Treść głównego artykułu


Artykuł analizuje doświadczenia nauczycieli związane z ich zaangażowaniem w filmy refleksyjne w ramach otwartego kursu online Pedagogical Information and Communication Technology (ICTPED). Celem kursu jest rozwój profesjonalnych kompetencji cyfrowych norweskich nauczycieli. Studium rozważa również, jak zaangażowanie nauczycieli w filmy do refleksji może wzmocnić ich kompetencje cyfrowe. Analiza doświadczeń nauczycieli opiera się na perspektywie kulturowo-historycznej, w szczególności na koncepcyjnym wkładzie Galperina. Metody mieszane zostały wykorzystane do analizy danych ukazujących zaangażowanie nauczycieli w filmy refleksyjne w latach 2016-2020. Ustalenia ujawniają, że zaangażowanie nauczycieli w filmy do refleksji przyczyniło się do rozwoju ich koncepcyjnego zrozumienia i ich zdolności do uczenia się online. W ten sposób, ich kompetencje cyfrowe mogły zostać wzmocnione.

Słowa kluczowe

Online learning Massive open online course Assessment Digital identity Galperin kursy onlie masowe otwarte kursy internetowe ocenianie tożsamośc cyfrowa

Szczegóły artykułu

Jak cytować
Engeness, I., & Nohr, M. (2022). Ocena jako nauka: Wykorzystanie filmów refleksyjnych w masowym, otwartym kursie online w celu wzmocnienia nauki i tożsamości cyfrowej wśród nauczycieli, w początkowym i zaawansowanym okresie nauczania w Norwegii. Forum Oświatowe, 35(Nr 2(68), 31–52.


