Views
5 years ago

July 2012 Volume 15 Number 3

July 2012 Volume 15 Number 3

July 2012 Volume 15 Number

July 2012 Volume 15 Number 3

  • Page 2 and 3: Educational Technology & Society An
  • Page 4 and 5: Journal of Educational Technology &
  • Page 6 and 7: Siemens, G., & Gasevic, D. (2012).
  • Page 8 and 9: Buckingham Shum, S., & Ferguson, R.
  • Page 10 and 11: Clearly, this encapsulates strands
  • Page 12 and 13: usinesses with physical products) a
  • Page 14 and 15: Social learning adds an important d
  • Page 16 and 17: Disposition Analytics—intrinsic m
  • Page 18 and 19: A different approach to seeking to
  • Page 20 and 21: Disposition analysis tools The ELLI
  • Page 22 and 23: interaction, an individual’s repu
  • Page 24 and 25: what is being measured, and who has
  • Page 26 and 27: The role of educational institution
  • Page 28 and 29: Drachsler, H., Hummel, H. G. K., &
  • Page 30 and 31: Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein
  • Page 32 and 33: Hung, J.-L., Hsu, Y.-C., & Rice, K.
  • Page 34 and 35: Program evaluation framework Figure
  • Page 36 and 37: Analytic tools SAS Enterprise Miner
  • Page 38 and 39: Social Studies 4,740.92 235.97 20.0
  • Page 40 and 41: Predictive analysis CRT Decision Tr
  • Page 42 and 43: Satisfaction prediction Decision tr
  • Page 44 and 45: These indicators can be applied to
  • Page 46 and 47: Hartigan, J.A., & Wong, M.A. (1979)
  • Page 48 and 49: obsolete, but it will greatly enhan
  • Page 50 and 51: The six dimensions of the proposed
  • Page 52 and 53:

    Teachers can be provided with cours

  • Page 54 and 55:

    Despite these pioneering activities

  • Page 56 and 57:

    with educational performance data,

  • Page 58 and 59:

    “outliers” of mainstream models

  • Page 60 and 61:

    Decisions based on LA are of concer

  • Page 62 and 63:

    Stamper, J. (2011). EDM and the 4th

  • Page 64 and 65:

    It is a current goal at RWTH Aachen

  • Page 66 and 67:

    interpret the information represent

  • Page 68 and 69:

    (1370, 338, 220, and 38 registered

  • Page 70 and 71:

    certain property in a course. The f

  • Page 72 and 73:

    Figure 7. Indicator “Forum usage

  • Page 74 and 75:

    database, while the visualizer comp

  • Page 76 and 77:

    To evaluate if all requirements are

  • Page 78 and 79:

    Lately, several research projects s

  • Page 80 and 81:

    Fritz, J. (2011). Classroom walls t

  • Page 82 and 83:

    Abdous, M., He, W., & Yen, C.-J. (2

  • Page 84 and 85:

    work. In a similar study, Sun, Chen

  • Page 86 and 87:

    class. At the receiving end (i.e.,

  • Page 88 and 89:

    Due to the ordinal nature of the fi

  • Page 90 and 91:

    Table 5. Ordinal logistic model wit

  • Page 92 and 93:

    Burr, L., & Spennemann, D. H. R. (2

  • Page 94 and 95:

    Kim, M., & Lee, E. (2012). A Multid

  • Page 96 and 97:

    metacognitive. Other widely-used fr

  • Page 98 and 99:

    such, network analysis can clearly

  • Page 100 and 101:

    those of the other student pairs. I

  • Page 102 and 103:

    According to the results of the SNA

  • Page 104 and 105:

    Conclusion and implications Existin

  • Page 106 and 107:

    CSCL community. Computers & Educati

  • Page 108 and 109:

    Xu, B., & Recker, M. (2012). Teachi

  • Page 110 and 111:

    of navigation events, where each ev

  • Page 112 and 113:

    Results Figure 1. Screenshot of a t

  • Page 114 and 115:

    The next section describes how LCA

  • Page 116 and 117:

    Cluster 3: Inactive islanders (N=12

  • Page 118 and 119:

    were more comfortable with technolo

  • Page 120 and 121:

    Wang, W., Weng, J., Su, J., & Tseng

  • Page 122 and 123:

    1992), co-construction of understan

  • Page 124 and 125:

    epresentation formats, knowledge ne

  • Page 126 and 127:

    Secondly, code and segment informat

  • Page 128 and 129:

    characteristics of targeting knowle

  • Page 130 and 131:

