Résumés
Résumé
À travers l’analyse des pages de présentation de la plateforme française FUN, nous suggérons que les concepteurs de MOOC, bien qu’exerçant majoritairement dans l’enseignement supérieur, n’ont pas ciblé en priorité un public d’étudiants. La stratégie qui semble dominer consiste à adapter le cours à la massification des audiences, notamment en n’imposant que peu de prérequis. Néanmoins, les adaptations réalisées par les concepteurs de MOOC pourraient avoir été insuffisantes au regard des attentes du public d’apprenants adultes, ce qui ne manquerait pas d’induire un certain nombre de barrières épistémiques, contribuant ainsi à la faiblesse des taux de certification observés.
Mots-clés :
- MOOC,
- barrières épistémiques,
- descriptif de cours,
- FUN,
- public visé
Abstract
Based on the analysis of course landing pages of the French FUN platform, we suggest that MOOC designers, despite the fact they usually work in institutions of higher education, did not simply transpose existing courses. Most of them likely tried to adapt the content of their course to the massification of their audiences, notably by not imposing high prerequisites. Nevertheless, such adaptations may have been insufficient to address the needs and expectations of the adult learners that compose the main audience of these free online courses. This may have contributed to the appearance of epistemic barriers, partly responsible for MOOCs’ low completion rates.
Keywords:
- MOOCs,
- epistemic barriers,
- course presentation,
- FUN,
- target audience
Parties annexes
Références
- Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H. et Ciganek, A. P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28-38. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.006
- Barak, M., Watted, A. et Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49-60. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.010
- Bean, J. P. et Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485-540. doi:10.3102/00346543055004485
- Breslow, L., Pritchard, D., DeBoer, J., Stump, G., Ho, A. et Seaton, D. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. Journal of Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13-25. Récupéré du site ERIC : http://eric.ed.gov
- Bulfin, S., Pangrazio, L. et Selwyn, N. (2014). Making “MOOCs”: The construction of a new digital higher education within news media discourse. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1856
- Campbell, J., Gibbs, A. L., Najafi, H. et Severinski, C. (2014). A comparison of learner intent and behaviour in live and archived MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1854
- Champaign, J., Colvin, K. F., Liu, A., Fredericks, C., Seaton, D. et Pritchard, D. E. (2014). Correlating skill and improvement in 2 MOOCs with a student’s time on tasks. Dans Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference (p. 11-20). Récupéré du site personnel de J. Champaign : http://edocs.uis.edu/jcham4/www
- Cisel, M. (2016). Utilisations des MOOC : éléments de typologie (thèse de doctorat, Université Paris-Saclay, France). Récupéré de l’archive TeL : http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr
- Colvin, K. F., Champaign, J., Liu, A., Zhou, Q., Fredericks, C. et Pritchard, D. E. (2014). Learning in an introductory physics MOOC: All cohorts learn equally, including an on-campus class. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(4), 263-283. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i4.1902
- Conti, G. J. (1979). Principles of adult learning scale (thèse de doctorat non publiée). Northern Illinois University, États-Unis.
- Conti, G. J. (1985a). Assessing teaching style in adult education: How and why. Lifelong Learning, 8(8), 7-11.
- Conti, G. J. (1985b). The relationship between teaching style and adult student learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 35(4), 220-228. doi:10.1177/0001848185035004004
- Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners. Increasing participation and facilitating learning. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.
- Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/2012-18
- Deci, E. L. et Ryan, R. M. (1985a). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY : Plenum.
- Deci, E. L. et Ryan, R. M. (1985b). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109-134.
- Evans, S. et Myrick, J. G. (2015). How MOOC instructors view the pedagogy and purposes of massive open online courses. Distance Education, 36(3), 295-311. doi:10.1080/01587919.2015.1081736
- Garland, M. (1992). Variables affecting persistence in distance education in the natural resource sciences (thèse de doctorat, University of British Columbia, Canada). Récupéré du répertoire cIRcle : http://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle
- Garland, M. R. (1993). Student perceptions of the situational, institutional, dispositional and epistemological barriers to persistence. Distance Education, 14(2), 181-198. doi:10.1080/0158791930140203
- Gerber, J. (2014). MOOCs: Innovation, disruption and instructional leadership in higher education (thèse de doctorat non publiée). University de Californie, États-Unis.
