4.7 Article

Watching the backstage of your mind: Redesigning Learning How to Learn

Journal

EDUCATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
Volume 28, Issue 8, Pages 9709-9730

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10639-023-11580-4

Keywords

MOOCs; Learning sciences; Learning how to learn; Design-based-research; Transactional distance; Active learning

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents a redesign process for a successful MOOC course, based on learning-science principles. The course not only teaches about learning, but also practices effective learning experiences. The redesign addresses issues in online learning and provides a model for digital learning in other areas.
Digital learning, and MOOCs specifically, increasingly benefit from learning-science-based design. In this study we present the redesign process that produces a new academic version (in Hebrew and Arabic) of the successful MOOC Learning How to Learn. During the design-based research we examined practices that implement evidence-based principles from the learning sciences in real-life digital learning, and created a course that not only teaches about learning but also practices what it preaches in its learning experience. Our digital practices address neural, cognitive-emotional, meta-cognitive and behavioral aspects of learning, and they include designing the course as a modular network, increasing embodiment in the media design, and presenting varied models of lifelong learners, which include the course team themselves. The redesign addressed pressing issues in online learning, such as international versus culturally-sensitive teaching, high MOOC drop-out rates, transactional distance and online versus blended formats. We present an array of techniques that create a model for a MOOC with maximal adequacy between the theoretical concepts it teaches and its design, applicable to digital learning in other areas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available