    Finding the K- Shortest Path Adjace

  • Page 132 and 133:

    H3 assumed that the average path le

  • Page 134 and 135:

    The IIS-map-based analysis method r

  • Page 136 and 137:

    Yang, K. Ch. (2010b). An Empirical

  • Page 138 and 139:

    Verbert, K., Manouselis, N., Drachs

  • Page 140 and 141:

    possible. The Australian National D

  • Page 142 and 143:

    Table 1. Overview dataset propertie

  • Page 144 and 145:

    Datasets for Learning and Knowledge

  • Page 146 and 147:

    calculate the difference of estimat

  • Page 148 and 149:

    Enhancing social learning environme

  • Page 150 and 151:

    Scheffel et al. (2011) used the UC3

  • Page 152 and 153:

    Ciekanski, M., & Chanier, T. (2008)

  • Page 154 and 155:

    Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (201

  • Page 156 and 157:

    Employing e-learning analytics to u

  • Page 158 and 159:

    Based on institutional staffing and

  • Page 160 and 161:

    To explore the nature of actual lea

  • Page 162 and 163:

    This categorization offers a useful

  • Page 164 and 165:

    institution as a whole appears to b

  • Page 166 and 167:

    faculty democracy is not welcome. S

  • Page 168 and 169:

    Patrick, C., & Gaële, G. (2007). E

  • Page 170 and 171:

    has been little empirical research

  • Page 172 and 173:

    addition, like the study by Järven

  • Page 174 and 175:

    Figure 1E. Frequency of pairing ver

  • Page 176 and 177:

    in their final project. Members fel

  • Page 178 and 179:

    power and leadership) eradicates th

  • Page 180 and 181:

    An important limitation of our stud

  • Page 182 and 183:

    Tao, Y.-H., Cheng, C.-J., & Sun, S.

  • Page 184 and 185:

    Figure 1 presents hypotheses H1 to

  • Page 186 and 187:

    equirements of the course (56.2 per

  • Page 188 and 189:

    Comparative model verification To p

  • Page 190 and 191:

    Figure 2. Teacher’s continuance u

  • Page 192 and 193:

    Atchariyachanvanich, K., Okada, H.,

  • Page 194 and 195:

    performance. Journal of Education f

  • Page 196 and 197:

    (Mills & Cottell, 1998) and that th

  • Page 198 and 199:

    necessary to investigate whether th

  • Page 200 and 201:

    The core text, the study guide, now

  • Page 202 and 203:

    Regarding the explanations by the l

  • Page 204 and 205:

    average M-score of the students and

  • Page 206 and 207:

    Mansell, R., & When, U. (1998). Kno

  • Page 208 and 209:

    ased learning, a well-designed syst

  • Page 210 and 211:

    goal, learners need to have a stron

  • Page 212 and 213:

    Criteria Vision Action Thinking in

  • Page 214 and 215:

    Dimension 10.Sharing of achievement

  • Page 216 and 217:

    For future study suggestions, there

  • Page 218 and 219:

    Shen, L.,Wang, M., & Shen, R. (2009

  • Page 220 and 221:

    E-learning 2.0 The main characteris

  • Page 222 and 223:

    5. Post-test stage (Steps 18~21): I

  • Page 224 and 225:

    difficulty and learner ability, and

  • Page 226 and 227:

    scores in the three groups are not

  • Page 228 and 229:

    Analysis of learner abilities and m

  • Page 230 and 231:

    Hambleton, R. K. (1985). Item Respo

  • Page 232 and 233:

    1. Learning cannot be separated fro

  • Page 234 and 235:

    learning trend are combined as the

  • Page 236 and 237:

    Computing center of attraction The

  • Page 238 and 239:

    distance with , is not yet paired

  • Page 240 and 241:

    Figure 8 presents the box plot for

  • Page 242 and 243:

    176-180). New York, NY: ACM. Hansen

  • Page 244 and 245:

    Figure 9 reveals the communication

  • Page 246 and 247:

    showed that DGBL is ineffective esp

  • Page 248 and 249:

    Figure 2. A quiz station in Super D

  • Page 250 and 251:

    so she solved the quizzes by trial-

  • Page 252 and 253:

    effectiveness of knowledge acquisit

  • Page 254 and 255:

    knowledge acquisition in DGBL is no

  • Page 256 and 257:

    Flores, R., Ari, F., Inan, F. A., &

  • Page 258 and 259:

    What were students’ perceptions o

  • Page 260 and 261:

    Field testing instruments In the fi

  • Page 262 and 263:

