October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Technologically, the learning computer is distinguishable from either a LMS or a LCMS by its distributed functionality, asynchronous communications and integrated interface. But its most significant difference is that the distance students themselves, rather than the education providers, are the primary target users. An integrated, holistic approach is taken to e-learning in which the usability of the student’s overall computing environment is considered as important to successful learning outcomes as the learning content itself. The IMMEDIATE prototype is first and foremost a specialised learning environment in which network and education provider features are designed as support services rather than as authoring, teaching or course administration productivity tools. It demonstrates the potential for specialised computing environments to address usability concerns resulting from the increasing complexity of general purpose systems as they encompass more and more functions and features. IMMEDIATE models the forms in which learning will be delivered, while leaving most content to be authored separately or picked up from reusable learning repositories. The learning interface is assembled from reusable learning components, an extension of the drag and drop components of visual programming tools like Delphi or Visual Studio. Learning components differ from reusable software components (controls) in that they encapsulate a specific learning domain task rather than a more generally-applicable software feature. They differ from reusable learning objects in that they implement the form in which the content will be displayed rather than the content of a learning module. The learning components are the centrepiece of a modular construction which supports reuse on three levels – the student (multiple courses), the teacher (reusable learning materials), and the software engineer (reusable code). By combining an emphasis on interface design − especially user-centred adaptable and collaborative strategies − with an emphasis on e-learning as an extension of the human teacher and the university, the framework for an integrated, individualised, multi-dimensional, easy-to-use learning environment has been laid. This supports the findings of Murray et al. (2000) that “good interface design and passive but powerful user features can sometimes provide the benefits that are ascribed to more sophisticated or intelligent features” (para. 41). The learning computer concept is also distinct in that it draws upon the ubiquitous (embedded) computing approach to e-learning (Bork, 2001; Hoppe et al, 2000). The object is to so seamlessly embed the computer functionality into the learning domain – by taking into account the total context including hardware, software and human factors – that the computer will vanish for the learner. We are trying to enhance and extend the university learning environment rather than create an alternative virtual one. The Learning Shell uses specialised software to embed the computer in the learning environment in the form of a graphical user shell over the most widely-used family of operating systems, Microsoft Windows. In this way we implement a “what” interface centred upon the task in the user’s domain rather than a “how” interface focussed upon the computing mechanisms for achieving that task. This addresses a long-recognised challenge for simplifying and improving the usability of computer systems, as discussed in Gentner and Grudin (1990). The next challenge is to extend this approach to support special-purpose hardware, cross-platform functionality and mobile computing. Ongoing Work Research is proceeding along two axes: evaluating IMMEDIATE in an actual distance learning course, and reengineering the prototype to support mobile learning and low-cost hardware. Preparations are underway to trial a further-refined learning computer in the distance teaching at the university level of Maori and English as second languages. The trials provide opportunities to evaluate its pedagogical effectiveness with a particular emphasis on assessing the learning support and search facilities. They also provide opportunities for refining and testing IMMEDIATE's course authoring and management tool. IMMEDIATE implements the learning computer as an application that is installed on top of the Windows operating system on a specific computer. However, its anybody, anywhere, anytime goal would be better met if students were not confined to using their own computer but could use any available one. As a first step in this direction we are re- 153
