The Personalized and Inclusive MOOC: Using Learning Characteristics and Quality Principles in Instructional Design
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- The educational offer does not adjust to the needs of the market.
- Lack of financial resources to recruit and retain staff.
- The number of existing technicians or engineers is insufficient for market need.
- Most human resources have elementary and high school instruction only.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Application of Criteria to Design Quality
2.2. Principles for Quality Instructional Design
2.3. Didactic Concept: Attitude Change
3. Results
3.1. Student Outcome, Leaning Objective and Content
3.2. Quality Learning Strategies and Activities
3.3. Instructional Design
4. Conclusions
5. Future Work
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Instructional Principles and Related Components | Learning Strategies |
---|---|
Problem-centered (1) The activities build upon each other (2) The activities in the course relate to the participants’ real workplace problems (3) The course objectives are relevant to real-world problems (4) The problems in the course are typical of those learners will encounter in the real world (5) The problems are ill-structured–have more than one correct solution (6) The problems are divergent from one another | (1) (2) (3) (4) The proposed learning activities respond to real-world situations and are conceptualized in local learning environments, in such a way that locations of the water treatment plants are used in the recordings and problems to visualize the daily activities they carry out. The activities proposed for the instructional design are related to learning objectives, student outcomes and training needs. (5) Due to the fact that the quality of the water is changeable, either due to the winter season or demographic aspects, the measurement of several parameters subject to different chemical dosages is proposed in order to develop several solutions for water treatment. (6) The practical assignments in the design are conceptualized in real problems based on a local context and that demand an experimentation based on a creative solution, using materials that they could have in their houses or in the treatment plants. In addition, they must take videos or photos with their own phones to show the development of the practice. |
Activation (1) The activities attempt to activate learners’ relevant prior knowledge or experience | (1) In a previous unpublished study, we identified that approximately 30% of the operators say they know a lot or too much about issues related to the treatment and distribution of drinking water, but about 70% mentioned that they do not know, know something, or know little about the technical aspects. Determining prior knowledge accurately through the form that was applied is a limitation, however, we can say that their knowledge in general is empirical due to their academic training and years of experience, therefore, with this background we had to Know specifically the water treatment process of various companies to propose activities that activate knowledge from daily activities. |
Demonstration (1) There are examples of problem solutions (2) Solutions represent a range of quality from excellent examples to poor examples | (1) The theoretical or experimental videos conceptualized in the design must show real solutions to real problems that operators have in their daily activities. (2) In such a way that in the practical assignment they can demonstrate the new knowledge acquired. |
Application (1) The activities require learners to apply their newly acquired knowledge or skill | (1) Due to the training needs previously identified, it is required that the content of the course must contain a practical assignment in order for the new knowledge to be applied. |
Integration (1) The activities require learners to integrate the new knowledge or skill into their everyday work | (1) The practical assignment can be carried out at work depending on the complexity, with the aim of integrating the knowledge acquired in the daily work activities. |
Collective (1) The activities require contributing to the collective knowledge, rather than merely consuming (2) The activities require learners to build on other participants’ submissions (3) The activities require participants to learn from each other | (1) The practical assignments must establish a clear guide that facilitates the contribution of knowledge through the proposed solutions to the proposed problems. (2) (3) In addition, the practical assignments must be subject to peer review so that the reviewer can strengthen their learning from the proposals of other students and vice versa. (3) However, we believe that this component can be a real challenge due to the educational background of the operators. |
Collaboration (1) Activities require participants to collaborate with other course participants (2) Activities require participants to collaborate with others outside the course (3) Activities require peer-interaction groups with individuals with different backgrounds, opinions, and skills (4) The individual contribution of each learner in the group can be clearly identified (5) Peer-interaction groups are given specific directions for interaction (6) Each member of a peer-interaction group has a specific role to play | (1) (2) (3) The discussion forums and the practical assignments are conceptualized in such a way that the participation in the activities is with operators who belong to the same treatment plant or to other water treatment plants. (5) (6) As mentioned in the collective principle, interaction and collaboration activities must have a clear guide that establishes responsibility for each member of the group. (4) For now, we have not been able to identify a tool in Edx that is capable of identifying the level of contribution of each participant in collaborative activities, therefore, this strategy could be a limitation when developing the MOOC. |
