Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-7mrzp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-23T16:55:08.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Iterative Course Design in MOOCs: Evaluating a ProtoMOOC

Part of: Design Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Karen von Schmieden ,
Lena Mayer ,
Mana Taheri  and
Christoph Meinel

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper describes an iterative approach to course design in an effort to improve the learner-centered conceptualization of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). The research team built a (design research) MOOC prototype and used three measurement tools to gather user feedback. The authors categorized this feedback and translated it into 57 improvement tasks, which they implemented in the public version of the MOOC. They discuss the protoMOOC iteration approach, underline its applicability, and suggest it as a method for fellow MOOC designers.

Keywords

Design educationLife-long learningDesign learningDesign thinkingMassive Open Online Courses

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 539 - 548
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Beckman, S. L. and Barry, M. (2007), “Innovation as a learning process: embedding design thinking”, California Management Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166415Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (1994), “Reflections on the development and use of the taxonomy”. In Anderson, L.W. and Sosniak, L.A. (Eds.), Bloom's taxonomy: A forty-year retrospective (pp. 1–8). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
Bonwell, C. C. and Eison, J. A. (1991), “Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom”, 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC, pp. 20036–1183.Google Scholar
Brown, T. (2009), “Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation”, HarperBusiness, New York.Google Scholar
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I. and Elmquist, M. (2016), “Framing design thinking: the concept in idea and enactment”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 38–57.Google Scholar
Chickering, A. W. and Gamson, Z. F. (1987), “Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education”, AAHE bulletin, Vol. 3, pp. 3–7.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2010), “The nature of design thinking”, In DTRS8 Interpreting Design Thinking: Design thinking research symposium proceedings. Sydney, AUS: DAB Documents. (pp. 131–139).Google Scholar
Fraser, H.M.A. (2012), “Design Works: How to Tackle Your Toughest Innovation Challenges Through Business Design”. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J. and Cetinkaya, M. (2013), “Design thinking: past, present and possible futures”, Creativity and Innovation Mananagement, Vol. 22, pp. 121–146.Google Scholar
Jordan, K. (2014), “Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses Massive Open Online Courses”, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 133–160. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651Google Scholar
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. and Salas, E. (1993), “Application of cognitive, skill-based and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training education”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311Google Scholar
Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A. and Williams, S. A. (2013), “MOOCs : A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012”, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 202–227. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjms.v12i4.16658Google Scholar
Martin, R. L. (2009), The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Siemens, G. and Tittenberger, P. (2009), Handbook of emerging technologies for learning. University of Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada.Google Scholar
Staley, C. C. (2003), 50 Ways to Leave Your Lectern: Active Learning Strategies to Engage First-Year Students. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
Stanford d.school. (2010), “Botcamp bootleg”. Retrieved from: https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/the-bootcamp-bootlegGoogle Scholar
Taheri, M. and Meinel, C. (2015), “Pedagogical evaluation of the design thinking MOOCs”, In Proceedings from the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers (pp. 469–481).Google Scholar
Taheri, M., Unterholzer, T., Hölzle, K. and Meinel, C. (2016a), “An educational perspective on design thinking learning outcomes”, In ISPIM Innovation Symposium. The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).Google Scholar
Taheri, M., Unterholzer, T. and Meinel, C. (2016b), “Design thinking at scale: A report on best practices of online courses”, In Design thinking research (pp. 217–235). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
Yuan, L., Powell, S. and Cetis, J. (2013), “MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education”.Google Scholar