Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação
Enviar artigo via e-mail 
Enviar comentário 
Ocultar
Exibir todos
Deserção em MOOCS: alguns fatores-chave
Resumo
O abandono dos alunos nos Cursos Online Abertos Massivos (Mooc) tem sido objeto de debate e preocupação por parte de pesquisadores e profissionais da área educacional durante a última década. Considerando seu crescimento como uma tendência educacional e as pesquisas emergentes geradas sobre esse tema, foi realizada uma revisão sistemática da literatura em 131 estudos sobre o atrito nos cMooc e xMoocs. Os resultados destacam o papel da colaboração, o senso de comunidade, a necessidade de certificação e padronização como os principais fatores que afetam o atrito nos Moocs.
Palavras-chave
Referências
ADAMOPOULOS, P. What makes a great MOOC? An interdisciplinary analysis of student retention in online courses. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS (ICIS 2013): RESHAPING SOCIETY THROUGH INFORMATION SYSTEMS DESIGN, 2013, Milan. Proceedings [...] Milan: AIS, 2013. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84897795912&partnerID=40&md5=0851525eea67bd826c83e58beff68500. Access: 2019 Oct. 15.
ADMIRAAL, W.; HUISMAN, B.; PILLI, O. Assessment in massive open online courses. Electronic Journal of E-learning , London, v. 13, n. 4, p. 207-216, Apr. 2015.
ALMEDA, M. V. et al. Comparing the factors that predict completion and grades among for-credit and open/MOOC students in online learning. Online Learning , Newburyport, v. 22, n. 1, p. 1-18, Mar. 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1060
ALRAIMI, K. M.; ZO, H.; CIGANEK, A. P. Understanding the MOOCs continuance: the role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education , [s. l.], v. 80, p. 28-38, Jan. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.006
ALTINPULLUK, H.; KESIM, M. The evolution of MOOCs and a clarification of terminology through literature review. In: EDEN EUROPEAN DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING NETWORK 2016 ANNUAL CONFERENCE, 2016, Budapest, Hungary. Proceedings [...] Budapest: EDEN, 2016. Available from: https://goo.gl/wMjdf8. Access: 2019 Nov. 11.
ANDERSON, T. Promise and/or peril: MOOCs and open and distance education. Edmonton: Athabasca University, 2013. Available from: http://www.ethicalforum.be/sites/default/files/MOOCsPromisePeril.pdf. Acess: 2019 Oct. 14
BARN, B.; BARAT, S.; CLARK, T. Conducting systematic literature reviews and systematic mapping studies. In: INNOVATIONS IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING CONFERENCE, 10., 2017, Jaipur. Proceedings […] Jaipur: ACM Press, 2017. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3021460.3021489. Access: 2018 Oct. 14.
BATES, A. W. Teaching in a digital age: guidelines for designing teaching and learning for a digital age. British Columbia: BC Open Texbooks, 2015.
BRESLOW, L. et al. Studying learning in the worldwide classroom research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment , Farmvile, v. 8, p. 13-25, Summer 2013.
BRUNTON, J. et al. Giving flexible learners a head start on higher education: designing and implementing a pre-induction socialisation MOOC. In: DELGADO KLOOS, C. et al. (eds.). Digital education: out to the world and back to the campus. Cham: Springer, 2017. p. 10-19. European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit, EMOOCs 2017, Madrid. Proceedings […].
CHA, H.; SO, H.-J. Integration of formal, non-formal and informal learning through MOOCs. In: BURGOS, D. (ed.). Radical solutions and open science: lecture notes in educational technology. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2020. p. 135-158.
CHIAPPE, A.; ADAME, S. I. Open educational practices: a learning way beyond free access knowledge. Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação , Rio de Janerio, v. 26, n. 98, p. 213-230, dez. 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0104-40362018002601320
CLARK, D. MOOCs: taxonomy of 8 types of MOOC. Apr. 2013. Available from: https://goo.gl/yi74sS. Access: 2019 Nov. 8.
CONIJN, R.; VAN DEN BEEMT, A.; CUIJPERS, P. Predicting student performance in a blended MOOC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , [s. l.], v. 34, n. 5, p. 615-628, Oct. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12270
CROSSLIN, M. et al. Customizable modalities for individualized learning: examining patterns of engagement in dual-layer MOOCs. Online Lerning , Newburyport, v. 22, n. 1, p. 19-38. Jan. 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1080
DAVIS, D. et al. Follow the successful crowd: raising MOOC completion rates through social comparison at scale. In: INTERNATIONAL LEARNING ANALYTICS & KNOWLEDGE CONFERENCE, 17., 2017, Vancouver. Proceedings […] Vancouver: ACM Press, 2017. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3027385.3027411. Access: 2018 Oct. 14
DAWSON, S. et al. Recognising learner autonomy: lessons and reflections from a joint x/c MOOC. In: HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA 2015, Melbourne. Proceedings […] Melbourne: HERDSA, 2015. Available from: http://www.herdsa.org.au/system/files/HERDSA_2015_Dawson.pdf. Access: 2019 Nov. 21.
DESPUJOL, I. M. et al. Effect of free certificate discontinuation in completion rates of MOOC. In: DELGADO KLOOS, C. et al. (eds.). Digital education: out to the world and back to the campus. Cham: Springer, 2017. p. 182-187. European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit, EMOOCs 2017, Madrid. Proceedings […].
