Kitlesel açık çevrimiçi dersler (KAÇD), dünyadaki farklı üniversiteler veya eğitmenler tarafından sunulan, genellikle ücretsiz ve yüksek öğrenen sayılarına sahip derslerdir. Yaşamboyu öğrenme bağlamında öz-düzenlemeye dayalı öğrenme deneyimleri sunabilen bu dersler, kişisel ve mesleki gelişim için önemli eğitsel kaynaklardır. Bu çalışma, bilişim teknolojileri alanında öğrenim görmekte olan öğretmen adaylarının programlama öğretimine yönelik KAÇD’lerdeki ders deneyimlerini incelemeyi amaçlayan nitel bir bütüncül tek durum çalışmasıdır. Araştırma kapsamında 34 Bilişim Teknolojileri öğretmen adayı bir yarıyıl süresince programlamaya yönelik en az bir KAÇD tamamlamış, öğretmen adaylarının ders deneyimlerine ilişkin görüşleri yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeler aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Katılımcı görüşleri tümevarımsal içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelenmiş, görüşme verilerinin temel olarak dokuz farklı tema altında kümelendiği belirlenmiştir. Bu temalar anlatıcı-eğitmen, geri dönüt-teknik destek-danışmanlık, anlatım, uygulama, bilgi hazırbulunuşluğu, kullanılan medya özellikleri, ölçme ve değerlendirme, ders süresi, dil bariyerleri ve reklam temalarıdır. Bununla beraber KAÇD’lere karşı katılımcı görüşlerinin çoğunlukla (%71) olumlu olduğu gözlenmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda, elde edilen temalar bağlamında çevrimiçi ders tasarımı önerileri ve KAÇD’lerin öğretmen eğitiminde programlama gibi spesifik konularda kullanımlarına yönelik önerilerde bulunulmuştur.
Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are free courses provided by different universities or independent instructors, which may have massive learner numbers. In the context of lifelong learning, MOOCs present self-regulation based learning experiences for both individual and professional development. This study is a qualitative holistic single case study that seeks to examine the views of preservice teachers in the field of instructional technologies about the course designs of programming related MOOCs. Accordingly, 34 preservice teachers in the field of Computer and Instructional Technologies (CEIT), participated in the study. Participants completed at least one MOOC through the semester. Semi-structured interviews were used to gather the views of participants. Inductive content analysis steps were conducted to examine the data obtained. Content analysis of views of participants revealed nine different themes, namely; narrativeinstructor, feedback-technical support-mentoring, presentation, practice, knowledge readiness, media attributes, assessment-evaluation, course duration, language barriers, and advertisements. It was also identified that the views of preservice teachers are mostly (71%) positive about MOOCs. In the context of themes revealed, several suggestions were made in reference to online course design and using MOOCs in specific topics as programming education.
Alario-Hoyos, C., Perez-Sanagustin, M., Cormier, D. & DelgadoKloos, C. (2014). Proposal for a conceptual framework for educators to describe and design MOOCs. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 20, 1, 6–23
Beaven, T., Comas-Quinn, A., Hauck, M., de los Arcos, B. & Lewis, T. (2013). The Open Translation MOOC: Creating Online Communities to Transcend Linguistic Barriers. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (1). Retrieved from https:// www.learntechlib.org/p/153010/.
Bozkurt, A. (2019). Açık Eğitsel Kaynaklardan Açık Eğitsel uygulamalara: Türk yükseköğretimi bağlamında ekolojik bakış açısıyla bir değerlendirme. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 127-150.
Clark, D. (2013, April 16). MOOCs: Taxonomy of 8 types of MOOC [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://donaldclarkplanb. blogspot.com/2013/04/moocs-taxonomy-of-8-types-ofmooc.html
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. Basic Books.
Cui, G., Lockee, B., & Meng, C. (2012) Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends. Education and Information Technologies, 18(4), 661-685.
Cohen L., Manion L.,& Morrison K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from https://islmblogblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/rme-eduhelpline-blogspot-com.pdf
Conole, G. (2013). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. RED-Revista de Educación a Distancia, 50(2). Retrieved from https://www.um.es/ead/red/50/conole.pdf
Cormier, D. (2010, December 8). What is a MOOC [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3gMGqcZQc
Daniels, J., Gold, M. K., Anderson, S. M., Boy, J., Cahill, C., Gieseking, J. J., … Tucker, Z. (2014). The InQ13 POOC : A participatory experiment in open, collaborative teaching and learning. Journal of Interactive Technology & Pedagogy (JITP), (5), 1–40.
Dasarathy, B., Sullivan, K., Schmidt, D. C., Fisher, D. H., & Porter, A. (2014). The past, present, and future of MOOCs and their relevance to software engineering. In Proceedings of the on Future of Software Engineering (pp. 212-224). ACM. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2593882.2593897
Davidson, C. (2013, November 21). Are MOOCs really the worst threat to the future of universities? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/2013/06/23/ are-moocs-really-worst-threat-future-universities
Del Fatto V., Dodero G., Gennari R., Gruber B., Helmer S., Raimato G. (2018) Automating assessment of exercises as means to decrease mooc teachers’ efforts. In: Mealha Ó., Divitini M., Rehm M. (eds) citizen, territory and technologies: smart learning contexts and practices. SLERD 2017. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 80. Springer, Cham
Educause - Learning Initiative. (2011, November 9). 7 Things you should know about MOOCs [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2011/11/7-thingsyou-should-know-about-moocs
García-Peñalvo, F. J., Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., & Sein-Echaluce, M. L. (2018). An adaptive hybrid MOOC model: Disrupting the MOOC concept in higher education. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 1018-1030.
