Information and Knowledge Management using ArcGIS ModelBuilder

Yuwanuch Gulatee and Barbara Combes
Figure 1: Cyber university interface
Our virtual interface could be multi-layered and include a number of ‘rooms’. A virtual office could be
created where a lecturer and student could conduct a one-to-one, private meeting by appointment.
They could use real time text, audio, video chat and an online whiteboard. Such interaction between
staff and students can provide that real time interaction currently missing from the eLearning
experienced by most students. Students could also do private study sessions and group work or
participate in social events online with their avatars. A virtual classroom where the lecturer has control
of the learning environment could be used to conduct classes, while a conference room where
students can form discussion groups and conduct group work places the control of the learning,
motivation and activity back into the hands of the learners. The Time Machine is a room for students
who miss the class and would like to replay the whole class which has been recorded.
Taking the positive aspects of virtual worlds technologies and embedding these into traditional LMS
eLearning environments to create a bridge between the virtual and real classroom may help us to
create more engaging online learning. Motivation, isolation and a lack of feeling part of a learning
community have been identified as major impediments to success at university and as issues for
student retention and completion of eLearning programs. Combining the two to create a simple, yet
effective interactive interface that will engage students and create a real, identifiable learning ‘space’,
is one way to make eLearning more attractive to students who value the teacher-learner dynamic that
is a feature of the traditional classroom. Such an environment is only restricted by the imagination of
the participants. Welcome to Cyber University!
References
Aldrich, C. 2009. Learning Online with Games, Simulations, and Virtual Worlds: Strategies for Online Instruction.
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Alexander, S. 2001. E-learning developments and experiences. Education Training, 43, 240-248.
Allen, E. and Seaman, J. 2007. Online Nation: Five Years Growth in Online Learning. Sloan Consortium, USA.
Amelung, C. 2007. Using social context and e-learner identity as a framework for an e-Learning notification
system. International Journal on ELearning, 6, 4, 501-517.
Anderson, K., Clayden, J., Combes, B., Ring, J. and Williams, T. 2005. Out of the frying pan and into the spa:
Developing an online learning community and culture. Pacific Asian Education: A Journal about Education
in Pacific Circle Countries, 17, 1, 44-53.
Baatard, G. 2008. GroupShare - Designing an awareness rich online groupware system. Paper presented at the
2008 International Conference on e-Learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and e-
Government (EEE'08), Las Vegas, Nevada.
Beder, S. 1998. Addressing the Issues of Social and Academic Integration for First Year Students: A Discussion
Paper. RMIT University, Melbourne.
Brenner, M., Brown, J., and Canter, D. 1985. The Research Interview Uses and Approaches. Academic Press,
Orlando, Florida
Brown, J. 2006. An Exploration of Student Performance, Utilisation and Attitude to the Use of a Controlled
Sequencing Web Based Learning Environment. Edith Cowan University, Western Australia.
Combes, B. 2007. The search for information and the Net Generation. Cyberspace, D-world, E-learning: Giving
libraries and schools the cutting edge. The 2007 IASL Conference, National Taiwan Normal University,
Taipei, Taiwan, 16-20 July 2007.
Combes, B., and Anderson, K. 2006. Supporting first year e-learners in courses for the Information professions.
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science (JELIS), 47,4, 259-276.
171