Intercreativity and Interculturality in the Virtual Learning Environments of the ECO MOOC Project

  • Sara Osuna-AcedoEmail author
  • Divina Frau-Meigs
  • Lucía Camarero-Cano
  • Adeline Bossu
  • Raquel Pedrosa
  • Darco Jansen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)


The European ECO project tests the hypothesis that intercreativity and interculturality in MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) are key factors for removing barriers to new teaching–learning processes. These two elements are understudied and undertheorized in most research about MOOCs. The ECO project proposes a new model named sMOOC (social MOOCs), based on constructivist and connectivist pedagogical theories that foster intercreativity and interculturality. Participants from six European countries and their attendant linguistic and cultural zones (Spanish-speaking and French-speaking world mostly) become the protagonists of their own learning, building their knowledge through collaboration and participation in different virtual platforms and social networks. The transnationally produced and shared sMOOC “Step by Step” serves as a learning practice experience which fosters interculturality in conjunction with intercreativity. It is analyzed as a case study to examine the main characteristics of online collaboration, in particular support, engagement, diversity, loss of control and internal policing. The results confirm the presence of such characteristics that are instrumental in the creation of collective intelligence in constant coordination. Additionally, strong cognitive processes are at work: interventional or accidental focus, empathy, tolerance to error, decentring, tolerance to ambiguity, presence to self and identity construction.


ECO project MOOC sMOOC Intercreativity Technosocial communities Open data Interculturality Transmedia connectivity Open education 



We would like to thank the European Commission for believing in our project, and all our partners in the ECO project for their teamwork in seeking to build another way of educating, and other ways of building knowledge consistent with the demands of today’s society.

Special thanks go to all the participants in the ECO project, who form a learning community in which different cultures and languages coexist, and who are engaged in this important collective work of intercreative teaching and learning practices. The ECO project is empowering many people who are becoming co-authors of the culture of their time through the educommunicative environments in which they interact.


