Understanding online interaction in language MOOCs through learning analytics

References

• Amo, D. (2013). MOOCs: Experimental approaches for quality in pedagogical and design fundamentals. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Technological Ecosystem for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 219–223). New York:ACM. doi:10.1145/2536536.2536570
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Leskovec, J. (2014). Engaging with massive online courses. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World wide web (pp. 687–698). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2566486.2568042
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, M., & Gavan, C. (2016). Developing Effective Educational Experiences through Learning Analytics. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Vancouver, BC: Tony Bates Associates Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, T. (2014). Comparing xMOOCs and cMOOCs: Philosophy and practice. Retrieved from http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/13/comparing-xmoocs-and-cmoocs-philosophy-and-practice/
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 20–24. Retrieved fromhttp://nancybroz.com/nancybroz/Literacy_I_files/Bloom%20Intro.doc
   Google Scholar
• Bárcena, E., Read, T., Martín-Monje, E., & Castrillo, M. D. (2014). Analysing student participation in Foreign language MOOCs: A case study. In Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholders Summit 2014 (pp. 11–17). Mons, Belgium: P.A.U. Education.
   Google Scholar
• Castrillo, M. D. (2014). Language teaching in MOOCs: The integral role of the instructor. In E. Martín-Monje & E. Bárcena (Eds.), Language MOOCs. Providing learning, transcending boundaries (pp. 67–90). Berlin: De Gruyter Open. Retrieved fromhttps://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/books/9783110422504/9783110422504.5/9783110422504.5.pdf doi: 10.2478/9783110420067.5
   Google Scholar
• Castrillo, M. D., & Martín-Monje, E. (2015). Improving quality of teaching in MOOCs: A practical analysis of the new instructor role in the sMOOC model proposed by the European ECO Project (eLearning, Communication and open data: Massive, mobile, ubiquitous and open Learning). Proceedings of EDULEARN 2015, (pp. 133–141). Barcelona, Spain: IATED Academy.
   Google Scholar
• Chun, D., & Plass, J. L. (2000). Networked multimedia environments. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Networked-based language teaching. Concepts and practice (pp. 151–170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Conole, G. (2016). Los MOOC como tecnologías disruptivas: Estrategias para mejorar la experiencia de aprendizaje y la calidad de los MOOC. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 50, Art. 2.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, N. (2002). Unconscious and conscious sources of language acquisition. The Sixth International Conference for Language Awareness. ALA2002. Umea, Sweden: Multilingual Matters. In M., Dodigovic (2005). Artificial intelligence in second language learning: Raising error awareness. 13.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic books.
   Google Scholar
• Gimeno-Sanz, A., Navarro-Laboulais, C., & Despujol-Zabala, I. (2017). Additional functionalities to convert an xMOOC into an xLMOOC. In C. Delgado Kloos, P. Jermann, M. Pérez-Sanagustín, D. Seaton, & S. White (eds.), Digital education: Out to the world and back to the campus. Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholders Summit 2017 (pp. 48–57). Cham, Swizterland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Godwin-Jones, R. (2014). Global reach and local practice: The promise of MOOCS. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3),5–15. Retrieved fromhttp://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2014/emerging.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldwasser, M., Mankoff, C., Manturuk, K., Schmid, L., & Whitfield, K. (2016). Who is a student? Completion in Coursera courses at Duke University. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, 3, 125–137. doi:0013189X14523038
   Google Scholar
• Hill, P. (2013). Emerging student patterns in MOOCs: A (Revised) graphical view. Retrieved fromhttp://mfeldstein.com/emerging-student-patterns-in-moocs-a-revised-graphical-view
   Google Scholar
• Jacoby, J. (2014). The disruptive potential of the massive open online course: A literature review. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 18(1), 73–85.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC horizon report: 2013 higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, K. (2015). Massive open online course completion rates revisited: Assessment, length and attrition. The International Review of Research In Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 341–358. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay, J., Reimann, P., Diebold, E., & Kummerfeld, B. (2013). MOOCs: So many learners, so much potential. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 28(3), 70–77. doi:10.1109/MIS.2013.66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan, S. (2012). The one world schoolhouse: Education reimagined. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
   Google Scholar
• Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. 3rd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, LAK 2013 (pp. 170–179). New York, NY Association of Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Kulkarni, C., Wei, K. P., Le, H., Chia, D., Papadopoulos, K., Cheng, J., & Klemmer, S. R. (2013). Peer and self assessment in massive online classes. Design thinking research (pp. 131–168). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1145/2505057
   Google Scholar
• Link, S., & Li, Z. (2015). Understanding online interaction through learning analytics: Defining a theory-based research agenda. In E. Dixon & M. Thomas (Eds.), Researching language learner interactions online: From social media to MOOCs (pp. 369–385). San Marcos, TX: CALICO Monograph Series, 12.
