Abstract
Teaching invention problem solving methods is complex because it aims to improve the learner’s creativity, which is not a knowledge but an intrinsic competence. This paper presents an empirical study to compare the effectiveness of the MOOC’s model and the Face to Face (F2F) model for teaching methods of solving invention problems. It answers the following research question: Is MOOC’s model more relevant than F2F model for learners’ creativity development?
Our methodology consists in observing a population of 28 students who have followed a solving invention problems course simultaneously in two forms: a part delivered through a MOOC and a part delivered in F2F classroom. Correlations analysis between the evaluations carried out on the MOOC and F2F of the two parts of the course led to several conclusions:
-
The overall assessment through the MOOC and F2F of all the parts delivered in the course are not correlated. There is therefore no correlation between the level of competence acquired through the MOOC and the level of competence acquired in the classroom.
-
The Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) evaluation of the part delivered on the MOOC is weakly but positively correlated with the F2F MCQ evaluation of the same content. This proves the low reliability of the MOOC assessment. The same analysis dealing with exercise activities showed, on the other hand, that there is no correlation between the MOOC and F2F evaluation. Thus, MOOC’s assessment of exercise activities is not at all reliable.
-
Finally, evaluation on table of the part delivered by the MOOC and the part delivered in F2F classroom does not show any correlation. This proves that learners who appreciate the F2F model do not necessarily appreciate the MOOC’s model and vice versa. But the analysis of these assessments shows that the MOOC’s model gives slightly better results than F2F one.
-
The experiment conducted on a limited sample does not allow to draw definitive conclusions. It will be reproduced next year with a larger student sample, some teaching material improvements and learners’ motivation support.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Daniel, J.: Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility. Korean National Open University, Seoul (2012)
Dodge, Y., Rousson, V.: Analyse de régression appliquée - 2ème édition, Collection: Éco Sup, Dunod, Parution, Octobre 2004
Karsenti, T.: MOOC, révolution ou simple effet de mode? RITPU 10(2), 6–37 (2013)
Siemens, G., Downes, S.: The connectivism and connective knowledge course (CCK08), référencé sur (2008) https://sites.google.com/site/themoocguide/3-cck08—the-distributed-course. Accessed 07 Apr 2020
Maroc Université Numérique. www.mun.ma. Accessed 07 Apr 2020
Nouib, A., Oulhadj, B.: L’enseignement à distance: l’émergence des MOOCs au Maroc, la revue internationale francophone des innovatrices et des innovateurs, V4 – N° 1, 15 Octobre 2017 (2017)
The Innovation Management de l’innovation et de la créativité. https://www.theinnovation.eu/category/creativite. Accessed 07 Apr 2020
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Benmoussa, R. (2020). MOOC vs Face to Face (F2F) Model: What Relevance for Creativity Development?. In: Cavallucci, D., Brad, S., Livotov, P. (eds) Systematic Complex Problem Solving in the Age of Digitalization and Open Innovation. TFC 2020. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 597. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61295-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61295-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-61294-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-61295-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)
