ResumenEn el presente artículo se expone un concepto complejo de evaluación de los aprendizajes que incluye cuatro dimensiones que se consideran básicas para una práctica evaluativa completa: evaluación del aprendizaje, evaluación para el aprendizaje, evaluación como aprendizaje y evaluación desde el aprendizaje. Se propone recuperar esta perspectiva compleja en la evaluación de los aprendizajes en los contextos virtuales mediante el análisis de las aportaciones específicas que introduce la tecnología en este campo. De esta manera se distinguen como contribuciones particulares de la tecnología en estos contextos en cuanto modifican significativamente las prácticas presenciales que conocemos: la evaluación automática, la evaluación enciclopédica y la evaluación colaborativa. El artículo acaba resaltando el valor de los procesos comunicativos de los resultados a los alumnos y, en concreto, el valor de la retroalimentación y la necesidad y posibilidades que ofrece la tecnología para su aprovechamiento. Palabras claveEvaluación del aprendizaje, evaluación formativa, contexto virtual, retroalimentación, evaluación y tecnología. AbstractThe article explains a complex concept about assessment of learning in virtual contexts. It includes four dimensions: assessment of learning, assessment for learning, assessment as learning and assessment from learning. The main contributions of technology in that field complementary to face-to-face practices are developed. In this way, the article presents three type of significant assessments: automatic assessment, encyclopedic assessment and collaborative assessment. The paper ends underlining the value of the post evaluative practices like assessment results communication, virtual feedback and the contribution of the technology for the exploitation of the feedback process.. KeywordsAssessment of learning, formative assessment, virtual context, feedback, assessment and technology Introducción ¿Realiza la tecnología verdaderamente aportaciones específicas en el campo de la evaluación de los aprendizajes o se trata de una mera copia de la evaluación que se realiza en las aulas presenciales? Si las hubiere, estas aportaciones ¿facilitan o entorpecen el proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje o simplemente se trata de un formato distinto y acorde al contexto virtual de educación?

No abstract

Though the concept of time is fuzzily defined in education, it embraces many key teaching and learning aspects of the educational situation from scheduling (at the macro, meso, and micro level) through certification (i.e., credit requirements). It is also one of the determining factors within institutions for distance learning where education is almost always time and place independent and where learners and/or institutions make use of online and/or e-learning. Strangely, while these temporal aspects of teaching and learning are extremely important, the time-factor has not received much attention in educational research. This is especially strange since ''lack of time'' and ''out of sync'' are two of the most common complaints heard from learners in online educational settings. Thus, educational practice misses adequate research on an important aspect that can improve education/learning in general and online/e-learning in particular. To better understand how research deals with ''time'' as a factor in learning and education, a systematic literature analysis of articles relating to ''time'' was carried out in a high-impact SSCI journal on education and educational technology. A total of 966 articles across a period of 11 years was analyzed for the presence of ''time'' as a factor in the research published. The most important result of this literature analysis was that ''time'' played almost no role as a variable in research on education and educational technology.

Connectivist learning is interaction-centered learning. A framework describing interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning was constructed using logical reasoning techniques. The framework and analysis was designed to help researchers and learning designers understand and adapt the characteristics and principles of interaction in connectivist learning contexts. In this study empirical evidence to support and further develop this framework is presented. This study analyzed 6 weeks of data harvested from the daily newsletter, Twitter, and a Facebook group in a wellknown cMOOC led by George Siemens and Stephen Downes. These text transcripts were analyzed using a deductive approach of qualitative content analysis. This study revealed the main activity patterns of participants as they engage in four levels of interaction (operation interaction, wayfinding interaction, sensemaking interaction, and innovation interaction) during the MOOC. Generally the framework serves as a conceptual model to understand and to analyze the interaction in this cMOOC, although some implied interaction is hard to recognize and categorize. The relationship of the four levels of interaction and the role of each element in the framework were explored with the intent of offering the framework as a conceptual and analytic tool to guide both researchers and practitioners in designing and studying connectivist learning.

This article explores the quality of the online learning experience based on the Sloan-C framework and the Online Learning Consortium's (OLC) quality scorecard. The OLC index has been implemented to evaluate quality in online programs from different perspectives. Despite this, the opinions of learners are ignored, and it is built using feedback from experts and panelists while ignoring the factors that teachers consider important during their lectures. We propose an alternative way of measuring the quality of online learning programs by analyzing the satisfaction of the learning experience and using teachers and students' perceptions. The 11 categories composing the index were weighted in the teacher and student indices using principal component analysis, and finally these two indices were linearly combined with a parameter that defines the importance of each body. Findings show that while teachers perceive collaborative learning variables as crucial, learners are more concerned with their own learning benefits.