   Google Scholar
• Martín-Monje, E. (2017, February). Mind the L in LMOOCs: The importance of language learning in massive courses. Paper presented at the DILLE Conference, Venice, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Martín-Monje, E., & Bárcena, E. (Eds.). (2014). Language MOOCs: Providing learning, transcending boundaries. Berlin: De Gruyter Open.
   Google Scholar
• Martín-Monje, E., & Castrillo, C. (2016, January). A redefinition of the teacher and student roles in Language MOOCs: The example of “How to succeed in the English-B1 Level exam.” Paper presented at the LLAS Centre's annual e-learning symposium, Southampton, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. International Science 37, 375–401. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Toole, R. (2013). Pedagogical strategies and technologies for peer assessment in Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs). ( Discussion Paper). Coventry, UK: University of Warwick. Retrieved fromhttp://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/54602
   Google Scholar
• Ozarslan, Y., & Ozan, O. (2017). Massive open online course (MOOC) for differentiated instruction of Turkish as a foreign language. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2017 (pp. 266–272). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
   Google Scholar
• Perifanou, M., & Economides, A. (2014). MOOCs for foreign language learning: An effort to explore and evaluate the first practices. In Proceedings of the INTED2014 conference (pp. 3561–3570). Valencia: IATED.
   Google Scholar
• Piech, C., Huang, J., Chen, Z., Do, C., Ng, A., & Koller, D. (2013). Tuned models of peer assessment in MOOCs. Memphis: arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.2579.
   Google Scholar
• Prinsloo, P., Slade, S., & Galpin, F. (2012). Learning analytics: Challenges, paradoxes and opportunities for mega open distance learning institutions. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 130–133). New York: ACM. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2330601.2330635.
   Google Scholar
• Raffaghelli, J. E., Cucchiara, S., & Persico, D. (2015). Methodological approaches in MOOC research: Retracing the myth of Proteus. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 488–509. doi:10.1111/bjet.12279
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigo, C., García-Serrano, A., Delgado, J. L., & Iniesto, F. (2016). Challenges while MOOCifying a HE eLearning course on Universal Accessibility. In Proceedings of the XVII International Conference on Human Computer Interaction (p. 44). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2998626.2998659
   Google Scholar
• Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2010). Educational data mining: A review of the state of the art. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 40(6) 601–618. doi:10.1109/TSMCC.2010.2053532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational assessment, 11(1), 1–31.
   Google Scholar
• Sedano Cuevas, B. (2017). La atención a las necesidades y demandas específicas del alumnado en un mundo globalizado: El caso de un MOOC de español para viajar. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana De Educación A Distancia, 20(1) 161–182. doi:https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.20.1.16692
   Google Scholar
• Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F., & Moerkerke, G. (1998). Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer-and co-assessment. Learning Environments Research, 1(3) 293–319. doi: 10.1023/A:1009932704458
   Google Scholar
• Sokolik, M. (2014). What constitutes an effective language MOOC. In E. Martín-Monje & E. Bárcena (Eds.), Language MOOCs: Providing learning, transcending boundaries (pp. 16–32). Berlin: De Gruyter Open. Retrieved fromhttps://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/books/9783110422504/9783110422504.2/9783110422504.2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Suen, H. (2014). Peer assessment for massive open online courses (MOOCs). The International Review of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 15(3), 313–327. doi:https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1680
   Google Scholar
• Tabaa, Y., & Medouri, A. (2013). LASyM: A learning analytics system for MOOCs. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications. 4(5), 114–119 doi: 10.14569/IJACSA.2013.040516 4
   Google Scholar
• Tempelaar, D. T., Rienties, B., & Giesbers, B. (2015). In search for the most informative data for feedback generation: Learning analytics in a data-rich context. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 157–167. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2016). A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013–2015. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 17(2), 198–221. doi:https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youngs, B., Moss-Horwitz, S., & Snyder, E. (2015). Educational data mining for elementary French on-line: A descriptive study. In E. Dixon & M. Thomas (Eds.), Researching language learner interactions online: From social media to MOOCs (pp. 347–368). San Marcos, TX: CALICO Monograph Series, 12.
   Google Scholar
• Yu, Q. (2015). Learning analytics: The next frontier for computer assisted language learning in big data age. SHS Web of Conferences, 17, 1–8. Retrieved fromhttp://www.shsconferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2015/04/shsconf_icmetm2015_02013.pdf
   Google Scholar