- Godwin-Jones, R. (2014). Global reach and local practice: The promise of MOOCs. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 5-15. Récupéré du répertoire ScholarSpace de l’Université d’Hawaii : http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu
- Greene, J. A., Oswald, C. A. et Pomerantz, J. (2015). Predictors of retention and achievement in a massive open online course. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 925-955. doi:10.3102/0002831215584621 Récupéré du site CiteSeerX : http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
- Ho, A. D., Chuang, I., Reich, J., Coleman, C. A., Whitehill, J., Northcutt, C. G. et Petersen, R. (2015). HarvardX and MITx: Two years of open online courses, Fall 2012-Summer 2014 (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2586847). Récupéré du site SSRN : http://ssrn.com
- Ho, A. D., Reich, J., Nesterko, S. O., Seaton, D. T., Mullaney, T., Waldo, J. et Chuang, I. (2014). HarvardX and MITx: The first year of open online courses, Fall 2012-Summer 2013 (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2381263). Récupéré du site SSRN : http://ssrn.com
- Hollands, F. M. et Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and reality. Full report. Récupéré du site du Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education (CBCSE) : http://cbcse.org
- Israel, M. J. (2015). Effectiveness of Integrating MOOCs in Traditional Classrooms for Undergraduate Students. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2222
- 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. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2112
- Karsenti, T. (2013). MOOC : révolution ou simple effet de mode? Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 10(2), 6-37. https://doi.org/10.18162/ritpu.2013.227
- Karsenti, T. et Bugmann, J. (2016). Soutenir la motivation des participants aux MOOC : quels rôles pour la ludification, la mobilité et l’aspect social? Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 13(2-3), 133-149. https://doi.org/10.18162/ritpu-2016-v13n23-09
- Kassabian, D. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCs) at elite, early-adopter universities: Goals, progress, and value proposition (thèse de doctorat, Université de Pennsylvanie, États-Unis). Récupéré du site ProQuest : http://proquest.com
- Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C. et Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. Dans D. Suthers, K. Verbert, E. Duval et X. Ochoa (dir.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2013) (p. 170-179). Récupéré du site personnel de R. F. Kizilcec : http://rene.kizilcec.com
- Kizilcec, R. F. et Schneider, E. (2015). Motivation as a lens to understand online learners. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 22(2), 1-24. Récupéré du site personnel de R. F. Kizilcec : http://rene.kizilcec.com
- Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: a neglected species. Gulf Publishing Company. Houston.
- Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C. et Chen, Z. (2013). Retention and intention in massive open online courses. EDUCAUSE Review. Récupéré de http://er.educause.edu
- Kolowich, S. (2013, 18 mars). The professors behind the MOOC hype. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Récupéré de http://chronicle.com
- Mirrlees, T. et Alvi, S. (2014). Taylorizing academia, deskilling professors and automating higher education: The recent role of MOOCs. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 12(2), 45-73. Récupéré de http://jceps.com
- Munro, B. H. (1981). Dropouts from higher education: Path analysis of a national sample. American Educational Research Journal, 18(2), 133-141. doi:10.3102/00028312018002133
- O’Connor, K. (2014). MOOCs, institutional policy and change dynamics in higher education. Higher Education, 68(5), 623-635. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9735-z
- Reich, J. (2014). MOOC completion and retention in the context of student intent. EDUCAUSE Review. Récupéré de http://er.educause.edu
- Sweet, R. (1986). Student dropout in distance education: An application of Tinto’s model. Distance Education, 7(2), 201-213. doi:10.1080/0158791860070204
- Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125. Récupéré du site CiteSeerX : http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
- Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1-19. Récupéré du site CiteSeerX : http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
- Vrillon, E. (2017). Une typologie de MOOC de France Université Numérique : méthode et enjeux. STICEF, 24(2). Récupéré de http://sticef.univ-lemans.fr