Learning Design of a Programming and Robotics MOOC for Childhood Teachers and Educators
Palabras clave:
MOOCs; Learning design; Teacher training; Interaction Equivalency Theorem; Work-based learning; Computational thinking; Programming; Robotics.Resumen
In early childhood, the curricular integration of computational thinking, programming, and robotics topics is ever more pressing. Therefore, preparing teachers and educators to implement this integration in the curriculum is fundamental. In the project «Laboratory of Technologies and Learning of Programming and Robotics in basic and pre-school education in Portugal», the proposal of a MOOC was designed to meet this demand. This paper discusses aspects of the architecture of MOOCs, and their typologies, in the context of the challenges that the researchers encountered in the design process of the present MOOC. To do so, the Interaction Equivalency Theorem was considered, which equates the fundamental types of interaction to be considered in course design (learner-instructor; learner-content; learner-learner). Considering that learning design is both a process and a product the design of the MOOC is analysed in terms of its socio-technical context and systemic tensions present in work-based learning. Through a qualitative analysis of an individual interview and of a focus group, the paper describes formal and informal interactions and attempts to define a common vision, consensus, and divergences and contradictions that are part of the learning design process. Finally, the MOOC is presented, and its pedagogical design is substantiated.
Descargas
Citas
Amante, L., Souza, E. B., Quintas-Mendes, A., Monteiro, A. F., Miranda-Pinto, M., Osório, A. & Araújo, C.L. (2019). Computational Thinking, Programming and Robotics in Basic Education: Evaluation of an In-service b-learning Experience, Proceedings of ICERI2019 Conference 11th-13th November 2019, Seville, Spain. Virtual presentation. DOI: 10.21125/iceri.2019.2626.
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the Mix Right Again: An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, [Online], vol. 4, no. 2. Obtained from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php /irrodl/article/view/149/230.
Bers, M. U. (2018). Coding as a playground: programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge.
Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing Social Infrastructure: Critical Issues in Creating Learning Environments with Technology, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15:3, 301-329, DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls1503_1.
Borup, J., Shin, J., Powell, M., Evmenova, A. & Kim, W. (2022). Revising and Validating the Community of Inquiry Instrument for MOOCs and Other Global Online Courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 23(3), 82–103. Obtained from https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v23i2.6034.
Brouns, F., Mota, J., Morgado, L., Jansen, D., Fano, S., Silva, A., & Teixeira, A. (2014). A networked learning framework for effective MOOC design: the ECO project approach. In A. Teixeira y A. Szücs (Eds.), 8th EDEN Research Workshop: Challenges for research into open & distance learning: doing things better: doing better things (pp. 161-171). Budapest: EDEN. Obtained from: https://bit.ly/2Eglzah.
Cabral, P. B., & Quintas-Mendes, A. (2018). Investigação sobre a Interação Educacional em Contextos Online: o Teorema da Equivalência da Interação. RE@D – Revista de Educação a Distância e Elearning, 1(1), 91-112. https://revistas.rcaap.pt/lead_read/article/view/22019.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed). Sage.
De Barba, P. G., Kennedy, G. E., & Ainley, M. D. (2016). The Role of Students' Motivation and Participation in Predicting Performance in a MOOC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 218-231.
Direção-geral de Estatísticas da Educação e Ciência - DGEEC (2019). Perfil do Docente 2017/2018 – Análise Sectorial; Ministério da Educação, Lisboa, Portugal. ISBN 978-972-614-689-6. Obtained from http://www.dgeec.mec.pt/np4/98/.
Donald, C., Ramsay, E., Joerg, I. (2017). Designing for Learning in a MOOC: A Pedagogical Model in Disguise. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, Vol. 5, Issue 3, 90-101.
Downes, S. (2010, October, 26). What is democracy in education. http://halfanhour.blogspot.pt/2010/10/what-is-democracy-in-education.html.
Drake, J. R., O’Hara, M., Seeman, E. (2015). Five principles for MOOC design: With a case study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 14, 125-143. Obtained from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol14/JITEv14IIPp125-143Drake0888.pdf.
Freire, F. (2020). A case study of work-based learning through the design of edX MOOCs for Latin America and the Caribbean. Open Praxis, 12(3), 383–397. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.12.3.1096.