Differentiation (1) There are activity options for participants with various learning needs | (1) The activities proposed in the instructional design must respond to the characteristics and learning needs of most water system operators. |
Authentic resources (1) The resources are reused from real-world settings | (1) From the structure of the course, the content, activities, resources to the didactic concept, they have an authentic approach because it responds to unique learning needs. |
Feedback (1) There is feedback on activities by the instructor(s) in this course (2) If there is feedback, the way feedback will be provided, is clearly explained to the participants | (1) The feedback is conceptualized to be automatic during the development of the activities. (2) In addition, all the activities and resources to be developed must have a validation and testing process to ensure the quality of the content. |
Goal setting Goals are measurable Personal goals are incorporated | (1) The learning objectives will be measurable through rubrics and the performance obtained both in the grades and in the percentage of progress of the course activities. (2) Personal goals were described in the student profile. |
Attitude Change Aspects | Brief Description of Resources and Activities | Total Resources and Activities |
---|---|---|
Cognitive activities | Introductory videos: They have the objective of creating expectations about the content to be taught and its application. These videos will be recorded in locations where the operators carry out their daily activities. The maximum duration time is 2 min. | 6 |
Theoretical videos: They aim to explain a concept, methodology, practical exercises, factual statistics, etc. Both its content and the learning environment will be adapted to real situations of operators. The maximum duration time is 2 min. | 23 | |
Experimental Videos: They aim to show practical handling activities that could be recorded from a house or from a water treatment plant. The maximum duration time is 5 min. | 5 | |
Affective activities | Interview videos: They aim to interview an expert to raise awareness of good practices in water treatment and achieve emotional dissonance in the student. The topic to interview as well as the learning environment will be adapted to real situations of the operators. The maximum duration time is 5 min. | 5 |
Testimonial videos: They aim to show people who have suffered illnesses due to poor water quality and achieve emotional dissonance in the student. The maximum duration time is 5 min. | 1 | |
Documentary videos: They aim to tell facts about a subject of study, in which photos, videos and opinions are shown, in such a way that an emotional dissonance is generated in the student. The maximum duration time is 5 min. | 1 | |
Behavioral activities | Forum: These are questions that promote a dialogue between students based on situations expressed in testimonies, interviews and/or documentaries. | 7 |
Group-Practical assignment: These are experimentation practices that operators must do in a group of two, from home or from the treatment plant. The types of questions to use to solve the practices can be: “Drag&drop”-Select image-Multiple Choices-File (video) Upload Question. | 5 | |
Quickly quiz: Quickly quiz: It is a questionnaire with a maximum of two questions, which seeks to evaluate essential learning from the observation of a theoretical video. The evaluation types can be: Drag&drop-Select image-Multiple Options. | 23 | |
Module assessment: It is a questionnaire of questions with multiple options that evaluates the weekly performance of each module in relation to the proposed learning objective. | 6 | |
Course assessment: Final exam of the course with multiple options that evaluates the learning objectives of the module. | 1 |
References
- La Asamblea Nacional de la República del Ecuador. Constitucion de la Republica del Ecuador 2008; La Asamblea Nacional de la República del Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2008; p. 115. [Google Scholar]
- Presidencia de la Republica Código Orgánico De Organización Territorial, COOTAD. Registro Oficial 2015, 55. Available online: https://www.defensa.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/01/dic15_CODIGO-ORGANICO-DE-ORGANIZACION-TERRITORIAL-COOTAD.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2022).
- Consejo Nacional de Competencia. Informe de la Competencia de Gestión de Agua Potable; Consejo Nacional de Competencia: Quito, Ecuador, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- INEC Boletín Técnico No 04-2020-GAD Municipales Económica en Gobiernos Autónomos Descentralizados Municipales Gestión de Agua Potable y Saneamiento. 2021. Available online: https://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/documentos/web-inec/Encuestas_Ambientales/Municipios_2020/Agua_potable_alcantarillado_2020/Boletin_tecnico_APA_2020_VF.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2022).
