The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.03 - May-June (2013 vol.28)
pp: 70-77
Judy Kay , University of Sydney
Peter Reimann , University of Sydney
Elliot Diebold , University of Sydney
Bob Kummerfeld , University of Sydney
Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have exploded onto the scene, promising to satisfy a worldwide thirst for a high-quality, personalized, and free education. This article explores where MOOCs fit within the e-learning and Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) landscape.
Intelligent systems, Least squares approximations, Learning systems, Google, World Wide Web, YouTube, Electronic learning,learning analytics, Intelligent systems, Least squares approximations, Learning systems, Google, World Wide Web, YouTube, Electronic learning, intelligent systems, MOOC, massive open online course, large-scale e-learning, learner modeling, educational data mining
Judy Kay, Peter Reimann, Elliot Diebold, Bob Kummerfeld, "MOOCs: So Many Learners, So Much Potential ...", IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol.28, no. 3, pp. 70-77, May-June 2013, doi:10.1109/MIS.2013.66
1. R. Light, Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds, Harvard University Press, 2001.
2. T. Friedman, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006.
3. O. Simpson, Supporting Students in Online, Open and Distance Learning, Routledge, 2002.
4. M. Bullen, T. Morgan, and A. Qayyum, “Digital Learners in Higher Education: Generation Is Not the Issue,” Canadian J. Learning and Technology, vol. 37, no. 1, 2011; article/view/550298.
5. M. Boekaerts, “Self-Regulated Learning: A New Concept Embraced by Researchers, Policy Makers, Educators, Teachers, and Students,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 7, no. 2, 1997, pp. 161-186.
6. R. Azevedo, J. Guthrie, and D. Seibert, “The Role of Self-Regulated Learning in Fostering Students' Conceptual Understanding of Complex Systems with Hypermedia,” J. Educational Computing Research, vol. 30, no. 1, 2004, pp. 87-111.
7. M. Bannert and P. Reimann, “Supporting Self-Regulated Hypermedia Learning through Prompts,” Instructional Science, vol. 40, no. 1, 2012, pp. 193-211.
8. D. Cambridge, E-Portfolios for Lifelong Learning and Assessment, Jossey-Bass, 2010.
9. G. Stahl, Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge, MIT Press, 2006.
10. K. Wall et al., “Developing Digital Portfolios: Investigating How Digital Portfolios Can Facilitate Pupil Talk about Learning,” Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 15, no. 3, 2006, pp. 261-273.
11. J. Kay and B. Kummerfeld, “Lifelong Learner Modeling,” Adaptive Technologies for Training and Education, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012, pp. 140-163.
12. W. Horton and K. Horton, E-Learning Tools and Technologies: A Consumer's Guide for Trainers, Teachers, Educators, and Instructional Designers, Wiley, 2003.
13. I. Falconer et al., Mod4l Final Report: Representing Learning Designs, tech. report, 2007; .
14. P. Goodyear and S. Retalis, Technology-Enhanced Learning: Design Patterns and Pattern Languages, Sense Publishers, 2010.
15. R. Baker and K. Yacef, “The State of Educational Data Mining in 2009: A Review and Future Visions,” J. Educational Data Mining, vol. 1, no. 1, 2009, pp. 3-17.
16. R. Ferguson, “Learning Analytics: Drivers, Developments and Challenges,” Int'l J. Technology Enhanced Learning (IJTEL), vol. 4, nos. 5–6, pp. 304-317.
17. K. Arnold, “Signals: Applying Academic Analytics,” Educause Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 1, 2010; .
18. J. Stamper et al., “Experimental Evaluation of Automatic Hint Generation for a Logic Tutor,” Artificial Intelligence in Education, Springer, 2011, pp. 345-352.
19. B. Woolf et al., “Affect-Aware Tutors: Recognising and Responding to Student Affect,” Int'l J. Learning Technology, vol. 4, no. 3, 2009, pp. 129-164.
20. L. Pfeifer and T. Bickmore, “Is the Media Equation a Flash in the Pan?: The Durability and Longevity of Social Responses to Computers,” Proc. 2011 Annual Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 2011, pp. 777-780.
21. F. Dochy, M. Segers, and D. Sluijsmans, “The Use of Self-, Peer and Co-Assessment in Higher Education: A Review,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 24, no. 3, 1999, pp. 331-350.
22. C. Lynch et al., “Concepts, Structures, and Goals: Redefining Ill-Definedness,” Int'l. J. Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 19, no. 3, 2009, pp. 253-266.
23. B. Bloom, “The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring,” Educational Researcher, vol. 13, no. 6, 1984, pp. 4-16.
24. J. Self, “The Defining Characteristics of Intelligent Tutoring Systems Research: Itss Care, Precisely,” Int'l. J. Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), vol. 10, 1998, pp. 350-364.
25. S. Bull and J. Kay, “Student Models That Invite the Learner In: The SMILI:() Open Learner Modelling Framework,” Int'l. J. Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 17, no. 2, 2007, pp. 89-120.
26. R. Gluga, T. Lever, and J. Kay, “Foundations for Modelling University Curricula in Terms of Multiple Learning Goal Set,” IEEE Trans. Learning Technologies, vol. 6, no. 1, 2013, pp. 25-37.
97 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool