Main Article Content

Orly Melamed, Dr.
Rivka Wadmany Shauman, Dr.


The “New Media in Education MOOC” trains education students in developing educational project plans based on new media and networked pedagogy. Students participate in peer assessments of project plans based on five evaluation criteria that include innovativeness and expected needs satisfaction.

An action research was conducted based on a content analysis of 789 student assessments regarding 89 project plans. The aim of the study was to explore how students assess their peers’ project plans and use these insights to improve the peer assessment process and the guideline criteria. Findings indicate that students mainly used two perspectives for assessing the expected needs satisfaction criterion: traditional pedagogy and constructivist pedagogy. The findings led to further elaboration both of the innovativeness criterion (and its extension beyond technological innovation) and of the expected need satisfaction criterion and its extension beyond cognitive needs (e.g., social, emotional, cultural and democratic needs). Additional criteria for the assessment guidelines are recommended.


Article Details

Articles - Special Issue
Author Biography

Orly Melamed, Dr., Kibbutzim College of Education, Technology and Arts, Tel Aviv

Researcher, lecturer and pedagogic instructor, department of film and media studies.


Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for teaching, learning, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY, USA: Longman.

Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in the digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. British Columbia, CA: BCcampus.

Chee, Y.S. (2015). Games-to-teach or games-to-learn: Addressing the learning needs of twenty-first century education through performance. In T. B. Lin, V. Chen, & C. Chai (Eds.), New media and learning in the 21st century education innovation series. Singapore: Springer.

Chen, D., & Kortz, G. (2011). Telecommunications, learning and teaching. Or Yehuda, IL: Center for Academic Learning.

Christensen, C., Horn B. M., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY, USA: McGraw Hill.

Commission of Higher Education (2017). Innovation and entrepreneurship centers in academic institutions. [report].

de Platchett, N. (2008). Placing the magic in the classroom: TPCK in arts. In M. Herring, M. J. Koehler and P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of Technological, Pedagogical, Content-Knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 167-192). London and NY: Routledge.

Duval-Couetil, N. (2013). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programs: Challenges and approaches. Journal of Small Business Management, 51, 394–409. doi:10.1111/jsbm.12024

Fois, Y., & Barak, Y. (2016). Pedagogical innovation and teacher training. An introduction. In Y. Fois (Ed.), Teacher training in the labyrinth of pedagogical innovation (pp. 7-24). Tel Aviv, IL: Mofet.

Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). Examining the Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model for technology integration. Tech Trends, 60, 433-441.

Harari, Y. N. (2019). 21 lessons for the 21st century. New York, NY, USA: Penguin Random House.

Hativa, N. (1998). Lack of clarity in university teaching: A case study. Higher Education, 36(3), 353-381. doi: 10.1023/A:1003401111968

Hativa, N. (2013). The tsunami of MOOCs: Will it cause a revolution in teaching, learning and the higher education institutions? An overview. Teaching in the Academia, 1, 40-64.

Heng, L., Robinson, A. C., & Park, J. Y. (2014). Peer grading in a MOOC: Reliability, validity, and perceived effects. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2), 1–14. doi: 10.24059/olj.v18i2.429. Retrieved from

Hobbs, R. (2019, December 22). On learning outcomes and standards for media literacy. MediaLab [Blog post]. Retrieved from

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL, USA: MacArthur Foundation.

Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Haas, H. (1973). On the use of mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38, 164-181.

Kelly, M. A. (2008). Bridging digital and cultural divides: TPK for equity of access to technology. In M. Herring, M. J. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of technological, pedagogical, content-knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 31-59). London and NY: Routledge.

Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 127-140. doi:10.1080/21532974.2013.10784716

Kotsemir, M., & Abroskin, A. (2013). Innovation concepts and typology. An evolutionary discussion. Basic research program. Working Papers Series: Science, Technology and Innovation, WP BRP 05/STI/2013. Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics.

Krathwohl, R. D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.

Lee, J. K. (2008). Toward democracy social studies and TPCK. In M. Herring, M. J. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of technological, pedagogical, content-knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 31-58). London and NY: Routledge.

Leung, L. (2013) Generational differences in content generation in social media: The roles of the gratifications sought and of narcissism. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 997-1006. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.028

Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28-49. Retrieved from

Melamed, O., & Wadmany, R. (2018). Assessment of innovation dimension in a MOOC Course “New media in Education” focused on PBL Plans. In M. Heijnen, M. de Hei, & S. van Ginkel (Eds.), Proceedings of the ATEE Winter Conference: Technology and Innovative Learning (pp. 84-95). Utrecht, NL: ATEE.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Oman, S. K., Tumer, I. Y., Wood, K., & Seepersand, C. (2013). A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects. Research in Engineering Design, 24(1), 65-92. doi: 10.1007/s00163-012-0138-9

Pink, D. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. (pp.13-32). New York, NY, USA: Riverhead Books.

Puentedura, R. (2014). Learning, technology, and the SAMR model: Goals, processes, and practice [Blog post]. Retrieved from

Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2016). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that's transforming education. New York, NY, USA: Penguin Books.

Salomon, G. (1981). Communication and education: Social and psychological interactions. People & Communication, 13, 9-271.

Sandeen, C. (2013). Assessment’s place in the New MOOC World. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 1-10.

Suen, H. K. (2014). Peer assessment for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(3), 312-327. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1680

Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park, PA, USA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Volkmann, C., Wilson, K. E., Vyakarnam, S., Mariotti, S., & Sepulveda, A. (2009). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: Unlocking Entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st century). World Economic Forum: A Report of the Global Education Initiative, April 2009.

Wadmany, R. (2017). Digital pedagogy in practice. Tel Aviv, IL: Mofet.

Wadmany, R., & Melamed, O. (2018). New media in education MOOC: Improving peer assessments of students’ plans and their innovativeness. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 5(2), 122-130. doi: 10.20448/journal.509.2018.52.122.130

Waks, J. L. (2016). Education 2.0: The learning web revolution and the transformation of the school. London and New York: Routledge.