- Servicio Ecuatoriano de Normalización INEN. Norma Técnica Ecuatoriana Nte Inen 1108:2020 Agua Para Consumo Humano, Requisitos; Servicio Ecuatoriano de Normalización INEN: Quito, Ecuador, 2020; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 55, ISBN 9789241549950. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Quality Standards Handbook. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/handbook-chapter3.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2021).
- Servicio Ecuatoriano de Normalización INEN Listado de Productos Con Convenio para la Utilización del Certificado de Conformidad Con Sello de Calidad INEN. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XCotTNYWkWUMd0EVJf-N6ACHJ_fA4nKl/view (accessed on 14 September 2022).
- Consejo de Educación Superior Oferta Vigente Del Sistema de Educación Superior del Ecuador. Available online: http://appcmi.ces.gob.ec/oferta_vigente/ (accessed on 17 August 2021).
- International Water Association. Wash Human Resource Capacity Gaps in 15 Developing Economies an Avoidable Crisis; International Water Associatio: Seacourt, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. Inclusion and Education: Sustainable Development Goals United Nations Educational; Scientific and Cultural Organization: London, UK, 2020; pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar]
- Teixeira, A.M.; Mota, J.; Morgado, L.; Do Carmo Teixeira Pinto, M. Can MOOCs close the opportunity gaps? the contribution of social inclusive pedagogical design. Rev. Fuentes 2019, 21, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pappano, L. The Year of the MOOC. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html (accessed on 11 December 2021).
- Shah, D. By The Numbers: MOOCs in 2021. Available online: https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-stats-2021/ (accessed on 15 February 2022).
- Ngubane-Mokiwa, S. Accessibility strategies for making MOOCs for people with visual impairments: A universal design for learning (UDL) Perspective; Pan-Commonwealth Forum Open Learn. March 2016, pp. 1–12. Available online: http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/2561 (accessed on 14 September 2022).
- Ruipérez-Valiente, J.A.; Martin, S.; Reich, J.; Castro, M. The UnMOOCing process: Extending the impact of MOOC educational resources as oers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldowah, H.; Al-Samarraie, H.; Alzahrani, A.I.; Alalwan, N. Factors affecting student dropout in MOOCs: A cause and effect decision-making model. J. Comput. High Educ. 2020, 32, 429–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conache, M.; Dima, R.; Mutu, A. A comparative analysis of MOOC (massive open online course) platforms. Inform. Econ. 2016, 20, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, J.; Sanz-santamaría, S.; Gutiérrez, J. Comparative Technical Analysis and Prospective of the Major Open Source MOOC Platforms; RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia: Marcia, Spain, 2014; Volume 44, pp. 73–87. [Google Scholar]
- Martín, J.L.; Amado-Salvatierra, H.R.; Hilera, J.R. MOOCs for all: Evaluating the accessibility of top MOOC platforms. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2021, 32, 2274–2283. [Google Scholar]
- Antonaci, A.; Klemke, R.; Kreijns, K.; Specht, M. Get gamification of MOOC right! how to embed the Individual and social aspects of MOOCs in gamification design. Int. J. Serious Games 2018, 5, 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, S.; Sahami, M. Education reflections on stanford’s MOOCs. Commun ACM 2013, 56, 28–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zapata-Ros, M. El Diseño instruccional de los MOOC y el de los nuevos cursos online abiertos personalizados. Rev. De Educ. A Distancia (RED) 2015, 45, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniel, S.J.; Cano, E.V.; Cervera, M.G. The future of MOOCs: Adaptive learning or business model? RUSC. Univ. Knowl. Soc. J. 2015, 12, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marosan, Z.; Savic, N.; Klasnja-Milicevic, A.; Ivanovic, M.; Vesin, B. Students’ perceptions of ils as a learning-style-identification tool in e-learning environments. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lerís, D.; Sein-Echaluce, M.L.; Hernández, M.; Bueno, C. Validation of indicators for implementing an adaptive platform for MOOCs. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 72, 783–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hone, K.S.; el Said, G.R. Exploring the factors affecting mooc retention: A survey study. Comput. Educ 2016, 98, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Teixeira, A.; Garcia-Cabot, A.; Garcia-Lopez, E.; Mota, J.; De-Marcos, L. A new competence-based approach for personalizing moocs in a mobile collaborative and networked environment. RIED Rev. Iberoam. De Educ. A Distancia 2015, 19, 143–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stracke, C.M. Quality Reference Framework (QRF) for the Quality of MOOCs. Quality Reference Framework (QRF) for the Quality of MOOCs Developed by MOOQ in Close Collaboration with All Interested Parties Worldwide. Available online: http://www.mooc-quality.eu (accessed on 8 May 2020).