engineering the Learning Shell so it can be installed on and run from a plug-in flash-memory device as a mobile learning computer. Another possibility is to re-engineer the Learning Shell to run as a specialised user shell on top of a Linux kernel. While a Linux version offers the advantages of a cleaner and leaner implementation with lower system speed, memory and storage requirements, it carries a much greater programming overhead. All the rich interface functionality of the learning computer would have to be built from much more basic building blocks than in a Windows development environment like Delphi. As a medium-term goal, we are exploring the feasibility of implementing a Linux version along two lines: • As a low-cost single-purpose computer. Potentially, a Linux-based learning computer could be built from recycled PCs and components and distributed cheaply to students. Around the world millions of computers are scrapped as obsolete each year, many of which could be reclaimed for this purpose (ERG, 2006). • As a self-booting, cross-platform, portable device that can be plugged into any PC to temporarily convert it into a specialised learning computer. This offers a way for a learner to take full advantage of the learning computer approach, while sharing a computer with other household members and other tasks, or while studying from different locations. Black Dog (LinuxDevices, 2005) is an example of a portable self-booting device for running Linux-based software in a Windows environment. Reaching out to the many millions of potential e-learners beyond the ambit of current web technology is one of the biggest challenges and opportunities in computing today. References Attewell, J. (2004). Mobile technologies and learning. A technology update and m-learning project summary, London: Learning and Skills Development Agency. Bindé, J. (2005). Towards Knowledge Societies, Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Bork, A. (2001). Tutorial Learning for the New Century. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10 (1), 57- 71. Brandon Hall (2005). LMSs and LCMSs Demystified, retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.cedmaeurope.org/newsletter%20articles/Brandon%20Hall/LMSs%20and%20LCMSs%20Demystified.pdf. Comer, D. E. (1999). Computer Networks and Internets (2 nd Ed.), New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Dietinger, T., & Maurer, H. (1998). GENTLE - (GEneral Networked Training and Learning Environment). In T. Ottmann, T. & I Tomek (Eds.), ED--Media/ED--Telecom`98, Charlottesville, VA: AACE, 358-364. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., & Beale R. (1993). Human Computer Interaction, Prentice Hall. Education Review (2004). UK e-university ”fiasco”. Education Review, March 31-April 6, 2004, reprinted in EXMSS Off Campus, June 2004. ERG (2006). Electronic Waste, E-waste Research Group, Griffith University, Queensland, retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.griffith.edu.au/engineering-information-technology/electronic-waste. Gentner D. R., & Grudin, J. (1990). Why Engineers (Sometimes) Create Bad Interfaces. In Carrasco Chew, J. & Whiteside, J. (Eds.), CHI'90 Proceedings, New York: ACM, 277-282. Goldberg, M. (1997). Communication and Collaboration Tools in WebCT. Paper presented at the Conference on Enabling Network-Based Learning, May 28-30, 1997, Espoo, Finland. Hope, W. (2002). Evidence of Unequal Access. NZ Infotech, 530. 154
Page 1 and 2:
October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4
Page 3 and 4:
Abstracting and Indexing Educationa
Page 5 and 6:
The Relationship of Kolb Learning S
Page 7 and 8:
a question about learning together
Page 9 and 10:
affordances of networked learning s
Page 11 and 12:
included a unit on collaborative le
Page 13 and 14:
on at different times and work indi
Page 15 and 16:
• the numerous evaluation studies
Page 17 and 18:
wanted to work. The same inquiry pr
Page 19 and 20:
usability studies have a place in t
Page 21 and 22:
Milrad, M., & Jackskon, M. (2007).
Page 23 and 24:
information- and communication tech
Page 25 and 26:
Interactive Examination, the studen
Page 27 and 28:
Table 1. Criteria for grading OD st
Page 29 and 30:
content. Differences in the attitud
Page 31 and 32:
Even though further research on the
Page 33 and 34:
Olofsson, A. D. (2007). Participati
Page 35 and 36:
Etzioni (1993) points out that an i
Page 37 and 38:
programme. They are rather construc
Page 39 and 40:
to be that each individual trainee
Page 41 and 42:
Bernmark-Ottosson, A. (2005). Demok
Page 43 and 44:
The Knowledge Foundation (2005). IT
Page 45 and 46:
Figure 1. Design Theories in contex
Page 47 and 48:
attention as we frequently discuss
Page 49 and 50:
Blog Reflection This design concept
Page 51 and 52:
Narrative Structure (Form) Content
Page 53 and 54:
Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (200
Page 55 and 56:
critique, neither do the single ind
Page 57 and 58:
suggested by Ljungberg (1999b) we c
Page 59 and 60:
the del.icio.us site (see figure 3)
Page 61 and 62:
Device cultures It is not only the
Page 63 and 64:
uilt using a camera-equipped PDA ru
Page 65 and 66:
Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L.,
Page 67 and 68:
Milrad, M., & Spikol, D. (2007). An
Page 69 and 70:
components to be able to deal with
Page 71 and 72:
compulsory throughout the project.
Page 73 and 74:
only with their existing day-today
Page 75 and 76:
As our work continues, we will try
Page 77 and 78:
cognition as well as self-regulated
Page 79 and 80:
Mobile mind map tool for stimulatin
Page 81 and 82:
the pictorial knowledge representat
Page 83 and 84:
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (19
Page 85 and 86:
Al-A'ali, M. (2007). Implementation
Page 87 and 88:
complex cognitive skills involve em
Page 89 and 90:
Table 1. CAT and a linear mathemati
Page 91 and 92:
It is agreed that the difficulty le
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 7. Our newly added factors i
Page 95 and 96:
question factors according to IRT;
Page 97 and 98:
Instructure 1 Login User-ID Passwor
Page 99 and 100:
Shute, V., & Towle, B. (2003). Adap
Page 101 and 102:
distinguish between partial knowled
Page 103 and 104:
esponse is identified, then the sco
Page 105 and 106:
are stored in the answer record and
Page 107 and 108: 2 (7) MNSQ = ∑WniZ ni ∑ Wni =
Page 109 and 110: in the course. A randomized block d
Page 111 and 112: To test whether ET can effectively
Page 113 and 114: course, more comparison tests could
Page 115 and 116: Fleischmann, K. R. (2007). Standard
Page 117 and 118: educational standards in practice t
Page 119 and 120: laboratory activities, which are bu
Page 121 and 122: process is currently a largely top-
Page 123 and 124: Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K., & Hwang, F.-
Page 125 and 126: evolution with computing technology
Page 127 and 128: Resources 0.55 0.72 e17 In my schoo
Page 129 and 130: teachers’ instructional evolution
Page 131 and 132: Regression models indicating relati
Page 133 and 134: of beliefs about integrating comput
Page 135 and 136: Sinko, M., & Lehtinen, E. (1999). T
Page 137 and 138: concept of social support. Lastly,
Page 139 and 140: Procedure Content analysis procedur
Page 141 and 142: and mice are out of order. I have t
Page 143 and 144: feature of supportive online groups
Page 145 and 146: Anderson, J., & Lee, A. (1995). Lit
Page 147 and 148: Schwab, R. L., Jackson, S. E., & Sc
Page 149 and 150: Investigating the problem An extens
Page 151 and 152: meets the anywhere, anytime require
Page 153 and 154: minimise housekeeping tasks and fre
Page 155 and 156: 3. Join Group Discussion 4. Attend
Page 157: Figure 4. Learning Shell showing He
Page 161 and 162: Olfos, R., & Zulantay, H. (2007). R
Page 163 and 164: portion of CourseInfo requires that
Page 165 and 166: Table 2. Assignment evaluation resp
Page 167 and 168: E-3c. Likert scale on usability: Th
Page 169 and 170: organized in four groups, namely: T
Page 171 and 172: The correlations were not high enou
Page 173 and 174: Data illustrate some reliability an
Page 175 and 176: nature, some specific core objectiv
Page 177 and 178: Frederiksen, J.R., & Collins, A. (1
Page 179 and 180: Bottino, R. M., & Robotti, E. (2007
Page 181 and 182: The Text Editor allows the editing
Page 183 and 184: Mathematical content and structure
Page 185 and 186: Consolidation exercises Solution co
Page 187 and 188: As to course components, the activi
Page 189 and 190: handle more formal representations
Page 191 and 192: Lagrange, J. B., Artigue, M., Labor
Page 193 and 194: processed information was classifie
Page 195 and 196: Method Participants The participant
Page 197 and 198: Table 5. Learning outcomes of diffe
Page 199 and 200: peers and benefited most from discu
Page 201 and 202: Kayes, D.C. (2005). Internal validi
Page 203 and 204: This paper considers the potential
Page 205 and 206: The first assumption ensures that c
Page 207 and 208: allowed to rise when external fundi
Page 209 and 210:
The second option, lowering the cos
Page 211 and 212:
Downes, S. (2003). Design and Reusa
Page 213 and 214:
Appendix A. Good-enough approaches
Page 215 and 216:
Rapid Prototyping and Design Based
Page 217 and 218:
Initial Design Because the field-ba
Page 219 and 220:
• reducing the number of required
Page 221 and 222:
that they felt this hindrance; I fe
Page 223 and 224:
goals” (Edelson, 2002, p. 114) wa
Page 225 and 226:
more and more from the periphery of
Page 227 and 228:
Edelson, M. (1988). The hermeneutic
Page 229 and 230:
Wang, H.-Y., & Chen, S. M. (2007).
Page 231 and 232:
If the universe of discourse U is a
Page 233 and 234:
we can see that S( X ) − S( Y ) S
Page 235 and 236:
Example 1: Let Ã and B ~ be two va
Page 237 and 238:
columns shown in Table 2, where 1
Page 239 and 240:
(3) Find the maximum value among th
Page 241 and 242:
By applying Eq. (7), we can get the
Page 243 and 244:
Q.2 carries 25 marks, Q.3 carries 2
Page 245 and 246:
the proposed methods can evaluate s
Page 247 and 248:
Gogoulou, A., Gouli, E., Grigoriado
Page 249 and 250:
enabling learner (subject) to work
Page 251 and 252:
• Self-, Peer- and Collaborative-
Page 253 and 254:
(iii) Regulates the communication:
Page 255 and 256:
Figure 3. A screen shot of the SCAL
Page 257 and 258:
2 nd study: Thirty-five students pa
Page 259 and 260:
them characterized it as time and e
Page 261 and 262:
Soller, A. (2001). Supporting Socia
Page 263 and 264:
making reference to the others wher
Page 265 and 266:
Solution 2.2: Deliberately select h
Page 267 and 268:
just near a deadline, when it may b
Page 269 and 270:
assessed on an individual basis. Wi
Page 271 and 272:
- and even appreciated - by student
Page 273 and 274:
Panitz, T., & Panitz, P. (1998). En
Page 275 and 276:
Concept Mapping Concept mapping by
Page 277 and 278:
Research Questions In order to dete
Page 279 and 280:
with their teacher but rather than
Page 281 and 282:
Tukey’s HSD post hoc test reveale
Page 283 and 284:
collaboratively during study time?
Page 285 and 286:
Jegede, O.J., Alaiyemola, F.F., & O
Page 287 and 288:
esources. The use of synchronous te
Page 289 and 290:
The use of digital communication mo
Page 291 and 292:
contributed more information and en
Page 293 and 294:
3. Use the second screen for the le
Page 295 and 296:
• Use drawing to develop writing
Page 297 and 298:
student and teacher on the synchron
Page 299 and 300:
Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-
Page 301 and 302:
Cases The first set of ten case stu
Page 303 and 304:
Kılıçkaya, F. (2007). Website re
show all

October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?