proceedings of Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-LEARNING

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2: Extra questions about portfolios. Question number The creation of a portfolio: Q31 Helped me get a better impression of the strong and weak points of my functioning Q32 Helped me get a sense of my professional development Q33 Gave me insight in how I should approach my study Q34 The subjects I describe in my portfolio are relevant to me Q35 The subjects I discuss with my mentor are relevant to me Q36 The curriculum offers enough opportunity to work on my learning goals Q37 Give an estimation of the number of hours you spent on the portfolio in the last year (excluding the mentor meetings) Q38 I worked with a paper/electronic portfolio Q39 Give a grade for the usefulness of putting together and discussing a portfolio for you as a student a Translated from Dutch Question a Q31 to Q36 are statements prompting the students to express their respective opinions on a five point Likert Scale. Q37 asks for an integer number representing the total numbers of hours spent on the portfolio, excluding mentor consultations (which approximately took 2 hours during the whole portfolio process). Q38 prompts the students to report if they used a paper-based or electronic portfolio. And the final question, Q39, asks for a school-like grading (ranging form 1 to 10, with 1 representing ‘Very poor’ and 10 representing ‘Excellent’). The Cronbach’s alpha of the six Likert scale items (Q31 – Q36) was 0.877, indicating good reliability. The ordinal data from Q31 through Q36, answered on a five point Likert Scale, were analyzed using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-Test. Items Q37 and Q39 were analyzed using an Independent Sample T-test. Results Perceived support for self-reflection From Figure 1 - showing the histogram for Q39 - it seems clear that some students are very negative about their portfolio, especially the electronic one (scoring a 1 on five occasions). The results, however, do not differ significantly (independent sample t-test: F = 5.024, T = 0.349, p-value = 0.728), scoring a 5.46 (StDev = 1.771) for the paper variant, and a slightly lower 5.28 (StDev = 2.491) for its electronic counterpart. Both types do not receive a sufficient mark (5.50) on the Dutch grading scale. Conference proceedings of Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-LEARNING overcome barriers of Life-Long learning?” 76
Count 10 8 6 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Grade Figure 1. Portfolio usefulness grade Electronic Paper As shown in table 3, for both the paper-based and the electronic portfolio the majority of students had a negative perception about getting a better impression of their strong and weak points (48.5 % and 44.4 % respectively). However for the paper-based portfolio the mode lays with Disagree, while for the electronic portfolio the mode lays with Agree. This difference is not significant (p-value = 0.826). Table 3: Answer percentages to Questions 31 to 36 per portfolio media Paper-based Electronic SD a D b N c A d SA e . SD D N A SA . Q31 17.1 31.4 22.9 28.6 0.0 0.0 19.4 25.0 25.0 27.8 2.8 0.0 Q32 14.3 28.6 34.3 20.0 2.0 0.0 16.7 22.2 33.3 25.0 2.8 0.0 Q33 11.4 28.6 31.4 25.7 2.9 0.0 22.2 25.0 22.2 27.8 2.8 0.0 Q34 8.6 17.1 17.1 37.1 20.0 0.0 11.1 19.4 8.3 44.4 13.9 2.8 Q35 8.6 11.4 22.9 37.1 20.0 0.0 5.6 5.6 27.8 44.4 13.9 2.8 Q36 2.9 5.7 20.0 57.1 14.3 0.0 8.6 5.6 30.6 38.9 13.9 2.8 a Strongly disagree b Disagree c Neutral d Agree e Strongly Agree Also the majority of the students had a negative perception about the sense of professional development and insight in how to approach the study with both the paper-based and electronic portfolio (42.9 % vs. 38.9 % and 40 % vs. 47.2 % respectively). The mode for the questions about the sense of professional development with both types of portfolio is found at neutral, without any significant difference (p-value = 0.757). For the item about insight in how to approach the study the mode for the paper-based portfolio is found at neutral, whilst for the electronic portfolio this is Agree. This difference is also not significant (p-value = 0.573). A majority of the students perceived the subjects described in their portfolio and discussed with their mentor as relevant to themselves (57.1 % for both items by students using the paper-based portfolio and 58.3 % for both items by students using an electronic version). The mode for both items and both portfolio types lies with Agree, with no significant difference (p-values are 0.740 and 0.882 respectively). Conference proceedings of Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-LEARNING overcome barriers of Life-Long learning?” 77
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: discussed the portfolio. The last h
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 and 146:
Table 1 Comparison of course useful
Page 147 and 148:
As group collaboration and the cour
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?