- Hendriks, R.A.; de Jong, P.G.M.; Admiraal, W.F.; Reinders, M.E.J. Instructional design quality in medical massive open online courses for integration into campus education. Med Teach. 2020, 42, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hayes, S. MOOCs and Quality: A Review of the Recent Literature. QAA MOOCs Network. July 2015. Available online: https://pure.aston.ac.uk/ws/files/18622357/MOOCs_and_quality_a_review_of_the_recent_literature.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2022).
- Clark, D. MOOCs: Taxonomy of 8 Types of MOOC. Available online: http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2013/04/moocs-taxonomy-of-8-types-of-mooc.html (accessed on 23 August 2022).
- Hueso-Romero, J.J.; Gil-Quintana, J.; Hasbun, H.; Osuna-Acedo, S. The social and transfer massive open online course: Post-digital learning. Future Internet 2021, 13, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansen, D.; Schuwer, R. Institutional MOOC Strategies in Europe: Status Report Based on a Mapping Survey Conducted in October-December 2014; EADTU: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2015; ISBN 9789079730155. [Google Scholar]
- Brouns, F.; Teixeira, A.; Morgado, L.; Fano, S.; Fueyo, A.; Jansen, D. Designing massive open online learning processes: The SMOOC pedagogical framework. Lect. Notes Educ. Technol. 2016, 16, 315–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouns, F.; Mota, J.; Morgado, L.; Jansen, D.; Fano, S.; Silva, A.; Teixeira, A. A Networked Learning Framework For Effective Mooc Design: The Eco Project Approach. In 8th EDEN Research Workshop. Challenges for Research into Open & Distance Learning: Doing Things Better: Doing Better Things; Teixeira, A.M., Szücs, A., Eds.; EDEN: Budapest, Hungary; Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 161–171. [Google Scholar]
- García-González, S.; del Pozo, F.; Paredes, W.; del Pozo, H. Los MOOC: Tecnología y pedagogía emergente para la democratización del conocimiento. Rev. Perspect. 2018, 19, 215–224. [Google Scholar]
- Merrill, M.D. First Principles of Instruction. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2002, 50, 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margaryan, A.; Bianco, M.; Littlejohn, A. computers & education instructional quality of massive open online courses ( MOOCs ). Comput. Educ. 2015, 80, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mezirow, J. Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ. 1997, 1997, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hudson, L.; Wolff, A.; Gooch, D.; van der Linden, J.; Kortuem, G.; Petre, M.; ten Veen, R.; O’Connor-Gotra, S. Supporting urban change: Using a MOOC to facilitate attitudinal learning and participation in smart cities. Comput. Educ. 2019, 129, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, S.L.; Loizzo, J.; Watson, W.R.; Mueller, C.; Lim, J.; Ertmer, P.A. Instructional design, facilitation, and perceived learning outcomes: An exploratory case study of a human trafficking MOOC for attitudinal change. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2016, 64, 1273–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bustamante-León, M.; Herrera, P.; Domínguez-Granda, L.; Schellens, T.; Goethals, P.L.M.; Alejandro, O.; Valcke, M. Toward a More Personalized MOOC: Data Analysis to Identify Drinking Water Production Operators’ Learning Characteristics—An Ecuador Case. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- el Said, G.R. Understanding how learners use massive open online courses and why they drop out. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2017, 55, 724–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drachsler, H.; Kirschner, P.; Nederland, O.U. Learner Characteristics. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albelbisi, N.A. Development and validation of the MOOC success scale (MOOC-SS). Educ. Inf. Technol. (Dordr) 2020, 25, 4535–4555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albelbisi, N.; Yusop, F.D.; Salleh, U.K.M. Mapping the factors influencing success of massive open online courses (MOOC) in higher education. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2018, 14, 2995–3012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, L.W.; Krathwohl Peter, W.; Airasian, D.R.; Cruikshank, K.A.; Mayer, R.E.; Pintrich, P.R.; Raths, J.; Wittrock, M.C. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. 2001. Available online: https://www.uky.edu/~rsand1/china2018/texts/Anderson-Krathwohl%20-%20A%20taxonomy%20for%20learning%20teaching%20and%20assessing.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2022).
