Skip to main content

Self-motivation challenges for student involvement in the Open Educational Movement with MOOC

Retos de automotivación para el involucramiento de estudiantes en el movimiento educativo abierto con MOOC

Abstract

This article attempts to answer the questions: What are the challenges, problems and obstacles of involving less self-motivated students in MOOCs and how do they relate to their learning connectivism? The correlations between connectivism and contextualized learning through a formative experience of the Open Educational Movement was analyzed in order to propose strategies that result in greater perseverance, active participation and retention of less self-motivated students in MOOCs. A mixed method approach was used to survey students, interview students and coordinators, and analyze relevant documents. The findings were classified as (1) Challenges: self-motivation, self-regulation abilities, extra time invested, release requirements, goals and inductive activities before the course opening, unsatisfactory identification of students, difficult activities, feedback monitoring and a platform incompatible with balancing its use with that of social networks; (2) Problems: limited information and communication technology skills, difficult feedback research in forums, uncertain peer feedback when not theory-based or scaffolded by teachers, scarce theoretical support in evidence portfolios and a lack of means to help low self-motivated or self-regulated students; (3) Main contextual obstacles: some students cannot count on their employers’ support or continuous technology access, some students basic wellbeing needs are not met, and inability to contextualize learning; (4) Connectivism: students’ motivation in the MOOC content and their expanding knowledge networks. Based on these findings, a MOOC design requirement template aimed at supporting students’ self-motivation and self-regulation through connectivism is provided.

Resumen

Este artículo indagó la siguiente cuestión: ¿cuáles son los desafíos, problemas y obstáculos para involucrar a los estudiantes menos automotivados en los MOOC y cómo se relacionan con el conectivismo de sus aprendizajes? El objetivo fue analizar las correlaciones entre el conectivismo y el aprendizaje estudiantil contextualizado, en una experiencia formativa del movimiento educativo abierto, con el fin de aportar estrategias que generen mayor perseverancia de estos estudiantes, participación activa y retención estudiantil. El método de estudio fue mixto, con aplicación de encuestas a estudiantes, entrevistas a alumnos y maestros, así como el análisis de documentos significativos. Los hallazgos se clasificaron en: (1) Desafíos: requerimiento de habilidades de automotivación, autorregulación y tiempo adicional por parte de algunos alumnos, difícil monitoreo de retroalimentaciones y actividades, falta de liberación anticipada de requerimientos, objetivos y actividades de inducción, deficiente identificación de alumnos observadores e incompatibilidad entre la plataforma y el uso de redes sociales; (2) Problemas: baja apropiación tecnológica de participantes, difícil búsqueda de retroalimentaciones específicas en los foros, portafolios de evidencias sin fundamento teórico y falta de recursos de ayuda para estudiantes de baja automotivación y autorregulación; (3) Obstáculos: falta de apoyo de los centros de trabajo para los participantes del MOOC y de acceso continuo a recursos digitales, incumplimiento de las necesidades personales básicas de los estudiantes sobre bienestar y el no contextualizar nuevos saberes; (4) Conectivismo: motivación de los participantes en sus contenidos e incremento de sus redes de saber. Con base en estos hallazgos se aporta una plantilla con requisitos de diseño de MOOC, enfocado a la automotivación y autorregulación estudiantil mediante el conectivismo.

References

  1. Aiken, L. (2003). Tests psicológicos y evaluación. 11a ed. México, D. F.: Pearson Educación.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Carr, D. (2013). Udacity CEO says MOOC ‘magic formula’ emerging. Informationweek-Online. Retrieved from http://www.informationweek.com/software/udacity-ceo-says-mooc-magic-formula-emerging/d/d-id/1111221

  3. Collins, K. (2003). Advanced sampling designs in mixed research: current practices an emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (pp. 353–377). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Contreras, Y., & Lozano, A. (2012). Aprendizaje auto-regulado como competencia para el aprovechamiento de los estilos de aprendizaje en alumnos de educación superior. Revista de Estilos de Aprendizaje, 10(10), 114–147. Retrieved from http://catedra.ruv.itesm.mx/handle/987654321/707

    Google Scholar 

  5. Creswell, J., & Plano, V. (2011). Designing and conducting Mixed Method Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Coughlan, T., & Perryman, L. A. (2013). Beyond the Ivory Tower: A Model for Nurturing Informal Learning and Development Communities through Open Educational Practices. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 10(1), 135–150. Retrieved from doi: 10.7238/rusc.v10i1.1586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and Connective Knowledge: essays on meaning and learning networks. Ottawa: National Research Council Canada. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/files/books/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  8. Evans, E., Burritt, R., & Guthrie, J. (2013). The Virtual University: Impact on Australian Accounting and Business Education. Sydney, Australia: Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia. Retrieved from http://universitysef.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Virtual-University-Publication-final.pdf#page=88