    Summary of major findings The summa

  • Page 264 and 265:

    Brusilovsky, P., Karagiannidis, C.,

  • Page 266 and 267:

    Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Vollmann

  • Page 268 and 269:

    not meet the requirements of self-d

  • Page 270 and 271:

    Formally, a perspective W of an m-d

  • Page 272 and 273:

    P0 P3 P4 P6 P1 P5 P2 Figure 2. The

  • Page 274 and 275:

    choose another possible direction d

  • Page 276 and 277:

    Determining the first step First, t

  • Page 278 and 279:

    the learning space - affordances -

  • Page 280 and 281:

    AlAgha, I. (2012). KnowledgePuzzle:

  • Page 282 and 283:

    The KnowledgePuzzle tool In order t

  • Page 284 and 285:

    pages. Similarly, lists of inverse

  • Page 286 and 287:

    Stage 1: Navigation planning and mo

  • Page 288 and 289:

    consisted of six multiple choice qu

  • Page 290 and 291:

    The design of the KowledgePuzzle to

  • Page 292 and 293:

    Cockburn, A., & Greenberg, S. (2000

  • Page 294 and 295:

    other in an aesthetic way (the use

  • Page 296 and 297:

    In the right section the workspace,

  • Page 298 and 299:

    them, but not all of them are equal

  • Page 300 and 301:

    them to redefine their solutions an

  • Page 302 and 303:

    Kim, S., & Chang, M. (2010). Comput

  • Page 304 and 305:

    learners because of too many option

  • Page 306 and 307:

    The tutorials prepared for the tuto

  • Page 308 and 309:

    Chart 1. Cognitive load levels thro

  • Page 310 and 311:

    Student opinions were collected wit

  • Page 312 and 313:

    cognitive load levels of the groups

  • Page 314 and 315:

    Asan, A., & Haliloglu, Z. (2005). I

  • Page 316 and 317:

    students’ academic progression, (

  • Page 318 and 319:

    Participants Gender (Male, Female)

  • Page 320 and 321:

    Data collection instruments & measu

  • Page 322 and 323:

    Educational level of the students

  • Page 324 and 325:

    methods of instruction. Time spent

  • Page 326 and 327:

    Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P.,

  • Page 328 and 329:

    Pham, M. C., Derntl, M., & Klamma,

  • Page 330 and 331:

    components may either be found or t

  • Page 332 and 333:

    caused by the emergence of the gian

  • Page 334 and 335:

    publishing at those conferences alr

  • Page 336 and 337:

    certain extent, ICALT) clearly face

  • Page 338 and 339:

    fraction of recurring authors, but

  • Page 340 and 341:

    References Boyack, K.W., Börner, K

  • Page 342:

    perspective, the need for societal

January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...
July 2006 Volume 9 Number 3 - CiteSeerX
October 2012 Volume 15 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...
July 2011 Volume 14 Number 3 - Educational Technology & Society
July 2007 Volume 10 Number 3 - Educational Technology & Society
July 2010 Volume 13 Number 3 - Educational Technology & Society
April 2012 Volume 15 Number 2 - Educational Technology & Society
Issue Number 4 Volume 15 July 2011 - WPAG
Spring 1990, Volume 15, Number 3 - Association of Schools and ...
VOLUME THIRTY EIGHT NUMBER 3 July - September 2011
Volume 40, Number 3, 2012 Traditional, Project, Reggio ° Family ...
October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...
January2009 Volume 12 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...
Volume 15 Number 3 - Mahidol University
May - July 2005, Volume 3 Number 2 - STC SIGs
June | July | August 2008 Volume 32, Number 3 - Boston ...
Jan. 27, 2012, Volume 2, Number 15 - Faith Christian School
walkerana volume 15 number 1 march 2012 - FMCS-Freshwater ...
October 2009 Volume 12 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...
walkerana volume 15 number 1 march 2012 - FMCS-Freshwater ...
july 2013 // volume 15 number 2 www.angmissions.org.nz - Anglican ...
walkerana volume 15 number 1 march 2012 - FMCS-Freshwater ...
walkerana volume 15 number 1 march 2012 - FMCS-Freshwater ...
Volume 5 Number 2 July 2012 - DePaul University College of LAS
July/August 2012 Volume 17 Number 4 An Information ... - Local 17
Volume 16, Number 3 - N4trb.com
Summer 2012 Volume 15, Issue 3 - McCrone Healthbeat
April 2007 Volume 10 Number 2 - Educational Technology & Society