proceedings of Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-LEARNING

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2. Perceived course usefulness in scales Discussion Forum t-test Cohen M SD M SD difference d-value Assessment 14.80 2.41 14.23 2.60 Course Materials 11.29 1.66 10.65 1.80 0.058 † 0.37 Course Design 24.69 2.59 23.76 2.48 0.064 † Goals and Tasks 15.15 2.51 15.40 1.82 Group Collaboration 18.24 3.34 17.42 3.28 Instruction 19.53 2.13 20.57 2.09 0.012* -0.50 Learning Satisfaction 19.83 2.50 19.27 2.73 Independent sample T-test (2-sided) of Discussion forum (n=59) vs. Videoconference and Discussion forum (n=49). *Coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). † Coefficient is significant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed). Videoconference Discussion Based upon the idea that increased possibilities to establish communication and to express emotion we expected that increasing social presence by using web-videoconferences would positively influence the course design, goals and tasks, group collaboration, instruction and finally learning satisfaction among learners. In other words, we expected that groups working together using (synchronous) web-videoconferences in combination with (asynchronous) discussion forums would be more positive about the course’s usefulness than groups who worked together solely using discussion forums. However, the results indicate that students using videoconference are in general not more positive about the online course with the exception of instruction of the teacher. The fact that students in cohort 2 (web-videoconferencing) are less positive about the course materials might be due to two reasons. First of all, the Cronbach alpha is relatively low, thereby leading to reliability issues. Secondly, in cohort 2 a new version of the E-book system was used, which seemed to be less compatible with Apple-users. In fact, six students complained about compatibility (e.g. “excercises cannot be made with a mac” or “that it works better with Mac computers”) in the open comment, while there were no remarks about compatibility in cohort 1, which might explain the lower rating for course materials. The lower evaluation of the course design for cohort 2 leads to several questions. Although discussion forums have obvious disadvantages with respect to speed of interaction, feedback and ability to express emotion, one important merit of discussion forums is that students can learn whenever they want. Flexibility might be important for online remedial education when prospective students are preparing themselves for university at home or at their holiday location (Rienties et al., 2006). In addition, several authors have argued that by using discussion forums participants have more time to think and are therefore more able to build an effective argumentation (Schellens & Valcke, 2006; Weinberger & Fischer, 2006). Explaining the fact that no difference was found in goals and tasks, group collaboration and learning satisfaction between the two cohorts is challenging. Maybe, the goals and tasks of the course are sufficiently clear when communicated via a course manual and communication from the instructors in the discussion forum, as cohort 1 students indicated that they knew what was expected from them in the course. Given that it is easier to establish communication and social presence using web-videoconferencing, we at least expected that cohort 2 students are more positive about the merits of group collaboration. Again the merits of synchronous communication might be offset by the flexibility of asynchronous communication. In addition, not every participant had a sufficient broad-band connection, which might have hampered their ability to contribute to the videoconference discussions and hence their perception about group collaboration. Conference proceedings of Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-LEARNING overcome barriers of Life-Long learning?” 146 0.36
As group collaboration and the course design were not improved in the redesign, the overall learning satisfaction did not increase despite that the role of the instructor was perceived more positively. A possible explanation why the role of the instructor (e.g. to help the students to apply the content to other contexts, equal participation) received a higher rating is that the delay in feedback in asynchronous communication could be counteracted by the weekly videoconferences. In addition, a rough generalization of the roles of the instructor in the videoconference relative to the discussion forum seem to indicate that the instructor was more active in the videoconference, which in distance learning is highly appreciated by students (Vonderwell, 2003). Limitations and Future research The results of this study were based on a method using self-reported student perceptions in one particular setting. This can be viewed as a potential limitation as in other settings using web-conferencing might lead to superior results in comparison to using only discussion forums. In addition, the measurement of perceptions of participants about learning characteristics and learning processes is difficult. However, given the reliability figures of the seven scales, high response-rates and the fact that we controlled for differences in motivation and prior expectations, we deem that the results are still valid. Further, the short- and long-term consequences on learning outcomes have not been demonstrated. The longitudinal effects of our redesign needs to be assessed in future research. Third, neither content analysis nor Social Network Analysis was conducted on the discourse. These might reveal evidence about learning and knowledge construction from online discussions and interaction patterns among individuals within groups. Research on cohort 1 showed large differences in participation, type of discourse and position within the social network (Rienties et al., 2008), which we expect to be smaller in cohort 2 due to the increased possibilities to interact. Fourth, research should investigate whether groups using web-videoconferences are more balanced with respect to the type of discourse and participation. In addition, to what extent are students overwhelmed by a variety of ICT tools? To what extent does the requirement to be present during videoconferences hinder the flexibility of learners to decide when and where to learn? Finally, to what extent does the behaviour of participants (students and teachers) differ when using web-videoconferences or discussion forums? References Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in an computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17. Arts, J. A., Gijselaers, W. H., & Segers, M. (2006). From cognition to instruction to expertise: measurement of expertise effects in an authentic, computer supported, and problem-based course. European Journal for Psychology of Education, 21(1), 71-90. Beers, P., Boshuijzen, H., Kirschner, P., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge Construction in collaborative learning environment. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21, 623-643. Beers, P., Boshuijzen, H., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2007). The analysis of negotiation of common ground in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 427-435. Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W., & Spada, H. (Eds.). (2005). Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated knowledge communication and how they may be overcome (5 ed.). New York: Springer. De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, R.-J. (2007). Online teaching in networked learning communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, 35(3), 257-286. Derks, D., Bos, A. E. R., & Grumbkow, J. v. (2007). Emoticons and social interaction on the Internet: the importance of social context. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 842-849. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533-568. Haythornthwaite, C. (2000). Online Personal Networks: Size, Composition and Media Use among Distance Learners. New Media & Society, 2(2), 195-226. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. Conference proceedings of Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-LEARNING overcome barriers of Life-Long learning?” 147
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings of Student Mobility and
Page 3 and 4:
Contributions listed per session We
Page 5 and 6:
Teaching Part-time Students Using C
Page 7 and 8:
Description of Practices of Knowled
Page 9 and 10:
Remediating Summer Classes and Diag
Page 11 and 12:
• For a bridging course of this s
Page 13 and 14:
computing and displaying geometrica
Page 15 and 16:
significant. For that reason, the f
Page 17 and 18:
Apparently, ‘new learning’ work
Page 19 and 20:
Delivering a Masters: from Paper to
Page 21 and 22:
1 or 2 days of face to face contact
Page 23 and 24:
MyDundee and the different forms of
Page 25 and 26:
Unified in Learning - Separated by
Page 27 and 28:
views. As the IOs staff has to coll
Page 29 and 30:
was to apply the newly gained knowl
Page 31 and 32:
Please provide an overall grade for
Page 33 and 34:
discussion forums promises to yield
Page 35 and 36:
Additionally to the CIS each course
Page 37 and 38:
system 5.9% and Blended Learning 10
Page 39 and 40:
Conclusion The survey shows that th
Page 41 and 42:
Competence Based Teaching and Evalu
Page 43 and 44:
Peer-assessment, according to Falch
Page 45 and 46:
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure
Page 47 and 48:
and think“). Reliability deals wi
Page 49 and 50:
knowledge but also the skills of th
Page 51 and 52:
Explaining student learning prefere
Page 53 and 54:
• Practice (that is, the problems
Page 55 and 56:
processing strategies, metacognitiv
Page 57 and 58:
0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000
Page 59 and 60:
0.400 0.350 0.300 0.250 0.200 0.150
Page 61 and 62:
Selecting Educational Content in m-
Page 63 and 64:
Figure 2 How could we integrate the
Page 65 and 66:
Applying a Fact-oriented Knowledge
Page 67 and 68:
Table 2: List of definitions for su
Page 69 and 70:
One, of the most important assumpti
Page 71 and 72:
Inspecting the KSD in figure 2 reve
Page 73 and 74:
The Influence of Portfolio Media on
Page 75 and 76:
discussed the portfolio. The last h
Page 77 and 78:
Count 10 8 6 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Page 79 and 80:
ased portfolio (n=177). Scoring a 6
Page 81 and 82:
An E-Portfolio for Post-Graduate Co
Page 83 and 84:
Evers, F. T., Rush, J. C. & Berdrow
Page 85 and 86:
Indicators of Needs for Preparatory
Page 87 and 88:
dependent on his/her background, ac
Page 89 and 90:
study programs. A wide choice of st
Page 91 and 92:
It may be presumed that the competi
Page 93 and 94:
Bean, J. P. ( 1985 ). Interaction e
Page 95 and 96: Facing the Mathematics Problem, Two
Page 97 and 98: mention the problems that they enco
Page 99 and 100: gradually from the first to the las
Page 101 and 102: 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5%
Page 103 and 104: References Dijsselbloem, J., e.a. (
Page 105 and 106: Findings So far, seventy-four stude
Page 107 and 108: Students’ Mobility, Acculturation
Page 109 and 110: Pedagogical Approaches Used For Pre
Page 111 and 112: • the teacher is a learner togeth
Page 113 and 114: learning. He pointed at the method
Page 115 and 116: Wieland, A., Brouwer, N., Kaper, W.
Page 117 and 118: The live learning lab was more than
Page 119 and 120: For the audience site, the camera s
Page 121 and 122: video/audio compression and competi
Page 123 and 124: applications for a typical presenta
Page 125 and 126: E-learning - Non-discovered Territo
Page 127 and 128: References Badania potrzeb w zakres
Page 129 and 130: Security Requirements and Goals for
Page 131 and 132: The implications of using this tech
Page 133 and 134: References Hinton, H., & Vanderwauv
Page 135 and 136: This is mainly due to the fact that
Page 137 and 138: students from one class session to
Page 139 and 140: Social Presence, Web-videoconferenc
Page 141 and 142: facilities. As Figure 2 shows, web-
Page 143 and 144: Instruments Expectations of the cou
Page 145: Table 1 Comparison of course useful
Page 149 and 150: Literature Scan on Online Remedial
Page 151 and 152: Most recent studies have focussed o
Page 153 and 154: The implementation of online educat
Page 155 and 156: Lefgren (2004); Kozeracki (2002); L
Page 157 and 158: Establishing a European Framework o
Page 159 and 160: Modelling Mobile Agent Mobility in
Page 161 and 162: f11 = Addressing f12 = Encoding f13
Page 163 and 164: Naming services The Sun Microsystem
Page 165 and 166: Lamport, L & Melliar-Smith, P. M.(1
Page 167 and 168: lecturers see all lectures they hav
Page 169 and 170: Figure 3. A content page of the Tec
Page 171 and 172: Digitizing Courses for Flexible Edu
Page 173 and 174: Figure 1. Amount of fragment views
Page 175 and 176: elaborate on the fragments in sever
Page 177 and 178: engaged in family and/or work life,
Page 179 and 180: and Services contributes to interna
Page 181 and 182: Furture prospects Physical student
Page 183 and 184: Towards a Dutch Remedial Education
Page 185 and 186: Hollins, E. R. (1996). Culture in s
Page 187 and 188: To realise this goal a consortium o
Page 189 and 190: Hybrid Learning as a Facilitator to
Page 191 and 192: are commonly associated with high c
Page 193 and 194: Table 3. Individual forum participa
Page 195 and 196: ecause of the huge investment in de
Page 197 and 198:
Pere, R. (1982). Ako: concepts and
Page 199 and 200:
facility with technology as an empl
Page 201 and 202:
The subject of the advertisement is
Page 203 and 204:
M Pete Nevin October 10 at 8:46pm H
show all

proceedings of Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-LEARNING

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?