    Google Scholar 

  9. Farías, G., & Ramírez, M. (2010). Desarrollo de cualidades reflexivas de profesores en formación inicial a través de portafolios electrónicos. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 25(44), 141–162. Retrieved from http://catedra.ruv.itesm.mx/handle/987654321/681

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fisher, M., & Baird, D. (2005). Online learning design that fosters student support, self-regulation, and retention. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 22(2), 88–107. doi: 10.1108/10650740510587100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Giroux, S., & Tremblay, G. (2009). Metodología de las ciencias humanas. México D. F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Martin, N. (2012). MOOCs are massive. Training & Development, 39(5), 32–33.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Molina, J., & Rodrigo, M. (2009). Estadística descriptiva en Psicología. Valencia, Spain: University of Valencia. Retrieved from http://www.mat.uson.mx/ftapia/Lecturas%20Adicionales%20%28C%C3%B3mo%20dise%C3%B1ar%20una%20encuesta%29/InterpretacionMedidasForma.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mupinga, D., Nora, R., & Yaw, D. (2006). The learning styles, expectations, and needs of online students. College Teaching, 54(1), 185–189. doi: 10.3200/ctch.54.1.185-189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Niemiec, C., & Ryan, R. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. doi: 10.1177/1477878509104318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Olcott, Jr. D. (2013). New Pathways to Learning: Leveraging the Use of OERs to Support Non-formal Education. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 10(1), 151–169. Retrieved from doi: 10.7238/rusc.v10i1.1562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Onwuegbuzie, J., Burke, R., & Collins, K. (2011). Assessing legitimation in mixed research: a new Framework. Quality & Quantity, 45(6), 1253–1271. doi: 10.1007/s11135-009-9289-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ormrod, J. (2005). Aprendizaje humano. 4a. ed. Madrid, Spain: Pearson Educación.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ramírez, M. (2013). Competencias Docentes y Prácticas Educativas Abiertas en la Educación a Distancia. Monterrey, Mexico: LULU. Retrieved from http://catedra.ruv.itesm.mx/bitstream/987654321/564/10/ebook.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ramírez, M., & Burgos, J. (2013a). Innovación educativa con recursos abiertos. Retrieved from https://www.coursera.org/course/innovacionrea

  21. Ramírez, M., & Burgos, J. (2013b). Sesión 2 de participantes del curso Innovación Educativa con Recursos Abiertos-Tema de la sesión: Movilizando prácticas educativas abiertas: acciones [video]. 9-26-13 Hangout session. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyXp9y6PK9k

  22. Ramírez, M., & Burgos, J. (2013c). Innovación educativa con recursos abiertos. Unpublished resource from MOOC: Innovación educativa con recursos abiertos.

  23. Ransdell, M. (2009). Designscholar: Examining creative thinking in an online learning community for interior design graduate students [Doctoral dissertation], University of Florida. Retrieved from http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0024789/ransdell_m.pdf?origin=publication_detail

  24. Sangrá, A., & Wheeler, S. (2013). New Informal Ways of Learning: Or Are We Formalizing the Informal? RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 10(1), 107–115. Retrieved from doi: 10.7238/rusc.v10i1.1689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shroff, R., Vogel, D., & Coombes, J. (2008). Assessing Individual-level Factors Supporting Student Intrinsic Motivation in Online Discussions: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(1), 111–126.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Overview of Contemporary Issues in Mixed Methods Research. In: A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (pp. 353–377). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Valenzuela, J. (2006). Evaluación de las instituciones educativas. México D. F.: Trillas.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Valenzuela, J., & Flores, M. (2012). Fundamentos de investigación educativa. Vols. 2 & 3, [eBook]. Monterrey, Mexico: Editorial Digital Tecnológico de Monterrey.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wolters, Ch. (2010). Self-regulated learning and the 21st-century competencies. University of Houston, Department of Educational Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/Self_Regulated_Learning__21st_Century_Competencies.pdf

  31. Wolters, Ch., Pintrich, P., & Karabenick, S. (2003). Assessing Academic Self-regulated Learning. Conference on Indicators of Positive Development: Definitions, Measures, and Prospective Validity. Retrieved from http://childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Child_Trends-2003_03_12_PD_PDConfWPK.pdf

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brenda Jeanett García Espinosa M.Ed, B.Sc..

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

García Espinosa, B.J., Tenorio Sepúlveda, G.C. & Ramírez Montoya, M.S. Self-motivation challenges for student involvement in the Open Educational Movement with MOOC. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 12, 91–103 (2015). https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i1.2185

Download citation

Keywords

  • self-motivation
  • open education movement
  • MOOCs
  • e-learning
  • connectivism
  • contextualized learning

Palabras clave

  • automotivación
  • movimiento educativo abierto
  • MOOC
  • e-learning
  • conectivismo
  • aprendizaje contextualizado