • Sun, P.C., What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction (2008) Computers & Education, 50 (4), pp. 1183-1202
  • Vonderwell, S.K., Boboc, M., Promoting Formative Assessment in Online Teaching and Learning (2013) TechTrends, 57 (4), pp. 22-27
  • Yuste, R., Alonso, L., Blázquez, F., La e-evaluación de aprendizajes en educación superior a través de aulas virtuales síncronas (2012) Comunicar, 39, pp. 159-167
  • Zutshi, S., O'Hare, S., Rodafinos, A., Experiences in MOOCs: The perspective of students (2013) American Journal of Distance Education, 27 (4), pp. 218-227
Data source: Dialnet