  1. Armellini, A., & Padilla Rodriguez, B. C. (2016). Are massive open online courses (MOOCs) pedagogically innovative? Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 14(1), 17-28.
  2. Avidov-Ungar, O., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2018). Professional identity of teacher educators in the digital era in light of demands of pedagogical innovation. Teaching and Teacher education, 73, 183-191.
  3. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition–Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5), 367-379.
  4. Barnard-Brak, L., Paton, V. O., & Lan, W. Y. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 61-80.
  5. Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 175-189.
  6. Brandmo, C., Panadero, E., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). Bridging classroom assessment and self-regulated learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(4), 319-331.
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative research in psychology, 1-25.
  8. Brevik, L. M., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., Lund, A., & Strømme, T. A. (2019). Transformative agency in teacher education: Fostering professional digital competence. Teaching and Teacher education, 86, 102875.
  9. Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The internet and higher education, 27, 1-13.
  10. Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (Digcompedu). European Journal of Education, 54(3), 356-369.
  11. Castaño-Muñoz, J., Kalz, M., Kreijns, K., & Punie, Y. (2018). Who is taking MOOCs for teachers’ professional development on the use of ICT? A cross-sectional study from Spain. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(5), 607-624.
  12. Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds? Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(6), 807-815.
  13. Chauhan, A. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCS): Emerging trends in assessment and accreditation. Digital Education Review(25), 7-17.
  14. Chen, J. (2017). An e-Portfolio-Based Model for the Application and Sharing of College English ESP MOOCs. Higher Education Studies, 7(2), 35-42.
  15. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
  16. Daradoumis, T., Bassi, R., Xhafa, F., & Caballé, S. (2013, October). A review on massive e-learning (MOOC) design, delivery and assessment. In 2013 eighth international conference on P2P, parallel, grid, cloud and internet computing (pp. 208-213).
  17. IEEE. del Mar Sánchez-Vera, M., & Prendes-Espinosa, M. P. (2015). Beyond objective testing and peer assessment: alternative ways of assessment in MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 12(1), 119-130.
  18. Downes, S. (2013). Assessment in MOOCs [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://
  19. Engeness, I. (2021a). Developing teachers’ digital identity: towards the pedagogic design principles of digital environments to enhance students’ learning in the 21st century. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 96-114.
  20. Engeness I. (2021b) The Development of Mental Actions and the Orienting Basis of Actions. In: I. Engeness (Ed.) P.Y. Galperin’s Development of Human Mental Activity. Cultural Psychology of Education, vol 14. Springer, Cham.
  21. Engeness, I., & Nohr, M. (2020). Engagement in Learning in the Massive Open Online Course: Implications for Epistemic Practices and Development of Transformative Digital Agency with Pre-and In-Service Teachers in Norway. Cultural Historical Psychology, 16(3), 71-82.
  22. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.
  23. Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). From massive access to cooperation: lessons learned and proven results of a hybrid xMOOC/cMOOC pedagogical approach to MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 24.
  24. Friesen, M. D., & Besley, S. C. (2013). Teacher identity development in the first year of teacher education: A developmental and social psychological perspective. Teaching and Teacher education, 36, 23-32.
  25. Gamage, D., Whiting, M. E., Rajapakshe, T., Thilakarathne, H., Perera, I., & Fernando, S. (2017). Improving assessment on MOOCs through peer identification and aligned incentives. Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) ACM Conference on Learning@Scale, Gorospe, J. M. C., Olaskoaga, L. F., Barragán, A. G.-C., Iglesias, D. L., & Agirre, B.
  26. O.-A. (2015). Formación del profesorado, tecnología educativa e identidad docente digital. RELATEC: revista latinoamericana de tecnología educativa, 14(1), 45-56.
  27. Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., & Kantosalo, A. (2016). Digital competence–an emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 655-679.
  28. Instefjord, E. J., & Munthe, E. (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration of professional digital competence in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher education, 67, 37-45.
  29. Kelentrić, M., Helland, K., & Arstorp, A. (2017). Professional digital competence framework for teachers. The Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education, 1-74.
  30. Laurillard, D. (2014). Anatomy of a MOOC for teacher CPD. The Pedagogy of a MOOC for CPD: Report on an IOEUNESCO Course.
  31. Laurillard, D. (2016). The educational problem that MOOCs could solve: professional development for teachers of disadvantaged students. Research in Learning Technology, 24.
  32. Lee, D., Watson, S. L., & Watson, W. R. (2019). Systematic literature review on self-regulated learning in massive open online courses. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1).
  33. Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The internet and higher education, 29, 40-48.
  34. Lu, O. H. T., Huang, J. C. H., Huang, A. Y. Q., & Yang, S. J. H. (2017). Applying learning analytics for improving students engagement and learning outcomes in an MOOCs enabled collaborative programming course. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(2), 220-234.
  35. Martin, J., & Sugarman, J. (2000). Between the modern and the postmodern: The possibility of self and progressive understanding in psychology. American Psychologist, 55(4), 397.
  36. McGarr, O., & McDonagh, A. (2019). Digital Competence in Teacher Education. Output 1 of the Erasmus+ Funded Developing Student Teachers’ Digital Competence (DICTE) Project, 2019.
  37. Meek, S. E., Blakemore, L., & Marks, L. (2017). Is peer review an appropriate form of assessment in a MOOC? Student participation and performance in formative peer review. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 42(6), 1000-1013.
  38. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  39. Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 422.
  40. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  41. Pintrich, PR, Zusho, A (2002) The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In: Wigfield, A, Eccles, JS (eds) Development of Achievement Motivation. San Diego: Academic, 249–284.
  42. Robson, J. (2018). Performance, structure and ideal identity: Reconceptualising teachers’ engagement in online social spaces. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 439-450.
  43. Ross, J., Sinclair, C., Knox, J., Bayne, S., & Macleod, H. (2014). Teacher experiences and academic identity: The missing components of MOOC pedagogy. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 57-69.
  44. Schunk, D. H. (2014). Learning theories: an educational perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson.
  45. Schutz, P. A., Cross Francis, D., & Hong, J. (2018). Research on teacher identity: Introduction to mapping challenges and innovations. In P. A. Schutz, J. Hong, & D. Cross Francis (Eds.), Research on teacher identity (pp. 3–12). Retrieved from doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-93836-3_1
  46. Serdyukov, P., & Hill, R. (2013). Flying with clipped wings: Are students independent in online college classes. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 6(1), 52-65.
  47. Stetsenko, A. (2017). The transformative mind: Expanding Vygotsky’s approach to development and education. NY: Cambridge University Press.
  48. Suad Nasir, N. i., & Kirshner, B. (2003). The cultural construction of moral and civic identities. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 138-147.
  49. Van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Routledge.
  50. Vivian, R., Falkner, K., & Falkner, N. (2014). Addressing the challenges of a new digital technologies curriculum: MOOCs as a scalable solution for teacher professional development. Research in Learning Technology, 22.
  51. Wang, C.-H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302-323.
  52. Wu, T., Yao, Y., Duan, Y., Fan, X., & Qu, H. (2016, April). NetworkSeer: Visual analysis for social network in MOOCs. In 2016 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis) (pp. 194-198). IEEE.
  53. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.
  54. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American educational research journal, 45(1), 166-183.
  55. Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American educational research journal, 23(4), 614-628.
  56. Aagaard, T., & Lund, A. (2019). Digital Agency in Higher Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning. Routledge Focus.