- Barari, N.; RezaeiZadeh, M.; Khorasani, A.; Alami, F. Designing and validating educational standards for e-teaching in virtual learning environments (VLEs), based on revised bloom’s taxonomy. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 30, 1640–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- California Water Boards. Water Treatment Minimum Qualifications for Examination/Certification; California Water Boards: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Fuller, J.S.; Brantley-Dias, L.; Lokey-Vega, A.; Woodham Langub, L. Learner perceptions: Gauging the effectiveness of instructional strategies implemented in one university’s inaugural MOOC. Open Learn. J. Open Distance e-Learn 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Analysis Phase | |
---|---|
Criteria | Application of the Criteria |
C.1 Initiation: Assemble an incubation team (relevant personnel and expertise) to kick start the planning and development of the MOOC |
|
C.2 Stakeholder identification |
|
C.3 Needs and demand analysis: Profile target learners | To respond to the unique learning needs and characteristics to create a quality and personalized instructional design [21,45], the learning needs, and demands of the operators were identified in previous work [43], and the following profile was determined: Profile Target Learners: Operators have quality internet access at home, as well as access to computers and smartphones. Their educational level is high school degree, and they have between 1 and 5 years of experience as operators. They prefer the course to be online and face-to-face, containing mainly videos, practical exercises, hands-on activities, and readings focused on real situations as well as the daily work activities that they carry out. They would like to be trained in topics such as: Valves/Pump Types/Reservoirs/Power Generators/In-Line Sensors/Surface Water/Chemical feeders/Wells/Health risk assessment/Economic aspects. They prefer the MOOC to be a 4-week course with 2 h of weekly work. They would like to register for the course with friends/colleagues and prefer to take the course at home. Finally, the main motivations to take the course would be to obtain a certification and improve their performance at work. |
C.4 Analysis of the external context: Identify and source similar MOOCs | Five similar courses were reviewed to learn about the most common types of activities and resources, and to identify opportunities in the design of activities:
|
C.5 Analysis of the organizational context: Analyze proficiency in content knowledge required for the MOOC | According to the student’s profile, the training needs are very diverse, and for this reason, in meetings with the heads of water treatment, the following training needs were identified:
|
C.6 Analyze sufficiency of the existing (institutional) IT infrastructure | ESPOL has servers that allow the resources hosted on the Edx platform to be stored. The types of tools that can be used in Edx were also identified in order to select the most appropriate ones to respond to the student’s profile [46,47]. |
Design Phase | |
---|---|
Criteria | Application of the Criteria |
C.7 Learning objectives: Define learning objectives based on the desired learning outcomes | Based on the training needs, the following learning objectives were established:
|
C.8 Organizational concept and roles: |
|
C.9 Didactical concept and methods: | Attitude change concept: cognitive, affective, and behavioral engagement [42].Cognitive-Knowledge: Concepts, methodologies, practical exercises, statistics, facts, etc. Affective-Feelings: Testimonies, documentaries, interviews, etc.Behavioral-Acting: Projects, practical assignment, hands on activities. |
C.10 Concept for content: Align learning objectives with course content | The selected content responds to the training needs and is aligned with the learning objectives and student outcomes. |
C.11 Concept for learning activities | The concept for the development of learning activities is based on the 11 principles for quality instructional design [30]:
|
C.12 Media design |
|
C.13 Communication concept |
|
C.14 Interaction concept |
|
C.15 Feedback concept | Automatic feedback |
C.16 Concept for tests and assessment |
|
Problems | Students Outcomes | Objectives of Learning Content | Content |
---|---|---|---|
