Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
RESEARCH PAPER
Learning Mechanism and Function Characteristics of MOOC in the Process of Higher Education
1
School of Marxism, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, 330022, CHINA
Online publication date: 2017-11-24
Publication date: 2017-11-24
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(12):8067-8072
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
At present, the practice development of massive open online Courses (MOOC) is prior to the theoretical research about MOOC in academic circles. Through document analysis, participant observation and case analysis of MOOC, we find that the connotation of MOOC is mainly annotated from three dimensions: curriculum form, education model and knowledge innovation. According to the learning theory and teaching practice of MOOC, the teaching mode of MOOC is divided into three kinds: MOOC based on content, MOOC based on network and MOOC based on task. Compared with the traditional courses, MOOC has intrinsic characteristics such as large scale, openness, networking, personalized and participation, which includes the online learning effectiveness, the mastery learning, the interactive cooperation and the learning mechanism of complex system self-organization core. Through the analysis of MOOC learning mechanism, goal, characteristics and advantages, according to the investigation on the use of MOOC at home and abroad, combined with the characteristics of computing discipline, the two aspects of MOOC teaching function: one is to use the learning records on MOOC to study pedagogy, and create new educational theory; another is to use MOOC for the flipped classroom.
REFERENCES (32)
1.
Ballou, D., & Springer, M.G. (2017). Has nclb encouraged educational triage? Accountability and the distribution of achievement gains. Education Finance and Policy, 12(1), 77-106. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00189.
2.
Bu, Y. Y. (2015). On the Construction and Implementation of Specialty Teaching Resources Database for Vocational Education Oriented towards SPOC. Vocational and Technical Education, 25(11), 12-15.
3.
Bulger, M., Bright, J., & Cobo, C. (2015). The real component of virtual learning: motivations for face-to-face MOOC meetings in developing and industrialised countries. Information Communication & Society, 18(10), 1200-1216.
4.
Dai, L. L., & Li, Q. (2015). MOOC: the Leverage Pivot of Higher Educational Reform in China. Heilongjiang Researches on Higher Education, 25(3), 23-26.
5.
Ding, L., Kim, C., & Orey, M. (2017). Studies of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 115, 126-142. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.016.
6.
Ezen-Can, A., Boyer, K. E., Kellogg, S., & Booth, S. (2015). Unsupervised modeling for understanding MOOC discussion forums: a learning analytics approach. International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. ACM, 15(4), 146-150.
7.
Giddens, D. (2016). To MOOC or not to MOOC: how can online learning help to build the future of higher education (Chandos information professional series). Australian Library Journal, 65(2), 142-143.
8.
Guterman, O. (2017). What makes a social encounter meaningful: the impact of social encounters of homeschooled children on emotional and behavioral problems? Education and Urban Society, 49(8), 778-792. doi:10.1177/0013124516677009.
9.
Hao, Q., Barnes, B., Wright, E., & Branch, R. M. (2017). The influence of achievement goals on online help seeking of computer science students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1273-1283. doi:10.1111/bjet.12499.
10.
Hardy, M., & Totman, S. (2017). Teaching an old game new tricks: Long-term feedback on a re-designed online role play. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1260-1272. doi:10.1111/bjet.12498.
11.
Hood, N., Littlejohn, A., & Milligan, C. (2015). Context counts: How learners’ contexts influence learning in a MOOC. Computers & Education, 91(12), 83-91.
12.
John, M., Molepo, J. M., & Chirwa, M. (2017). South african learners’ conceptual understanding about image formation by lenses. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 1723-1736. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2017.00694a.
13.
Kinkead-Clark, Z. (2017). Bridging the gap between home and school perceptions of classroom teachers and principals: case studies of two jamaican inner-city schools. Education and Urban Society, 49(8), 762-777. doi:10.1177/0013124516658951.
14.
Koedinger, K. R., Kim, J., Jia, J. Z., McLaughlin, E. A., & Bier, N. L. (2015). Learning is Not a Spectator Sport: Doing is Better than Watching for Learning from a MOOC. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S ‘15). New York, NY, USA: ACM, 111-120. doi:10.1145/2724660.2724681.
15.
Lai, P.K., Portolese, A., & Jacobson, M. J. (2017). Does sequence matter? Productive failure and designing online authentic learning for process engineering. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1217-1227. doi:10.1111/bjet.12492.
16.
Li, S. X. (2017). A Study on the Strategy of integrating Knowledge Resources in Uniersity Students Education. Computer Simulation, 34(7), 162-165.
17.
Liu, Z. L. (2017). Teaching reform of business statistics in college and university. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(10), 6901–6907. doi:10.12973/ejmste/78537.
18.
Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K., & Williams, S. A. (2015). Who are with us: MOOC learners on a Future Learn course? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 557–569.
19.
Luo, N., Zhang, M. L., & Qi, D. (2017). Effects of different interactions on students’ sense of community in e-learning environment. Computers & Education, 115, 153-160. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.006.
20.
Mackness, J., Bell, F., & Funes, M. (2016). The Rhizome: A Problematic Metaphor for Teaching and Learning in a MOOC. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(14), 89-95.
21.
Mayer, C. (2017). Written forms of signed languages: a route to literacy for deaf learners? American Annals of the Deaf, 161(5), 552-559.
22.
McLean, K., Edwards, S., & Morris, H. (2017). Community playgroup social media and parental learning about young children’s play. Computers & Education, 115, 201-210. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.004.
23.
Paredes, V. (2017). Grading system and student effort. Education Finance and Policy, 12(1), 107-128. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00195.
24.
Parks-Stamm, E. J., Zafonte, M., & Palenque, S. M. (2017). The effects of instructor participation and class size on student participation in an online class discussion forum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1250-1259. doi:10.1111/bjet.12512.
25.
Scott, K. M., Baur, L., & Barrett, J. (2017). Evidence-based principles for using technology-enhanced learning in the continuing professional development of health professionals. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 37(1), 61-66. doi:10.1097/CEH.0000000000000146.
26.
Si, L.B., & Qiao, H. Y. (2017). Performance of financial expenditure in china’s basic science and math education: panel data analysis based on ccr model and bbc model. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 5217–5224. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2017.00995a.
27.
Taggart, A. (2017). The role of cultural discontinuity in the academic outcomes of latina/o high school students. Education and Urban Society, 49(8), 731-761. doi:10.1177/0013124516658522.
28.
Wang, A. Q. (2015). The Nature and Consciousness of the Combination of theory and Practice of Education. Heilongjiang Researches on Higher Education, 12(5), 1-4.
29.
Wang, Q., Li, J. H., Zhang, B. H., et al. (2017). Effect analysis of action experiential mental health education for Uniersity Students. Chinese Journal of School Health, 38(8), 45-63.
30.
Watson, S. L., Watson, W. R., Yu, J. H., Alamri, H., & Mueller, C. (2017). Learner profiles of attitudinal learning in a MOOC: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Computers & Education, 114(8), 274-285.
31.
Watson, W. R., Kim, W., & Watson, S. L. (2016). Learning outcomes of a MOOC designed for attitudinal change: A case study of an Animal Behavior and Welfare MOOC. Computers & Education, 96(5), 83-93.
32.
Wautelet, Y., Heng, S., Kolp, M., Penserini, L., & Poelmans, S. (2016). Designing an MOOC as an agent-platform aggregating heterogeneous virtual learning environments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 16(7), 1-18.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