Freire, F. (2021). Systemic Tensions in the MOOC Design Cycle: An Activity Systems Analysis upon Implementing edX for Latin America and the Caribbean. Open Praxis, 13(3), pp. 279–295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5944/ openpraxis.13.3.138.
Gonçalves, B., Torres, E., Chumbo, I., & Gonçalves, V. (2015). Massive open online courses (MOOC) na formação contínua de professores: um estudo de caso. Revista Onis Ciência. 5:3, p. 5-21. ISSN 2182-598X.
Guàrdia, L., Maina, M., & Sangrà, A. (2013). MOOC Design Principles. A Pedagogical Approach from the Learner’s Perspective. eLearning Papers. 33. 1-6.
Guribye, F. (2015). From Artifacts to Infrastructures in Studies of Learning Practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22:2, 184-198, DOI: 10.1080/10749039.2015.1021358.
Lambert, S. R. (2020). Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A systematic review 2014-18, Computers & Education, 145(2020), 103693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103693.
Laurillard D. & Kennedy, E. (2017). The potential of MOOC for learning at scale in the Global South. Centre for Global Higher Education Working paper series. 31, UCL Institute of Education, London. ISSN 2398-564X https://www.researchcghe.org/perch/resources/publications/wp31.pdf.
Litto, F. M. (2006). A nova ecologia do conhecimento: conteúdo aberto, aprendizagem e desenvolvimento. Inclusão Social, [S.I.], 2006. v. 1, n. 2. http://revista.ibict.br/inclusao/index.php/inclusao/article/view/32/52.
Marsick, V.J., Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the Value of an Organization's Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources 5(2):19,132-151.
Masterman, E. (2009). Activity theory and the design of pedagogic planning tools. In Lockyer, L. Bennett, S. Agostinho, S., & Harper, B. (Eds.). Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications, and technologies (pp. 209-227). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-861-1.ch009.
Mcauley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC for digital online courses: digital ways of knowing and learning. [S.l: S.n.]. Obtained from http://www.edukwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/MOOC_Final.pdf.
Miranda, M., Osório A., Monteiro, A. F., Valente, L., Araújo, C. L. (2017). Laboratory of technologies and learning of programming and robotics for pre and primary school. ICERI2017 – 10th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation. DOI: 10.21125/iceri.2017.0473.
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2013). Interaction Equivalency in an OER, MOOCS and Informal Learning Era. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2013(2), Art. 9. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/2013-09.
Miranda-Pinto, M. S. e Osório, A. J. (2015). Tecnologias e Aprendizagem de Programação em Idade Pré-escolar: Projeto Kids Media Lab. Atas do I Encontro Professores Inovadores com TIC. In Meirinhos, M. e Patrício, R., Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Escola Superior de Educação. ISBN: 978-972-745-203-3. Portugal.
Monteiro, A., & Miranda-Pinto, M., Osório, A., & Araújo, C. (2019). Curricular Integration of Computational Thinking, programming, and Robotics in Basic Education: a proposal for teacher training. 742-749. DOI: 10.21125/iceri.2019.0232.
Moore, M. (1989). Three Types of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3, (2), 1-6.
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended Learning environments: Definitions and Directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4, 227-233. Obtained from https://www.scirp.org/(S(czeh2tfqyw2orz553k1w0r45))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1214964.
Quintas-Mendes, A., Wyszomirska, R. M., Cabral, P. B. (2019). Desenho de aprendizagem e ferramentas conceptuais para o desenho de cursos online, In Torres, P., Amante, L.(eds). Educação e tecnologias web: contributos de pesquisa luso-brasileiros, Curitiba: Ed. Appris.
Ramos, J. R. (2022, February, 18). Programação, robótica e pensamento computacional na educação pré-escolar e 1º ciclo do ensino básico. Estudo e análise de necessidades de formação de professores em Portugal. In A. Monteiro (Org.) I Conferência Internacional Tecnologias e Aprendizagem de Programação e Robótica na Educação Básica. Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Read, T. e Barcena, E. (2019). A Role for inclusive MOOCs in Societal Change. In G. Ubachs; L. Konings; B. Nijsten (Eds.) The 2019 OpenupEd trend report on MOOCs. (pp. 6-9). Maastricht, NL: EADTU. Obtained from https://tinyurl.com/2019OpenupEdtrendreport.
