The effectiveness of four instructional approaches used in a MOOC promoting personal skills for success in life.

  1. Judit García Martín 23
  2. Jesús-Nicasio García Sánchez 13
  1. 1 Universidad de la Costa

    Universidad de la Costa

    Barranquilla, Colombia


  2. 2 Universidad de Salamanca

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España


  3. 3 Universidad de León

    Universidad de León

    León, España


Revista de psicodidáctica

ISSN: 1136-1034

Année de publication: 2020

Volumen: 25

Número: 1

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1016/J.PSICOD.2019.08.002 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccès ouvert editor

D'autres publications dans: Revista de psicodidáctica


This study examines the efficacy of a MOOC-format instructional program, Improvement of personal competencies for success, which entailed the use of four clearly differentiated instructional approaches (three experimental approaches and one control approach): (1) product, with an emphasis on the final result and the overall quality; (2) processes, with an emphasis on recursion and constant self-assessment of the processes; (3) mixed, oriented on the result and overall quality as well as to recursion, self-reflection and self-assessment; and (4) traditional (control) focused on online instruction of the subjects and on the accomplishment of tasks. The MOOC was designed and implemented through the Universidad de León’s external Moodle (Ariadne). It involved 745 people aged between 10 and 50, though only 336 completed it. The results demonstrate the efficacy of the MOOC irrespective of the instructional approach followed for instruction on different contents and competencies, such as resilience, achievement motivation and self-esteem; they reveal a statistically significant increase in different variables such as self-efficacy and they confirm the effectiveness of Moodle for the design and development of a MOOC. The implications of these findings are discussed and evaluated.

Information sur le financement

Durante la realización de esta investigación se reciben fondos de un proyecto del MICINN (EDU2010-19250/EDUC), concedido al IP (J.N.García). Además, J. García-Martín recibe un contrato predoctoral del subprograma FPI-MICINN (BES-2011-045996) dentro del mismo proyecto. J.N. García desarrolla, también, una estancia de investigación de año sabático financiada por la Universidad de la Costa CUC (Barranquilla, Colombia).