  1. Aparici, R., & Osuna-Acedo, S. (2013). La Cultura de la Participación. Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación, 4(2), 137–148.Google Scholar
  2. Aparici, R., & Silva, M. (2012). Pedagogía de la interactividad. Revista Comunicar. doi:  10.3916/C38-2011-02-05 Retrieved from
  3. Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age. Guidelies for designing teaching and learning for a digital age. Retrieved from
  4. Berners-Lee, T. (1997). Realising the full potential of the web. Retrieved from
  5. Berners-Lee, T. (2000). Tejiendo la Red. El inventor de la World Wide Web nos descubre su origen. Madrid: Siglo veintiuno.Google Scholar
  6. Camero-Cano, L. (2014). MOOCs: The educational future option to generate an intercreative teaching-learning environment. 1st international conference. MOOCs: present and future. International perspectives. Madrid: UNED.Google Scholar
  7. Camarero-Cano, L. (2015). Comunidades tecnosociales. Evolución de la comunicación analógica hacia la interacción analógico-digital. Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación, 6 (1), 187–195. doi: 10.14198/MEDCOM2015.6.1.11 Retrieved from
  8. Capucho, F. (2008). L’intercompréhension est-elle une mode?, Pratiques, 139–140. Retrieved from; doi:  10.4000/pratiques.1252
  9. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
  10. Decety, J., & Ickes, W. (2009). The Social Neuroscience of Empathy. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Demorgon, J. (1996). Complexité des cultures et de l’interculturel. Paris: Anthropos.Google Scholar
  12. Demorgon, J. (1999). Guide de l’interculturel en Formation. Paris: Retz.Google Scholar
  13. Demorgon, J., et al. (2003). Dynamiques interculturelles pour l’Europe. Paris: Anthropos.Google Scholar
  14. Devereux, G. (1972). Ethnopsychanalyse complémentariste. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  15. Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  16. Frau-Meigs, D. (2006). Big brother in Europe: Toward a theory of situated acculturation. European Journal of Communication, 21(1), 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frau-Meigs, D. (2011). Socialisation des jeunes et éducation aux medias. Toulouse: Eres.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frau-Meigs, D., & Kiyindou, A. (Eds.). (2014). La diversité culturelle à l’ère du numérique. Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
  19. Fueyo et al. (2014). ECO_D4.3 Report on user satisfaction v1.0. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  20. Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence culture: La cultura de la convergencia de los medios de comunicación. Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture. Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).Google Scholar
  22. King, A. D. (Ed.). (1997). Culture, Globalization and the world system: Contemporary conditions for the representation of identity. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ladmiral, J., & Lipiansky, E. (1991). La communication interculturelle. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
  24. LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  25. Lévy, P. (1994). L’Intelligence collective. Pour une anthropologie du cyberespace. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  26. Livet, P. (2002). Emotions et rationalité morale. Paris: PUF.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marco, J. (2010). Collective intelligence. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 2(4), 245–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martínez, F., & Cabezuelo, F. (2010). Interactividad. Revisión conceptual y conextual. Revista Icono, 14(15), 9–21.Google Scholar
  29. Meikle, G. (2002). Future active. Media activism and the internet. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Merlin, D. (2001). A mind so rare: The evolution of human consciousness. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  31. Morin, E. (1987). Penser l’Europe. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  32. Mostmans, L., Vleugels, C., & Bannier, S. (2012). Raise your hands or hands-on? The role of computer-supported collaborative learning in stimulating intercreativity in education. Educational Technology and Society, 15(4), 104–113.Google Scholar
  33. Morley, D. (1983). Cultural transformations: The politics of resistance. In H. Davis & P. Walton (Eds.), Language, image, media. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Mulder, F., & Jansen, D. (2015). MOOCs for opening up education and the OpenupEd initiative. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), The MOOCs and open education around the world. New York: Routledge Tayler & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  35. O’Reilly, T. (2004). The architecture of participation. Retrieved from
  36. Osuna-Acedo, S. (Coord.). (2014–2017). ECO. Elearning, communication and open-data: Massive mobile, ubiquitous and open learning. Luxembourg: European Commission. Google Scholar
  37. Osuna-Acedo, S. Y., & Busón Buesa, C. (2007). Convergencia de Medios. La Integración Tecnológica en la Era Digital. Barcelona: Icaria Editorial, S.A.Google Scholar
  38. Pisani, F., & Piotet, D. (2009). La Alquimia de las Multitudes. Cómo la Web está Cambiando el Mundo. Barcelona: Ediciones Paidós Ibérica S.A.Google Scholar
  39. Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart Mobs. The next social revolution. Cambridge (MA): Perseus Books Groups.Google Scholar
  40. Sainz Peña, R. M. (Coord.). (2015). Los MOOC en la educación del futuro: la digitalización de la formación. Madrid: Fundación Telefónica.Google Scholar
  41. Shuttleworth Foundation/Open Society Foundation (Shuttleworth/OSF). (2008). The cape town open education declaration. Retrieved from
  42. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for a digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved January 10, 2008, from
  43. Simmel, G. (1999). Sociologie. Etudes sur les formes de la socialisation (1ere ed. 1908). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  44. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. London: UK Time Warner.Google Scholar
  45. UNESCO. (2013). Policy guidelines for mobile learning. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Osuna-Acedo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Divina Frau-Meigs
    • 2
  • Lucía Camarero-Cano
    • 1
  • Adeline Bossu
    • 2
  • Raquel Pedrosa
    • 3
  • Darco Jansen
    • 4
  1. 1.Spanish National Distance Education UnivesityMadridSpain
  2. 2.Sorbonne Nouvelle UniversityParisFrance
  3. 3.ISCIA—Instituto Superior de Ciências Da Informação e da AdministraçãoAveiroPortugal
  4. 4.EADTU (European Association of Distance Teaching Universities)HeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations