skip to main content
10.1145/3270112.3270120acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodelsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Using MOOC technology and formative assessment in a conceptual modelling course: an experience report

Published:14 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Online and blended learning are employed by educators in a wide variety of fields, from literature to computer science, from medicine to astronomy. However, online and, specifically, MOOC and SPOC technologies are still not widespread in the field of conceptual modelling. The complex nature of conceptual modelling as a subject to be taught at the university level, as well as the increasing number of students, pose a certain challenge to the modern educators and call for a thorough review of the teaching methods, types of assessment and technologies used to support the learning process. In this paper, we provide an experience report on a redesigned master level university course on conceptual modelling, which employs blended learning approach. We investigate the aspects of students' behavior, performance and perception of the course, and reflect on the possibilities of transition from a SPOC in the context of blended learning to an exclusively online MOOC. This experience may provide valuable insights for the conceptual modelling educators planning to introduce blended or online learning and/or utilize formative assessment in their pedagogical activities.

References

  1. M. Al-Atabi and J. DeBoer. 2014. Teaching entrepreneurship using Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). Technovation 34, 4 (April 2014), 261--264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. M. Al-Emran, H. M. Elsherif, and Kh. Shaalan. 2016. Investigating attitudes towards the use of mobile learning in higher education. Comput. Human Behav. 56, (March 2016), 93--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. D. Bogdanova and M. Snoeck. 2017. Domain modelling in bloom: Deciphering how we teach It. In Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. S. Combéfis, A. Bibal, and P. Van Roy. 2014. Recasting a Traditional Course into a MOOC by Means of a SPOC. Proc. Eur. MOOC Stakehold. Summit 2014 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. G. Deeva, J. De Smedt, P. De Koninck, and J. De Weerdt. 2018. Dropout Prediction in MOOCs: A Comparison Between Process and Sequence Mining. . Springer, Cham, 243--255.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. C. Delgado Kloos, P. J. Munoz-Merino, C. Alario-Hoyos, I. Estevez Ayres, and C. Fernandez-Panadero. 2015. Mixing and blending MOOC Technologies with face-to-face pedagogies. In 2015 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 967--971.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. W. Guo. 2014. From SPOC to MPOC - The Effective Practice of Peking University Online Teacher Training. In 2014 International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology, 258--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. P. Van Hentenryck and C. Coffrin. 2014. Teaching creative problem solving in a MOOC. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education - SIGCSE '14, 677--682. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. K. McCutcheon, M. Lohan, M. Traynor, and D. Martin. 2015. A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education. J. Adv. Nurs. 71, 2 (February 2015), 255--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. C. Sandeen. 2013. Integrating MOOCS into Traditional Higher Education: The Emerging "MOOC 3.0" Era. Chang Mag. High. Learn. 45, 6 (November 2013), 34--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. M. Snoeck and G. Dedene. 1998. Existence dependency: The key to semantic integrity between structural and behavioral aspects of object types. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24, 4 (April 1998), 233--251. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Snoeck. 2014. Enterprise Information Systems Engineering: The MERODE Approach. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. Snoeck. 2017. UML Class Diagrams for Software Engineering | edX. Retrieved July 10, 2017 from https://www.edx.org/course/uml-class-diagrams-software-engineering-kuleuvenx-umlxGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. D. R. Stikkolorum, B. Demuth, V. Zaytsev, F. Boulanger, and J. Gray. 2014. The MOOC hype: Can we ignore it? Reflections on the current use of massive open online courses in software modeling education. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. A. Vihavainen, M. Luukkainen, and J. Kurhila. 2013. MOOC as semester-long entrance exam. In Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM SIGITE conference on Information technology education - SIGITE '13, 177. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Using MOOC technology and formative assessment in a conceptual modelling course: an experience report

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader