October 2011 Volume 14 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

a fit arg max K ayE E arg max ayE E fitness ( a ) R( a , a ) ( 1 ) A( l ) D( a ) x y y z y where, E is the collection of articles; E' is the collection of the articles read completely; Kfitness( ) is the evaluation function of the suitability of the reading materials, is the weighting of the evaluation parameter. Experiment Design This study evaluates the students of three classes in the freshman year of a university. Each class is defined as one group for the evaluation. Three groups, which are group P (Paper), group R (Reading), and group G (Guidance), are established. The students of group P learn from paper-based materials and do not access any support of the learning system. The teaching is in the form of traditional lectures in the classroom. Both group R and group G use the Ubiquitous English-Reading Learning System, with the only difference that group G has additional assistance from the personalized reading guidance mechanism. The experiment was designed to compare the learning effectiveness of these three groups and to evaluate whether the system can enhance learning motives, interests, and a sense of participation. The benchmark was the reading materials centering on the situation of restaurants and shops. The goal was to assess the differences in learning effectiveness of the traditional classroom approach, the u-learning system, and the u-learning system combined with the reading guidance mechanism. We attempted to understand if the learning performance of learners with the reading guidance mechanism (group G) proposed by this study was higher than that of other two groups (group R & group P). Did learners who adopted the English learning system (group R & group G) exhibit higher learning performance than those who adopted conventional learning methods (Group P)? All learning content was identical and came from the same Learning Material Database. Participants The research participants are the freshman students learning English in a university in Taiwan. There are a total of 113 students from the selected three classes. One class consists of 36 students (22 males and <strong>14</strong> females), another class 39 students (23 males and 16 females), the third class 38 students (22 males and 16 females). The teacher is very interested in the application of technologies into English-language teaching and grasping the learning status of students, thus is cooperative in this experiment. Procedure In this experiment, there are 18 weeks each semester for the English-language curriculum, with two classes per week. The 9 th and 18 th weeks are dedicated to the mid-term and final exams, respectively. From the 1 st to the 8 th week, traditional lecturers are given with teachers explaining the basis of contexts and grammar. A pre-test is performed in the 9 th week, to assess the level of familiarity of each student. From the 10 th to the 17 th week, the experimental teaching is given. To ensure that both the teacher and students are familiar with the learning flows and the operations of the system devices, an orientation on the learning flows and the device instructions is held in the 10 th week. From the 11 th week onward, group P studies the reading materials in the conventional manner; whereas group R and group G begin to use the mobile devices equipped with WiFi and RFID components and the proposed Ubiquitous English-Reading Learning System for English reading (Figure 5). In the seven weeks of experimental learning, the teacher arranges a feedback session in the <strong>14</strong> th week. Based on the records and statistics shown on the back-end system and the responses from the students, the teacher corrects the behavior bias and cognitive mistakes of students to facilitate further learning. The experimental learning finishes at the end of 17 th week. The Learning Material Database at the backend contained roughly 40 articles for each campus situation. Each student was required to read at least 20 articles for the situation of restaurants and shops during the experiment. In the last week, i.e. the 18 th week, students take the final written examination (post-test) and fill in the questionnaire concerning the system acceptance. (24) 173
Limitations This experiment adopted the learning method that required high autonomy, which means participants were required to exhibit high autonomy and self-discipline during the experiment. Moreover, during the experiment the charge capacity of mobile devices was limited, and learners who were not familiar with the operation of the devices might suffer from crashing the system and difficulty of operation. In the article recommending guidance mechanism, this paper combined data of individual and group learning portfolios on the decision-making calculation of recommended guidance. The higher the frequency of recorded reading behaviors in the learning portfolios database, the more accurate the results are. Data Collection Pre-test and Post-test Scores Figure 5. The learning situation of restaurant Both the pre-test and the post-test are based on the questions designed by the teacher. The questions are about the location and surroundings of the situation of restaurants and shops. The teacher designs the questions also by referring to the teaching materials in the Learning Material Database. The questions are in the form of vocabulary explanations, blank fillings, sentence translation and reading comprehension. The test results indicate whether the proposed Ubiquitous English-Reading Learning System can help students to improve their English proficiency and understanding. Assessments are also made to gauge whether the reading guidance mechanism is beneficial to English learning. Survey on Suitability of Recommended Reading Materials After a student finishes reading each English-language article, the system automatically presents a questionnaire for the student to fill in replies concerning the level of difficulty and relevance of the article. The analysis aims to evaluate the suitability of the recommended reading materials to the students with and without access to the reading guidance mechanism. Questionnaire on System Acceptance The ease of use and practicality of the system will influence the intention of learners in using the system and hence their learning effectiveness (Davis, 1989). This study performs a questionnaire survey on the system acceptance to gather feedbacks for further designs and improvements. The questionnaire is designed based on the questionnaire developed by Davis (1989) and Harwick & Barki (1994). The measurement is based on the Likert 5-point scale. The criterion-related validity and construct validity are ensured with the assistance and correction from two experts. The 174
Page 1 and 2:
October 2011 Volume 14 Number 4
Page 3 and 4:
Supporting Organizations Centre for
Page 5 and 6:
Time-Quality Tradeoff of Waiting St
Page 7 and 8:
Ibáñez, M. B., García, J. J., Ga
Page 9 and 10:
Situated learning. It states that k
Page 11 and 12:
executed in the client, the server
Page 13 and 14:
The participants were twelve non-na
Page 15 and 16:
Huang, H. M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S.
Page 17 and 18:
Theoretical background Feedback, is
Page 19 and 20:
There are already a number of tools
Page 21 and 22:
output used were blogs, written by
Page 23 and 24:
Question Table 2: Perceived Relevan
Page 25 and 26:
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Dev
Page 27 and 28:
detection, and analysis of affectiv
Page 29 and 30:
experience is a suitable method of
Page 31 and 32:
Collins, 1998). The appraisal theor
Page 33 and 34:
encompasses the finer shades of an
Page 35 and 36:
and can also track faces with glass
Page 37 and 38:
Acknowledgements This research was
Page 39 and 40:
Merill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Traft
Page 41 and 42:
to the above-discussed issues of th
Page 43 and 44:
The annotation part of the SDM onto
Page 45 and 46:
that enables the office users to ac
Page 47 and 48:
Figure 4. Semantic document browser
Page 49 and 50:
to the group’s shared semantic do
Page 51 and 52:
participants performed less mouse c
Page 53 and 54:
Bastili, V.R., Gianluigi, C., & Rom
Page 55 and 56:
esource contribution, enabling conv
Page 57 and 58:
Semantic Search In contrast to the
Page 59 and 60:
Participation: P i i i NiVadd Vde
Page 61 and 62:
and comment on each page as well. T
Page 63 and 64:
Table 1. Questionnaire results (N=2
Page 65 and 66:
propose for him, as well as calenda
Page 67 and 68:
Discussion and Conclusion Collabora
Page 69 and 70:
Sampson, D. G., & Zervas, P. (2011)
Page 71 and 72:
Obtaining: the first step of the li
Page 73 and 74:
process (Palmer & Richardson, 2004)
Page 75 and 76:
and ratings (the use of star rating
Page 77 and 78:
(K1) is the number of non-reusable
Page 79 and 80:
Case 3: The process of reusing a se
Page 81 and 82:
Washizaki, H., Yamamoto, Y. & Fukaz
Page 83 and 84:
to examine determinants for pre-ser
Page 85 and 86:
Overview of the model The first res
Page 87 and 88:
significance of relationships. All
Page 89 and 90:
Discussion This study represents a
Page 91 and 92:
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw,
Page 93 and 94:
Ko, C.-C., Chiang, C.-H., Lin, Y.-L
Page 95 and 96:
Interestingly, the Universal Design
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 1. Framework of the TriAcces
Page 99 and 100:
Experiment This experiment aimed to
Page 101 and 102:
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for
Page 103 and 104:
Foulds, R., & Camacho, C. (2003). T
Page 105 and 106:
answer. However, students can choos
Page 107 and 108:
Hartley & Collins-Brown, 1999; Morl
Page 109 and 110:
Subjects Figure 4. Partial misconce
Page 111 and 112:
correct for a four-option MC item i
Page 113 and 114:
from −3 to 3 for any four-option
Page 115 and 116:
Kansup, W. (1973). A comparison of
Page 117 and 118:
The theory of mental models explain
Page 119 and 120:
computer-mediated counter-arguments
Page 121 and 122:
Learning in this study refers to, w
Page 123 and 124:
the experiment process was anonymou
Page 125 and 126:
supported. However, significant dif
Page 127 and 128: Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., &
Page 129 and 130: Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Hsu, C.
Page 131 and 132: Many researchers have conducted emp
Page 133 and 134: Trialability Some studies have empi
Page 135 and 136: Results Instrument validation Two c
Page 137 and 138: In this study, Amos 6.0 was employe
Page 139 and 140: Our results strongly supported the
Page 141 and 142: Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981
Page 143 and 144: Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., & Cres
Page 145 and 146: What becomes clear from this short
Page 147 and 148: Figure 1. Distribution of informati
Page 149 and 150: Results In order to test the hypoth
Page 151 and 152: esults of the present study with th
Page 153 and 154: Kolbitsch, J., & Maurer, H. (2006).
Page 155 and 156: A conceptual framework of this stud
Page 157 and 158: eveal positive effects on students
Page 159 and 160: learning resources; and able to acc
Page 161 and 162: Discussion This study suggests that
Page 163 and 164: 146). Also, role of constructivist
Page 165 and 166: eform strategy, namely, the MOE-Int
Page 167 and 168: McNaughton, S. (2002). Meeting of m
Page 169 and 170: Wu, T.-T., Sung, T.-W., Huang, Y.-M
Page 171 and 172: Ubiquitous English-Reading Learning
Page 173 and 174: include the number of times and ran
Page 175 and 176: initial value for the predetermined
Page 177: The following Eq. (18) expresses th
Page 181 and 182: Table 3 shows the analysis of the p
Page 183 and 184: enhance learning outcomes, it impor
Page 185 and 186: Ogata, H., & Yano, Y. (2004a). Cont
Page 187 and 188: Communication seems to be more effe
Page 189 and 190: the audience only listened, one whe
Page 191 and 192: Step 5) Writing the story On the ba
Page 193 and 194: As indicated in Table 2, the differ
Page 195 and 196: References Armstrong, S. (2003). Th
Page 197 and 198: Goh, T.-T. (2011). Exploring Gender
Page 199 and 200: OPAC has been transformed into AirP
Page 201 and 202: Perceived Self-Efficacy Figure 3. H
Page 203 and 204: were asked to rate their confidence
Page 205 and 206: (2001). The correlation table begin
Page 207 and 208: Discussion and Implications Note. S
Page 209 and 210: will become important to identify i
Page 211 and 212: Parker, A. (2007). SMS - Its use in
Page 213 and 214: Find the perimeter of the rectangle
Page 215 and 216: Wait Time Management Issues related
Page 217 and 218: Precision Reduced_Precision ( T T0
Page 219 and 220: learning concept. If the Specialty
Page 221 and 222: Two criteria have been adopted to e
Page 223 and 224: Reduced Recall 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04
Page 225 and 226: In this work, both recall-oriented
Page 227 and 228: Tsai, C.-C., Chuang, S.-C., Liang,
Page 229 and 230:
confidence and self-belief in their
Page 231 and 232:
Peng et al. (2006) To explore ISE &
Page 233 and 234:
Torkzadeh, Chang, and Demirhan (200
Page 235 and 236:
educational level, locus of control
Page 237 and 238:
Internet-based learning self-effica
Page 239 and 240:
Though Lee and Lee (2008) did not d
Page 241 and 242:
Regarding the category of ISE resea
Page 243 and 244:
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy:
Page 245 and 246:
Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V.
Page 247 and 248:
In formal learning, Safran, Helic,
Page 249 and 250:
that culture is essential when user
Page 251 and 252:
Table 3. Analysis of usage frequenc
Page 253 and 254:
7 1.16 137.73 0.25 0.29 0.25 Social
Page 255 and 256:
discussions freely. So Korean stude
Page 257 and 258:
Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R
Page 259 and 260:
Figure 1. The UE Faculty Web Portal
Page 261 and 262:
2006), and consistency (Sindhuja &
Page 263 and 264:
Independent Variables Dependent Var
Page 265 and 266:
Meanwhile, as shown in Table 4, Ava
Page 267 and 268:
design methods in the development o
Page 269 and 270:
Pearson, J. M., & Pearson, A. (2008
Page 271 and 272:
Clewley, N., Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X.
Page 273 and 274:
As shown in this Table, Holists wil
Page 275 and 276:
satisfaction or dissatisfaction wit
Page 277 and 278:
8 I would prefer to learn from huma
Page 279 and 280:
the examples need to be more practi
Page 281 and 282:
Brotherton, J. A,. & Abowd, G. D. (
Page 283 and 284:
Cobos, D. L. (2011). Book review: T
show all

October 2011 Volume 14 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?