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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Q.2 Q.n … ~ Q.13 F g 13 13 ~ Q.14 F g 14 14 ~ Q.21 F g 21 21 ~ Q.22 F g 22 22 ~ Q.23 F g 23 23 ~ Q.24 F g 24 24 … … ~ Q.n1 F g n1 n1 ~ Q.n2 F g n2 n2 ~ Q.n3 F g n3 n3 ~ Q.n4 F g n4 n4 … Total mark = In the generalized vague grade sheet shown in Table 9, each question Q.i consists of four sub-questions, i.e., Q.i1, Q.i2, Q.i3 and Q.i4. For all j = 1, 2, 3, 4 and for all i, gij is the derived letter grade by the proposed vague evaluation method VEM of the awarded vague mark F ij ~ with respect to the sub-question Q.ij, and mi is the derived mark awarded to the question Q.i, 1 4 mi = × T (Q.i) × ~ ∑ [ K ( gij ) × H ( w, Fij)], (13) 400 j= 1 and n ∑ i= 1 Total Mark = m . i where T(Q.i) denotes the mark allotted to Q.i in the question paper, gij denotes the derived letter grade awarded to Q.i, and K(gij) denotes the derived grade-point of the letter grade gij based on the index of optimism λ determined by the evaluator, whereλ ∈[0, 1], H(W ~ , ij F~ ) is the maximum value among the values of H( E ~ , ij F~ ), H(V ~ , ij F~ ), H(G ~ , ij F~ ), H( S ~ , ij F~ ) and H(U ~ , ij F~ ), W ~ ∈{ E ~ ,V ~ ,G ~ , S ~ ,U ~ }, such that the derived letter grade awarded to the question Q.ij is gij, 1 ≤ j ≤ 4, and 1 ≤ i ≤ n. If 0 ≤λ < 0.5, then the evaluator is a pessimistic evaluator. Ifλ = 0.5, then the evaluator is a normal evaluator. If 0.5
Q.2 carries 25 marks, Q.3 carries 25 marks, Q.4 carries 30 marks. Assume that the index of optimismλ of the evaluator is 0.60 (i.e., λ = 0.60). The evaluator uses Biswas’ method (1995) and the proposed method to evaluate the student’s answerscript on different days, respectively. The results are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, respectively. A comparison of the evaluating results of the student’s answerscript is shown in Table <strong>10</strong>. From Table <strong>10</strong>, we can see that the proposed method is more stable to evaluate students’ answerscripts than Biswas’ method (1995). It can evaluate students’ answerscripts in a more flexible and more intelligent manner. July 1, 2006 Question No. Satisfaction Levels Grade Q.1 0 0 0 0.6 0.9 0.8 Q.2 0 0 0.6 0.9 0.8 0 Q.3 0 0 0 0.6 0.8 0.9 Q.4 0 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.2 0 Total Mark = July 2, 2006 Question No. Satisfaction Levels Grade Q.1 0 0 0 0.8 0.9 1 Q.2 0 0 0.7 0.8 0.9 0 Q.3 0 0 0 0.7 0.9 0.8 Q.4 0 0.5 0.8 0.7 0 0 Total Mark = July 3, 2006 Question No. Satisfaction Levels Grade Q.1 0 0 0 0.6 0.9 0.7 Q.2 0 0 0.6 0.8 0.7 0 Q.3 0 0 0 0.5 0.7 0.9 Q.4 0 0.5 0.8 0.6 0 0 Total Mark = July 4, 2006 Question No. Satisfaction Levels Grade Q.1 0 0 0 0.6 0.8 0.7 Q.2 0 0 0.5 0.9 0.7 0 Q.3 0 0 0 0.7 0.9 0.8 Q.4 0 0.6 0.9 0.7 0 0 Total Mark = Figure 2. Evaluating the student’s answerscript at different days using Biswas’ method (1995) July 1, 2006 Question No. Vague marks Grade Q.1 [0, 0] [0, 0] [0, 0] [0.6, 0.7] [0.8, 0.9] [0.8, 0.9] Q.2 [0, 0] [0, 0] [0.6, 0.7] [0.8, 0.9] [0.8, 0.9] [0, 0] Q.3 [0, 0] [0, 0] [0, 0] [0.6, 0.7] [0.8, 0.9] [0.8, 0.9] Q.4 [0, 0] [0.5, 0.6] [0.8, 0.9] [0.7, 0.8] [0.1, 0.2] [0, 0] Total mark = July 2, 2006 Question No. Vague marks Grade 238
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 and 158:
Figure 4. Learning Shell showing He
Page 159 and 160:
engineering the Learning Shell so i
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: By applying Eq. (7), we can get the
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?