Sannino, A., Engeström, Y, Lemos, M. (2016). Formative Interventions for Expansive Learning and Transformative Agency, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25:4, 599-633, DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2016.1204547
Scagnoli, N.I. (2012). Instructional Design of a MOOC. Thoughts on Instructional Design for MOOCs. Obtained from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/44835.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime for the Self-Amused? Obtained from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm.
Souza, E., Amante, L., & Quintas-Mendes, A. (2020). Desenho e avaliação de um curso b-learning para Formação de Professores e Educadores sobre Pensamento Computacional, Programação e Robótica. RE@D – Revista de Educação a Distância e Elearning, 3(1), 131–150. http://hdl.handle.net/10400.2/9782.
Teixeira, A. M., Mota, J., Pinto, M. C. T., & Morgado, L. (2019). Can MOOCs close the Opportunity Gaps? The contribution of social inclusive pedagogical design. Revista Fuentes, 21(2), 239-252. DOI: 10.12795/revistafuentes.2019.v21.i2.08.
UNESCO (2018). Relatório de Monitoramento Global da Educação 2019: migração, descolamento e educação; construir pontes, não muros, resumo. Brasília. Obtained from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265996_por/PDF/265996por.pdf.multi.
Watkins, K. E. (2017). Defining and Creating Organizational Knowledge Performance. Educar, vol.53/1, 211-226.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2022 Revista Prisma Social
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Los derechos de edición pertenecen a la Fundación iS+D para la Investigación Social Avanzada, entidad que edita la Revista Prisma Social, y es necesario su permiso para cualquier reproducción. En todo caso, será necesario citar la procedencia de cualquier reproducción total o parcial.
La publicación de artículos o reseñas en la Revista Prisma Social no da derecho a remuneración alguna.
Política de acceso abierto
La publicación de la Revista Prisma Social y su difusión se realiza de forma abierta a través de Internet.
La Revista Prisma Social ofrece acceso libre y abierto inmediato a su contenido de forma totalmente gratuita con el fin de hacer llegar la investigación científica a toda la sociedad y con el objetivo de crear una cultura reflexiva encaminada a la comprensión de los comportamientos sociales desde una perspectiva global.
Todos los contenidos digitales de la Revista Prisma Social son de acceso libre y gratuito y se publican bajo una licencia de Creative Commons:
está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 España License.
Creado a partir de la obra en www.isdfundacion.org
Bajo esta licencia, está permitida la reproducción y difusión de los contenidos de la revista con fines educativos o de investigación, sin ánimo de lucro, siempre y cuando estos no se modifiquen, se cite la procedencia (Prisma Social, Revista de ciencias sociales), y la autoría.
Esta licencia a la que se acoge la Revista Prisma Social permite copiar, distribuir, exhibir los textos e imágenes de la revista, siempre que se cumplan las siguientes condiciones:
- Reconocimiento: Debe reconocerse y respetarse la autoría de la obra de la manera especificada por el autor y la entidad editora (Revista Prisma Social – Fundación iS+D).
- No comercial: No se puede utilizar esta obra para fines comerciales.
- No derivados: No se puede alterar, transformar o generar una obra derivada a partir de esta obra.
Se deberán establecer claramente los términos de esta licencia para cualquier uso o distribución de los documentos. Se podrá prescindir de cualquiera de estas condiciones si se obtiene el permiso expreso del autor/a.
Desde la Revista de Prisma Social se permite y se invita a los/as autores/as a ampliar la visibilidad, alcance e impacto de sus artículos publicados en la revista mediante la redifusión (auto-archivo) de los mismos en:
1. Sus espacios web personales (web, blog, redes sociales, foros científicos, etc.).
2. Archivos abiertos institucionales (archivos universitarios, Hispana, Europeana, etc.).
3. Redes sociales de naturaleza académica y científica (ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Getcited.org).
Se requiere que en dichas publicaciones se detallen todos los datos bibliográficos de la publicación.
Para más información, puede descargar y consultar las Condiciones de Publicación:
.png)
