Advertisement

Blended Learning with MOOCs

From Investment Effort to Success: A Systematic Literature Review on Empirical Evidence
  • Maka EradzeEmail author
  • Manuel León Urrutia
  • Valentina Reda
  • Ruth Kerr
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11475)

Abstract

This paper reports on a systematic literature review by analysing 48 empirical studies on the use of Blended Learning with MOOCs. The results report on the pedagogically motivated, infrastructural and design-intensive efforts of the institutions. Moreover, they empirically confirm previously made claims that within hybrid initiatives, Flipped Classroom model is the most used one. They also indicate that blended learning in the context of MOOCs yields positive results. At the same time, most of the reviewed empirical research uses so called “MOOCs as Driver” model, where a traditional course in the curriculum is organized around a MOOC.

Keywords

MOOCs Hybrid learning Blended learning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by the funds provided within the frame FERSR 2014/2020, No. 792205 and Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 669074.

References

  1. 1.
    Garrison, D.R., Kanuka, H.: Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High. Educ. 7(2), 95–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fair, N., Russell, S., Harris, L., Leon Urrutia, M.: Enhancing the student experience: integrating MOOCs into campus based modules. Editorial Octaedro (2019, in press) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Williams, S.A.: Massive open online courses on health and medicine: Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 16, e191 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Siemens, G.: Where is research on massive open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC research initiative. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 15, 134–176 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khalil, M., Wong, J., De Koning, B., Ebner, M., Paas, F.: Gamification in MOOCs: a review of the state of the art. In: IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ortega-Arranz, A., Muñoz-Cristóbal, J.A., Martínez-Monés, A., Bote-Lorenzo, M.L., Asensio-Pérez, J.I.: How gamification is being implemented in MOOCs? A systematic literature review. In: Lavoué, É., Drachsler, H., Verbert, K., Broisin, J., Pérez-Sanagustín, M. (eds.) EC-TEL 2017. LNCS, vol. 10474, pp. 441–447. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66610-5_40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Hilliger, I., Alario-Hoyos, C., Kloos, C.D., Rayyan, S.: H-MOOC framework: reusing MOOCs for hybrid education. J. Comput. High. Educ. 29, 47–64 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Albó, L., Hernández-Leo, D.: Blended learning with MOOCs: towards supporting the learning design process. In: The Online, Open and Flexible Higher Education Conference 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., Littlejohn, A.: Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Comput. Educ. 80, 77–83 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Armellini, A.: Are Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) pedagogically innovative? J. Interact. Online Learn. 14(1), 17–28 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Albó, L., Hernández-Leo, D., Oliver, M.: Blended MOOCs: University teachers’ perspective. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 11–15. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klemke, R., Eradze, M., Antonaci, A.: The flipped MOOC: using gamification and learning analytics in MOOC design—a conceptual approach. Educ. Sci. 8(1), 25 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodríguez, M.F., Hernández Correa, J., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Pertuze, J.A., Alario-Hoyos, C.: A MOOC-based flipped class: lessons learned from the orchestration perspective. In: Delgado Kloos, C., Jermann, P., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Seaton, D.T., White, S. (eds.) EMOOCs 2017. LNCS, vol. 10254, pp. 102–112. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59044-8_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Delgado Kloos, C., Muñoz-Merino, P.J., Alario-Hoyos, C., Estévez Ayres, I., Fernández-Panadero, C.: Mixing and blending MOOC Technologies with face-to-face pedagogies. In: IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang, Y.: Benefiting from MOOC. In: Herrington, J., Couros, A., Irvine, V. (eds.) Proceedings of EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2013, pp. 1372–1377. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Victoria, Canada (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liberati, A., et al.: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62, e1–e34 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elo, S., Kyngäs, H.: The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62, 107–115 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    MacQueen, K.M., McLellan, E., Kay, K., Milstein, B.: Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Field Methods 10(2), 31–36 (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Konstan, J.A., Walker, J.D., Brooks, D.C., Brown, K., Ekstrand, M.D.: Teaching recommender systems at large scale: evaluation and lessons learned from a hybrid MOOC. ACM Trans. Comput. Interact. 22(2), 10 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang, M., Zhu, J., Zou, Y., Yan, H., Hao, D., Liu, C.: Educational Evaluation in the PKU SPOC Course “Data Structures and Algorithms.” In: Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale - L@S 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wan, H., et al.: Hybrid teaching mode for laboratory-based remote education of computer structure course. In: Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Andone, D., Mihaescu, V.: Integrating open education concepts in blended learning with MOOCs. In: 2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), pp. 24–26. Politehnica University Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania (2018)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rothkrantz, L.: Dropout rates of regular courses and MOOCS. In: Communications in Computer and Information Science. pp. 25–46. Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 4, Delft, Netherlands (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Tallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia
  3. 3.University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations