MetroTeach: Modelling of knowledge and skills in a MOOC with the visuo-cognitive metaphor of the metro map

Abstract

Currently, modelling of knowledge and skills in a MOOC and the associated instructional and pedagogical engineering process is a major challenge in order to support designers and facilitate learning. This article explains how visuo-cognitive metaphors of the “metro map” and “travel” make possible the design of connections between the representation of knowledge and learning. The researcher can measure this approach in a double movement: topography to topology (from visual-spatial experience to cognitive change) and topology to topography (from metaphor to artifact design). Our reflections focus first on the application of Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory in learning, as well as on the contributions of the Loci method on cognition. These theories and the results of previous work have shown the interest of the metro map metaphor in the Computer Environment for Human Learning (EIAH in French), which we have implemented in our ${}^{{\copyright}}$ Metroteach model with the Design-Based Research method. Recent studies have revealed a heterogeneity of MOOC devices and a lack of application of instructional engineering principles. We therefore pose these questions again by proposing a model of the MetroTeach system. This will allow us to rethink the ontological dimensions of MOOCs and their legitimate status as a research object.

Keywords

Visual learning MOOC metro map metaphor instructional design method MetroTeach

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson,

L.W.

(Ed.) Krathwohl,

D.R.

(Ed.) Airasian,

P.W.

Cruikshank,

K.A.

Mayer,

R.E.

Pintrich,

P.R.

Raths,

, & Wittrock,

M.C.

(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). New York: Longman.

Anderson,

, & Shattuck,

(2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11428813.

Blustein,

Ahmed,

Parvaiz,

Fu,

C.-L.

Wang,

, & Hu,

(2008). Impact of spatial visualization aptitude on www navigation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognition and the Web 2008, pp. 185-192. Granada: Universidad de Granada.

Burkhard,

, & Meier,

(2004). Tube map: Evaluation of a visual metaphor for interfunctional communication of complex projects. In Proceedings of IKNOW Graz Austria June 30-July 2, 449-456.

Churches,

(2008). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy, Retrieved from http://burtonslifelearning.pbworks.com/f/BloomDigitalTaxonomy2001.pdf.

Cisel,

, & Bruillard,

(2012). Chronique des MOOC, Sciences et Technologies de l’information et de la Communication pour l’Éducation et la Formation, 19, Retrieved from http://sticef.univ-lemans.fr/num/vol2012/13r-cisel/sticef_2012_cisel_13r.htm.

Cisel,

(2013, July 11). MOOC: quels indicateurs de succès? Retrieved from http://blog.educpros.fr/matthieu-cisel/2013/07/11/mooc-quels-indicateurs-de-succes/.

Collard,

A.-S.

, & Fastrez,

(2009). A Model of the Role of Conceptual Metaphors in Hypermedia Comprehension. In Proceedings of Communication Sciences International Congress on Communication, Cognition and Media, pp. 241-255. Braga, Portugal.

Contamines,

Paquette,

, & Hotte,

(2009). LÉO, assistant logiciel pour une sceénarisation pédagogique dirigée par les compétences. Revue Internationale des Technologies en Pédagogie Universitaire, 6(2-3), 26-33. doi: 10.7202/1000009ar.

10.

Cuet,

(2011). Apprendre: Métaphores spatiales et variations interculturelles. Signes, Discours et Sociétés, Représentations métaphoriques de l’univers environnant. Retrieved from: http://www.revue-signes.info/document.php?id=2364.

11.

Daniel,

(2012). Making Sense of MOOCs: musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2012(3), p.Art. 18. doi: http://doi.org/10.5334/2012-18.

12.

Davidenkoff,

(2014). Le tsunami numérique. Stock.

13.

Dieberger,

(1997). A City Metaphor to Support Navigation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, 53-67, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg.

14.

Dillon,

(2000). Spatial-Semantics. How users derive shape from information space. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(6), 521-528.

15.

Dussarps,

(2017). Faut-il (ré)humaniser les MOOC? Revue française des sciences de l’information et de la communication, Corrected version. doi: 10.4000/rfsic.3389.

16.

Floch,

(2002). Êtes-vous arpenteur ou somnambule: L’élaboration d’une typologie comportementale des voyageurs du métro. In Floch,

Sémiotique, Marketing et Communication: Sous les signes, les stratégies, pp. 19-47. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.

17.

Foss,

C.L.

(1988). Effective Browsing in Hypertext Systems, In Proceedings of the RAIO Conference: User-oriented Content-based Text and Image Handling, pp. 82-98, 21-24 March. Cambridge (MA), USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

18.

Gilliot,

J.-M.

Garlatti,

Rebai,

, & Belen-Sapia,

(2013). The concept of iMOOC for mastered opening (French: Le concept de iMOOC pour une ouverture maîtrisée). In Rosselle,

, & Gilliot,

J.-M.

, Proceedings of the MOOC workshop, at the EIAH’2013, May 28, 2013, Toulouse (France), retrieved from https://ateliermooceiah2013.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/gilliot.pdf.

19.

Gonzales-Aguilar,

, & Vaisman,

(2015). Le plan du métro comme métaphore spatiale et cognitive dans la visualisation. Netcom, 29(3-4), 369-398. doi: 10.4000/netcom.2196.

20.

Jansen,

Schuwer,

Teixeira,

, & Aydin,

C.H.

(2015). Comparing MOOC adoption strategies in europe: Results from the HOME project survey. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2154.

21.

Kim,

, & Hirtle,

S.C.

(1995). Spatial metaphors and disorientation in hypertext browsing. Behaviour & Information Technology, 14(4), 239-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449299508914637.

22.

Kop,

, & Hill,

(2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i3.523.

23.

Lakoff,

, & Johnson,

(2003). Metaphors We Live by. Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press. 59. 10.2307/430414.

24.

Mangenot,

(2014). MOOC: hypothèses sur l’engouement pour un objet mal identifié, Distances et médiations des savoirs, 7. Retrieved from: http://dms.revues.org/844.

25.

Nesbitt,

K.V.

(2004). Getting to More Abstract Places Using the Metro Map Metaphor. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information Visualization, pp. 488-493. Washington: IEEE Computer Society.

26.

Nieveen,

(2007). Formative Evaluation in Educational Design Research. In Plomp,

, & Nieveen,

, (Eds.), An Introduction to Educational Design Research. Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO Netherlands institute for curriculum development.

27.

Nkambou,

Frasson,

, & Gauthier,

(2003). CREAM-Tools: An Authoring Environment for Knowledge Engineering in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In Murray,

Blessing,

, & Ainsworth,

, (Eds.), Authoring Tools for Advanced Technology Learning Environments: Toward Cost-effective, Adaptative, Interactive, and Intelligent Educational Software, pp. 93-138, Kluwer Publishers.

28.

Rosselle,

Caron,

P.A.

, & Heutte,

(2014). A typology and dimensions of a description framework for MOOCs. In Ulrike Cress, Carlos Delgado Kloos. European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit 2014, eMOOCs 2014, pp. 130-139. Proceedings document published in collaboration with eLearning Papers, a digital publication on eLearning by Open Education Europa.

29.

Ortoleva,

Peltier,

, & Bétrancourt,

(2017). MOOC: un mot, plusieurs facettes. Pour une caractérisation systématique des MOOC orientée ingénierie pédagogique. Revue STICEF, 24(2). doi: 10.23709/sticef.24.2.3, ISSN: 1764-7223.

30.

Padovani,

, & Lansdale,

(2003). Balancing search and retrieval in hypertext: context-specific trade-offs in navigational tool use. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(1), 125-149.

31.

Paquette,

(2003). L’ingénierie cognitive du télé-apprentissage. In Taurisson et Senteni (Eds), Pédagogie.Net, L’essor des Communautés Virtuelles D’apprentissage, pp. 103-136. Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québec.

32.

Paquette,

(2004). Educational Modeling Languages, from an Instructional Engineering Perspective. In McGreal,

, (Ed), Online Education Using Learning Objects, pp. 331-346. London: Routledge/Falmer.

33.

Paquette,

(2005). L’ingénierie pédagogique, pour construire l’apprentissage en réseau. Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québec.

34.

Paquette,

Marino,

Rogozan,

, & Léonard,

(2015). Competency-based personalization for massive online learning. Smart Learning Environments, 2(4). doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-015-0013-z.

35.

Poyet,

(2003). La métaphore spatiale pour la navigation en situation de formation en ligne. Education Permanente, 152, 19-31.

36.

Siemens,

(2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.

37.

Simpson,

(1991). Lost in hyperspace: how can designers help? Intelligent Tutoring Media, 1(1), 31-40.

38.

Stanton,

Correia,

A.P.

, & Dias,

(2000). Efficacy of a map on search, orientation and access behavior in a hypermedia system. Computers & Education, 35(4), 263-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00038-5.

39.

Tahiri,

J.S.

Bennani,

, & Khalidi Idrissi,

(2014). MOOC…Un espace de travail collaboratif mature: Enjeux du taux de réussite. In Proceedings of SysCo’14, 131-144. Hammamet, Tunisie.

40.

Vaufrey,

(2010, February 9). La carte, métaphore de notre espace virtuel. Retrieved from: https://cursus.edu/articles/768/la-carte-metaphore-de-notre-espace-virtuel#.XFtnoVxKjIU.

41.

Vrillon,

(2017). Une typologie de MOOC de France Université Numérique (FUN): méthode et enjeux. Sticef, 24(2). doi: 10.23709/sticef.24.2.4.

42.

Yates,

(1966). L’Art de la mémoire. Paris: Gallimard.