Blockchain in the university: a digital technology to design, implement and manage global learning itineraries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2019.35.130-150Keywords:
Learning Itineraries, Blockchain in Education, University, Digital Education, PrivacyAbstract
Making universal access to education compatible with different paths of learning is one of the great challenges of the last century. Technology has provided solutions to access information, for communication and collaborative work. Blockchain emerges as a technology that can be useful for the development of an evaluation model of individualized learning itineraries in mass university subjects. In this line, the Edublocs project has been designed and executed, an initiative where these itineraries have been designed, incorporating elements of peer learning, team-teaching, PLEs, microlearning, technology-enhanced assessment...
The objective of the Edublocs project is to design and implement a system of recording the results of activities through Blockchain that allow the student to follow a personal itinerary, and the teacher-tutor of the subject to carry out a formative evaluation and an accrediting appraisal of their work. The project is well underway in the evaluation of the implementation process.
The experience with some elements of the design and the experimental execution in a formal university context during the present academic course, has allowed us to obtain important indications on the viability and relevance of the use of Blockchain in education. These, together with the explanation and justification of explaining the context of its applicability, will be laid out in the broad development of the article.
References
Bartolomé, A. y Grané, M. (2013). Interrogantes educativos desde la sociedad del conocimiento. Aloma. Revista de Psicologia, Ciències de l’Educació i de l’Esport, 31(1), pp.73-82. http://www.revistaaloma.net/index.php/aloma/article/view/173/115
Bartolomé, A. (2017). Cambiando el futuro: Blockchain y educación. Comunicación y pedagogía: Nuevas tecnologías y recursos didácticos, 303, 7-12.
Bartolomé, A., Castañeda, L. & Adell, J. (2018), Personalisation in educational technology: the absence of underlying pedagogies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15 (14), 1-17.
doi: http://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0095-0
Bartolomé, A., Lindín, C., y Rivera-Vargas, P. (2018). Gestión de programas de aprendizaje personalizado mediante cadenas de bloque. En A. Autor y J.M del Moral (eds), Blockchain en Educación: cadenas rompiendo moldes (pp. 141-182). Barcelona: LMI, Colección Transmedia XXI.
Bland, D., & Atweh, B. (2007). Students as researchers: engaging students’ voices in PAR. Educational Action Research, 15(3), 227-249. Retrieved from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09650790701514259
Chen, G., Xu, B., Lu, M., & Chen, N. S. (2018). Exploring Blockchain technology and its potential applications for education. Smart Learning Environments, 5(1), 1-10.
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. Retrieved from:
https://www.michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/3897.Rich_Seam_web.pdf
Guàrdia, L. & Sangrà, A (2005). Diseño instruccional y objetos de aprendizaje: hacia un modelo para el diseño de actividades de evaluación del aprendizaje on-line. RED: Revista de Educación a Distancia, (4), 1.
Gräther, W., Kolvenbach, S., Ruland, R., Schütte, J., Torres, C., & Wendland, F. (2018). Blockchain for Education: Lifelong Learning Passport. In Proceedings of 1st ERCIM Blockchain Workshop 2018. European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (EUSSET).
Hodgins, H. W. (2002). The future of learning objects. Proceedings of the 2002 eTEE Conference, 76-82. Recuperado de: http://dc.engconfintl.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=etechnologies
Holliday, Ó. J. (2012). Sistematización de experiencias, investigación y evaluación: aproximaciones desde tres ángulos. F (x)= Educación Global Research, 1, 56-70.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2000). The self we live by: Narrative identity in a postmodern world. New York: Oxford University Press
Iansiti, M., & Lakhani K. (2017). The truth about Blockchain. Harvard Business Review, 95(1), 118-127
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2013). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Geelong: Springer Science and Business Media.
Kurilovas, E., Kubilinskiene, S., & Dagiene, V. (2014). Web 3.0–Based personalisation of learning objects in virtual learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 654-662. Retrieved from: http://bibliografia.eovirtual.com/KurilovasE_2014_Web.pdf
Lata, S. (2017). The Parameters of Teacher’s Education. International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences, 7(3), 166-177. Retrieved from: http://euroasiapub.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/20ESSMarch-4620-1.pdf
Lázaro, B., y Obregón, I. (2009). Evaluación de la implementación. Guía práctica 4. Barcelona: Colección Ivalúa de guías practices, Institut Català d’Àvaluació de Polítiques Públiques. Recuperado de: http://www.dgfc.sepg.hacienda.gob.es/sitios/dgfc/es-ES/ipr/fcp1420/e/Documents/Guia3_Evaluacion_de_implementacion_ivalua.pdf
Liu, M., Kang, J., Zou, W., Lee, H., Pan, Z., & Corliss, S. (2017). Using Data to Understand How to Better Design Adaptive Learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 271-298. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10758-017-9326-z
López-Pastor, V. M., Fernández-Balboa, J. M., Santos Pastor, M. L., & Fraile Aranda, A. (2012). Students’ self-grading, professor’s grading and negotiated final grading at three university programmes: analysis of reliability and grade difference ranges and tendencies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(4), 453-464. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2010.545868
Masika, R. & Jones, J. (2016). Building student belonging and engagement: insights into higher education students’ experiences of participating and learning together, Teaching in Higher Education, 21(2), 138-150.
doi: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1122585
Narayanan A., Bonneau, J., Felten, E., Miller, A., & Goldfeder S. (2016). Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies: a comprehensive introduction. New York: Princeton University Press.
Padilla, M. C. (2016). Formulación y evaluación de proyectos. Bogotá, Colombia. Ecoe Ediciones.
Rivera-Vargas, P., & Cobo, C. (2018). Plan Ceibal en Uruguay: una política que conecta inclusión e innovación. En P. Autor, J. Muñoz-Saavedra, R. Morales Olivares y S. Butendieck-Hijerra (Eds), Políticas Públicas para la Equidad Social (pp. 4-29). Santiago de Chile: Colección Políticas Públicas, Universidad de Santiago de Chile. Recuperado de: https://digital.fundacionceibal.edu.uy/jspui/handle/123456789/266
Rivera-Vargas, P., & Miño-Puigcercós, R. (2018). Young people and virtual communities.: New ways of learning and of social participation in the digital society. Páginas de Educación, 11(1), 67-82.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.22235/pe.v11i1.1554.
Rivera-Vargas, P., Sancho-Gil, J. M., & Sánchez, J. A. (2017). Los límites de la disrupción en el orden académico. La cultura DIY en la universidad. Páginas de Educación, 10(2), 127-142.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.22235/pe.v10i2.1428
Raigada, J. L. P. (2002). Epistemología, metodología y técnicas del análisis de contenido. Sociolinguistic Studies, 3(1), 1-42.
Sapag, N., & Sapag, R. (2000). Preparación y evaluación de proyectos. DF México: McGraw Hill.
Selwyn, N. (2015). Data entry: towards the critical study of digital data and education. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 64-82. Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17439884.2014.921628
Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education? Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons.
Selwyn, N. (2018). Data points: exploring data-driven reforms of education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(5). 1-9.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2018.1469255
Tapscott D., & Tapscott A. (2016). The Blockchain Revolution. New York: Penguin Random House.
Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington, KY: CreateSpace.
Underwood, S. (2016). Blockchain beyond bitcoin. Communications of the ACM, 59(11), 15-17. doi: 10.1145/2994581
Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1998). El análisis del discurso y la identificación de los repertorios interpretativos. En A. Gordo, y J. Linaza, Psicología, Discurso y Poder: Metodologías cualitativas, perspectivas críticas (pp. 63-78). Madrid: Ed. Visor.
Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. The instructional use of learning objects, 2830(435), 1-35. Recuperado de: http://wesrac.usc.edu/wired/bldg-7_file/wiley.pdf
Wolton, D. (2000). Internet ¿y después? Barcelona: Gedisa.
Wright A., & De Filippi P. (2015). Decentralized Blockchain technology and the rise of lex cryptographia. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2580664
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication.
- The texts published in Digital Education Review, DER, are under a license Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4,0 Spain, of Creative Commons. All the conditions of use in: Creative Commons,
- In order to mention the works, you must give credit to the authors and to this Journal.
- Digital Education Review, DER, does not accept any responsibility for the points of view and statements made by the authors in their work.