DHORNE, L. et al. Mentoring learners in MOOCs: a new way to improve completion rates? In: DELGADO KLOOS, C. et al. (eds.). Digital education: out to the world and back to the campus. Cham: Springer, 2017. p. 29-37. European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit, EMOOCs 2017, Madrid. Proceedings […].
DIAS, E.; PINTO, F. C. F. Educação e sociedade. Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação, Rio de Janeiro, v. 27, n. 104, p. 449-454, jul./set. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-40362019002701041
DOWNES, S. Learning networks and connective knowledge. Collective Intelligence and E-Learning , [s. l.], v. 2, p. 1-26, 2010. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-729-4.ch001
ENGLE, D.; MANKOFF, C.; CARBREY, J. Coursera’s introductory human physiology course: Factors that characterize successful completion of a MOOC. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , Edmonton, v. 16, n. 2, p. 46-68, 2015. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2010
ESTÉVEZ-AYRES, I. et al. An algorithm for peer review matching in Massive courses for minimising students’ frustration. Journal of Universal Computer Science , Graz, v. 19, n. 15, p. 2173-2197, Sep. 2013.
FIDALGO-BLANCO, Á.; SEIN-ECHALUCE, M. L.; GARCÍA-PEÑALVO, F. J. From massive access to cooperation: lessons learned and proven results of a hybrid xMOOC/cMOOC pedagogical approach to MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , [s. l.], v. 13, n. 1, p. 1-13, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0024-z
FREITAS, S. I.; MORGAN, J.; GIBSON, D. Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision: engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of Educational Technology , [s. l.], v. 46, n. 3, p. 455-471, May 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12268
GARDNER, J.; BROOKS, C. Student success prediction in MOOCs. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction , [s. l.], v. 28, n. 2, p. 127-203, June 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-018-9203-z
GASEVIC, D. et al. Where is research on massive open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC research initiative. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , Edmonton, v. 15, n. 5, p. 134-176, Oct. 2014. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1954
GREENE, J. A.; OSWALD, C. A.; POMERANTZ, J. Predictors of retention and achievement in a massive open online course. American Educational Research Journal , [s. l.], v. 52, n. 5, p. 925-955, Oct. 2015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584621
HILL, P. Some validation of MOOC student patterns graphic . e-Literate, 2013. Available from: https://eliterate.us/validation-mooc-student-patterns-graphic/. Access: 2018 Oct. 14.
HO, A. et al. HarvardX and MITx: The first year of open online courses, fall 2012-summer 2013. HarvardX, an. 2014. (HarvardX and MITx Working Paper, vol. 1). Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263. Access: 2019 Nov. 25.
HONE, K. S.; EL SAID, G. R. Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: a survey study. Computers & Education , [s. l.], v. 98, p. 157-168, July 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016
JANSEN, D.; ROSEWELL, J.; KEAR, K. Quality frameworks for MOOCs. In: KINSHUK, J. M.; KHRIBI, M. K. Open education: from OERs to MOOCs. [S.l.]: Springer, 2017. p. 261-281.
JASNANI, P. Designing MOOCs: a white paper on instructional design for MOOCsTata Interactive Systems. Ranchi: Indian Institute of Management Ranchi, 2013. Available from: https://www.coursehero.com/file/24424663/Designing-MOOCs-A-White-Paper-on-ID-for-MOOCs-1pdf/. Access: 2019 Oct. 25
JORDAN, K. MOOC completion rates: the Data. Juen 2015. Available from: http://www.katyjordan.com/MOOCproject.html. Access: 2019 Oct. 3.
KLEMKE, R.; ERADZE, M.; ANTONACI, A. The flipped MOOC: using gamification and learning analytics in MOOC design: a conceptual approach. Education Sciences , Basel, v. 8, n. 1, p. 25, Feb. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010025
LIAO, S. C.; HUNT, E. A.; CHEN, W. Comparison between inter-rater reliability and inter-rater agreement in performance assessment. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore , Singapore, v. 39, n. 8, p. 613-618, 2010.
LUIK, P. et al. Completion of programming mooc or dropping out: are there any differences in motivation? In: EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON E-LEARNING, ECEL 2018, 17., 2018, Athens. [S. n. t.], Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85057999485&partnerID=40&md5=5d9cf09e1e33275c5c9ca542d1982c3a. Access: 2019 Nov. 14.
MILLIGAN, C.; LITTLEJOHN, A.; MARGARYAN, A. Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching , [s. l.], v. 9, n. 2, p. 149-159, June 2013.
MOHAMED, M. H.; HAMMOND, M. MOOCs: a differentiation by pedagogy, content and assessment. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology , [s. l.], v. 35, n. 1, p. 2-11, Jan. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-07-2017-0062
OSUNA-ACEDO, S.; MARTA-LAZO, C.; FRAU-MEIGS, D. From sMOOC to tMOOC, learning towards professional transference. Comunicar , [s. l.], v. 26, n. 55, p. 105-114, Apr. 2018.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0104-40362020002802667
Apontamentos
- Não há apontamentos.
Direitos autorais 2021 Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação
Este obra está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
Programa de Apoio às Publicacoes Cientificas (AED) do Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e tecnologico (CNPq), Ministerio da Educação (MEC), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes)
Revista chancelada pela Unesco. Revista parceira da Associação Brasileira de Avaliação Educacional (ABAVE)