Glesne C. (2010). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4t h ed.). New York, N. Y.: Pearson Education, Inc.
Head, K. (2013). Sweating the details of a MOOC in progress. The Chronicle of Higher Education: The Wired Campus. Retrieved from https://www.lmc.gatech.edu/publications/pub/5037
Hill, P. (2013). Four barriers that MOOCS must overcome to build a sustainable model [Blog]. Retrieved from https://eliterate. us/four-barriers-that-moocs-must-overcome-to-becomesustainable-model/
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Jaschik, S.(2013, August 19). Feminist anti-MOOC. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/19/feministprofessors-create-alternative-MOOCs
James, P. K., & Christian, I. E. (2016). Learners Readiness for xMOOCs: Inequity in Nigeria. European Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology, 4(3), 16-46.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2016). Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Business Horizons, 59(4), 441-450.
Kizilcec, R. F., Papadopoulos, K., & Sritanyaratana, L. (2014). Showing face in video instruction: effects on information retention, visual attention, and affect. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems(pp. 2095-2102). ACM.
Kirmizi, Ö. (2015). The influence of learner readiness on student satisfaction and academic achievement in an online program at higher education. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 133-142.
Kozma, R. B. (1994) Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development 42(2), 7–19
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed). California, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Kulkarni, C., Pang-Wei, K., Le, H., Chia, D., Papadopoulos, K., Koller, D., & Klemmer, S. R. (2013). Scaling self and peer assessment to the global design classroom. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Li, Y., Zhang, M., Bonk, C. J., & Guo, Y. (2015). Integrating MOOC and flipped classroom practice in a traditional undergraduate course: students' experience and perceptions. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 10(6). 4-11.
Liu, M., Kang, J., & McKelroy, E. (2015). Examining learners’ perspective of taking a MOOC: reasons, excitement, and perception of usefulness. Educational Media International, 52(2), 129-146Ma, L., & Lee, C. S. (2017). Investigating the Use of MOOCs: An Innovation Adoption Perspective. In Proceedings of Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS). 19
Marin, V. J., Pereira, T., Sridharan, S., & Rivero, C. R. (2017). Automated personalized feedback in introductory Java programming MOOCs. In 2017 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) (pp. 1259-1270). IEEE.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1 43–52.
McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Retrieved from https://www. oerknowledgecloud.org/archive/MOOC_Final.pdf
McGreal, R., Anderson, T., & Conrad, D. (2015). Open educational resources in Canada 2015. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(5), 161-175.
Meek, S. E., Blakemore, L., & Marks, L. (2017). Is peer review an appropriate form of assessment in a MOOC? Student participation and performance in formative peer review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 1000-1013.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications, Inc.
Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification.In Proceedings 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL (pp. 323–329), Cluj-Napoca, Romania, Europe.
Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times, 2(12), 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes. com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-onlinecourses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html?pagewanted=all
Parry, M. (2012). 5 Ways that edX could change education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle. com/article/5-Ways-That-edX-Could-Change/134672/
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Piech, C., Huang, J., Chen, Z., Do, C., Ng, A., & Koller, D. (2013). Tuned models of peer assessment in MOOCs. 6th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.2579.pdf
Sanchez-Gordon, S., & Luján-Mora, S. (2014). KAÇDs gone wild. In Proceedings of the 8th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED 2014) (pp. 1449-1458). Valencia (Spain), March 10-12 2014. ISBN: 978-84-616-8412-0. ISSN: 2340-1079.
Scagnoli, N. I., McKinney, A., & Moore-Reynen, J. (2015). Video lectures in eLearning. In Handbook of research on innovative technology integration in higher education (pp. 115-134). IGI Global.
Spector, J. M. (2014). Remarks on MOOCs and Mini-MOOCs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 385-392
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer.
The Association of Commonwealth Universities. (2013). MOOCs: disrupting the academic profession?” ACU Insights. Issue No. 5. Retrieved from https://www.acu.ac.uk/membership/ acu-insights/acu-insights-5/moocs-disruptingacademicprofession.
The Innovative Pedagogy Report (2013). Retrieved from http:// www.open.ac.uk/personalpages/mike.sharples/Reports/ Innovating_Pedagogy_report_2013.pdf
Urh, M., Vukovic, G., & Jereb, E. (2015). The model for introduction of gamification into e-learning in higher education. ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 388-397.
Vaibhav, A., & Gupta, P. (2014). Gamification of MOOCs for increasing user engagement. In MOOC, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), 2014 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 290-295). IEEE.
Walker, E. (2005). A reality check for open education. Utah: 2005 Open education conference. Retrieved from https://archive. org/details/OpenEd2005ARealityCheckforOpenEducation
Wiley, D. (2009, November 16). Defining the ‘open’ in open content [Blog]. Retrieved from https://opencontent.org/blog/ archives/1123_
Yuan, L. & Powell S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. A white paper. Centre for Educational Technology, Interoperability and Standards (JISC CETIS). Retrieved from https://publications.cetis.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MOOCs-and-Open-Education. pdf