Operators need to monitor intake water frequently (hour-by-hour) and use the results obtained for treatment decision making. | Knowledge of turbidity and pH level requirements. | (1) Identify catchment water quality parameters for proper monitoring of catchment water. | Module 1: Monitoring of intake water |
Operators need to perform proper coagulation and flocculation treatment when there are unexpected changes in water quality. At present, their knowledge is empirical and makes decision making difficult. | Knowledge of the coagulation/ flocculation process. | (2) Understand the physical and chemical changes that occur in the coagulation and flocculation treatment of drinking water. | Module 2: Introduction to coagulation. Module 3: Introductionto flocculation. |
Operators need to report the dosage of coagulants and flocculants objectively, because they currently report based on the operating conditions of the dosing pump. | Ability to calculate a dosage for a chemical feeder. | (3) Calculate the dose of a flocculant and coagulant from relating the flow of water to be treated, and the flow of chemical. | Module 4: Introduction to dosage. |
Operators need to technically determine the proper dosage of coagulant and flocculant because they currently do so empirically. | Ability to perform a jar test. | (4) Perform a jar test to determine the appropriate dose of coagulant and flocculants for the treatment of drinking water. | Module 5: Optimum dose of coagulants and flocculants. |
Operators need to know the impact of chemical dosing on final water quality. | Knowledge of the effect of dosage on the quality of drinking water. | (5) Recognize the effect of the dosage of coagulant and flocculant in the final quality of drinking water. | Module 6: Drinking water quality criteria. |
Engagement | Learning Activities | Approximate Time (Minutes) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Cognitive | Affective | Behavioral | ||
Watch introductory video 1: Monitoring of Catchment Water | 2 | |||
X | Watch theoretical video 1: Variability of catchment water quality | 2 | ||
Answer 2 formative quiz questionsQuestion Type: Drag & Drop | 5 | |||
X | Watch theoretical video 2: Parameters to monitor | 2 | ||
Answer 2 formative quiz questionsQuestion Type: Drag & Drop | 5 | |||
X | Read 1 handout: Parameter concepts and their application | 10 | ||
Answer 2 formative quiz questionsQuestion Type: Drag & Drop | 5 | |||
X | Watch interview video 1: What problems can occur when the catchment water is not monitored in a timely manner? | 5 | ||
Discussion assignment: Answer the forum question | 5 | |||
X | Hands-on video 1: Collection of different types of water | 5 | ||
Group practical assignment 1- water catchment: Answer 3 summative quiz questionsQuestion Type: Drag & Drop–Multiple choice–File (video) Upload Question | 30 | |||
Watch theoretical Video 3: Summary Conclusions | 2 | |||
Module assessment: Answer 8 summative quiz questionsQuestion Type: Drag & Drop–Multiple choice | 20 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bustamante-León, M.; Herrera, P.; Domínguez-Granda, L.; Schellens, T.; Goethals, P.L.M.; Alejandro, O.; Valcke, M. The Personalized and Inclusive MOOC: Using Learning Characteristics and Quality Principles in Instructional Design. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215121
Bustamante-León M, Herrera P, Domínguez-Granda L, Schellens T, Goethals PLM, Alejandro O, Valcke M. The Personalized and Inclusive MOOC: Using Learning Characteristics and Quality Principles in Instructional Design. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):15121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215121
Chicago/Turabian StyleBustamante-León, Martín, Paúl Herrera, Luis Domínguez-Granda, Tammy Schellens, Peter L. M. Goethals, Otilia Alejandro, and Martin Valcke. 2022. "The Personalized and Inclusive MOOC: Using Learning Characteristics and Quality Principles in Instructional Design" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 15121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215121
APA StyleBustamante-León, M., Herrera, P., Domínguez-Granda, L., Schellens, T., Goethals, P. L. M., Alejandro, O., & Valcke, M. (2022). The Personalized and Inclusive MOOC: Using Learning Characteristics and Quality Principles in Instructional Design. Sustainability, 14(22), 15121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215121