    • EDU2010-19250/EDUC
    • BES-2011-045996

Références bibliographiques

  • Andone, D., Mihaescu, V., Ternauciuc, A., & Vasiu, R. (2015). Integrating MOOCs in traditional higher education. In Proceedings of the Third European MOOCs Stakeholder Summit. pp. 71–75.
  • Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28–38.
  • Álvarez, M. L., & García, J. N. (2014). Evaluación on-line de los procesos cognitivos implicados en la composición escrita. In J. N. García (Ed.), Prevención en dificultades del desarrollo y del aprendizaje (pp. 359–378). Madrid: Pirámide.
  • Alturkistani, A., Lam, C., Foley, K., Stenfors, T., Blum, E., & Meinert, E. (2019). pp. 1–20. MOOC Evaluation methods: A Systematic Review (27)
  • Bayeck, R. Y., & Choi, J. (2018). The influence of national culture on educational videos: The case of MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1), 186–201.
  • Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Kou, X., Xu, S., & Sheu, F.-R. (2015). Understanding the self- directed online learning preferences, goals, achievements, and challenges of MIT open courseware subscribers. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 349–368.
  • Castaño, C., Maiz, I., & Garay, U. (2015). Design, motivation and performance in a cooperative MOOC course. Comunicar, 22(44), 19–26.
  • Chang, R., Hung, Y. H., & Lin, C. F. (2015). Survey of learning experiences and influence of learning style preferences on user intentions regarding MOOCs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1–14.
  • Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P., & Lee, M. K. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337–1343.
  • Clará, M., & Barberá, E. (2013). Learning online: Massive open online courses (MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34(1), 129–136.
  • Deursen, A., Bolle, C., Hegner, S., & Kommers, P. (2015). Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: The role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation, age, and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 411–420.
  • Díez, C., García, J. N., & IPDDA. (2010). Percepción de metodologías docentes y desarrollo de competencias al EEES. Boletín de Psicología, 99, 45–69.
  • Frydrychova, B. (2014). Approaches to the teaching of writing skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 147–151.
  • Gillani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18–26. 04
  • García-Martín, J., & García, J. N. (2013). Patterns of web 2.0 tool use among young Spanish people. Computers & Education, 67(3), 105–120.
  • García-Martín, J., & García, J. N. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the service competence dimensions of digital literacy and of psychological and educational measures. Computers & Education, 106, 1–14.
  • García-Martín, J., & García, J. N. (2018). The instructional effectiveness of two virtual approaches: Processes and product. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 23(2), 117–127.
  • García, J. N., Fidalgo, R., Arias, O., Marbán, J. M., De Caso, A. M., Pacheco, D. I., & Diez, H. (2014). El análisis psicolingüístico del producto textual. In Prevención en dificultades del desarrollo y del aprendizaje. pp. 301–321. Madrid: Pirámide.
  • García, J. N., Marbán, J., & De Caso, A. (2001). EPP y FPE [EPP and FPE]. In J. N. García (Ed.), Dificultades de aprendizaje e intervención psicopedagógica (pp. 151–155). Barcelona: Ariel.
  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2014). Conducting high quality writing intervention research: Twelve recommendations. Journal of Writing Research, 6(2), 89–123.
  • Hashemnezhad, H., & Hashemnezhad, N. (2012). A comparative study of product, process, and post-process approaches in Iranian EFL students’ writing skill. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 722–729.
  • Herodotou, C., Kambouri, M., & Winters, N. (2011). The role of trait emotional intelligence in gamer’s preferences for play and fre- quency of gaming. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1815–1819.
  • Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45–58.
  • Izquierdo, I., Olea, J., & Abad, F. J. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: Uses and recommendations. Psicothema, 26(3), 395–400.
  • Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. S. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self- regulation in e-learning environments. Computers & Education, 60, 14–24.
  • Lin, W. S. (2012). Perceived fit and satisfaction on web learning performance: IS continuance intention and task-technology fit perspectives. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70, 498–507.
  • Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1152–1161.
  • Loizzo, J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). MOOCocracy: The learning culture of massive open online courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(6), 1013–1032.
  • Lorenz, A., Wittke, A., Muschal, T., & Steinert, F. (2015). From moodle to mooin: Development a MOOC platform. European MOOCs Stakeholder Summit (EMOOCs), 102–106.
  • Lowenthal, P., Snelson, C., & Perkins, R. (2018). Teaching massive, open, online, courses (MOOCs): Tales from the front line. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3), 1–18.
  • Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.
  • Mun˜ oz-Merino, P., Ruipérez, J. A., Alario, C., Pérez, M. P., & Delgado, C. (2015). Precise effectiveness strategy for analyzing the effectiveness of students with educational resources and activities in MOOCs. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 108–118.
  • Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59, 1065–1078.
  • Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., & Kowert, R. (2013). Attachment style, social skills, and Facebook use amongst adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1142–1149.
  • Reid, A. J., Morrison, G. R., & Bol, L. (2017). Knowing what you know: Improving metacomprehension and calibration accuracy in digital text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 29–45.
  • Robledo, P., & García, J. N. (2018). Description and analysis of strategy-focused instructional models for writing. In R. Fidalgo, K. R. Harris, & M. Braaksma (Eds.), Design principles for teaching effective writing (pp. 38–65). Leiden: Brill.
  • Ruipérez, J. A., Halawa, S., & Reich, J. (2019). Multiplatform MOOC analytics: Comparing global and regional patterns in edX and Edraak Learning.
  • Thulasi, A. P. S., Bin, A. R., & Bte, F. (2014). Comparative analysis of process versus product approach of teaching writing in Malaysian schools: Review of literature. Middle-East Journal of Scientifc Research, 22(6), 789–795.
  • Van der Meij, H., Van der Meij, J., & Harmsen, R. (2015). Animated pedagogical agents effects on enhancing student motivation and learning in a science inquiry learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 381–403.
  • Yu, P. T., Liao, Y. H., & Su, M. H. (2013). A near-reality approach to improve the e-learning open courseware. Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 242–257.
  • Zawacki, O., Bozkurt, A., Alturki, U., & Aldraiweesh, A. (2018). What research says about MOOCs an explorative content analysis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1), 242–259.