ascilite2015

Recommendations

Info

A comparison of undergraduate student experiences of assessed versus non-assessed participation in online asynchronous discussion groups: Lessons from a cross disciplinary study in health and sociology Tracy Douglas School of Health Sciences University of Tasmania Louise Earwaker Library, Division of Students and Education University of Tasmania Brady Robards School of Health Sciences University of Tasmania Carey Mather School of Health Sciences University of Tasmania Allison James Department of Maritime and Logistics Management Australian Maritime College Susan Salter School of Health Sciences University of Tasmania Sandra Murray School of Health Sciences University of Tasmania Jane Pittaway School of Health Sciences University of Tasmania This paper discusses a pilot study investigating perceptions from undergraduate students enrolled in units in which asynchronous online discussion boards were utilised formatively or linked to summative assessment. Of the influences that determine level of student engagement in online discussions, one key factor is whether discussions are assessed. Whilst assessing student discussions does motivate participation, this approach is not always valued by students as they are critical of the value of asynchronous discussion boards to their learning. The type of postings can be an influencing factor in student engagement, with effective facilitation, clear purpose and group participation perceived to be important. Students also viewed discussion boards as a platform in which peer engagement and information sharing occurred. Students who were enrolled in a unit in which discussion postings were assessed demonstrated emerging critical thinking skills. Students strongly indicated discussion boards must be fit-for-purpose and integrated into the curriculum regardless of whether they are assessed or not. Keywords: assessment, discussion boards, asynchronous, student, engagement, higher education Introduction Communication tools such as discussion boards form an integral part of online learning management systems and therefore are extensively used in higher education, particularly in an asynchronous context (Andreson 2009) as they provide a means for students to communicate and learn collaboratively. In many instances, these discussion boards are linked to assessment to facilitate engagement and promote development of critical thinking (Johnson and Johnson 1986). However, there is also a role for discussion boards as a formative learning tool. Student satisfaction about studying online has been well researched (Horzam, 2015; Lander 2014; Ladyshewsky 2013; Liaw 2008; Bouhnik and Marcus, 2006) with engagement often posed as difficult to achieve across the student cohort. As stated by Gregory (2015) discussion boards can be a collaborative learning tool, particularly for off campus students, and students usually participate when they are linked to assessment. Less evident in the literature is the student perspective of participation in asynchronous discussion groups that are non-assessed compared to perspectives on assessed discussion boards. According to Du et al (2008) active engagement with others promotes meaningful learning and in an online environment, the topic of discussion is important in determining the impact. Disengagement with asynchronous discussion boards may be related to facilitation (Northover 2002), with instructor facilitation preferred to student facilitation (Hew 2015). Students respond well to feedback in any learning and teaching paradigm and so instructor facilitation drives learning quality and student satisfaction in an online course (Ladyshewsky 2013). Disengagement may be related to the 424 CP:72
ambiguous nature of discussion postings and the limited ability of students to construct knowledge through online discussion (Lander 2014) but once students are engaged they should be able to perceive the value of online discussion boards. The greater the level of student engagement, the higher the perceived value of asynchronous discussions (Northover 2005, Pena-Shaff et al 2005) Pena-Shaff et al (2005) reported student attitudes to online discussions ranged from enthusiastic to hostile and that some students perceived the asynchronous discussions as a chore lacking either substance or meaning. These authors also reported that some students rebelled against the assessment incentive, which they viewed as burdensome, with some students exhibiting resentment at forced participation. Clear purpose of a discussion board is essential for engagement (Gregory 2015) with identifiable student outcomes (Steen 2015). As a result, discussion boards are often linked to assessment. This paper reports on a pilot study investigating student perceptions of online discussion boards utilised as a key assessment item or formative learning tool. Methodology Undergraduate students studying in one of four units in sociology or health science were invited to participate by completing an anonymous online questionnaire. Two units utilised discussion boards as an assessment task in the unit, (10% of the overall assessment was determined by discussion board participation), with clear assessment criteria provided to the students. In the other two units, discussion boards were used as online communication tools for formative feedback purposes. Respondents were recruited by email with two reminders sent at two-week intervals. The survey questions were designed to elicit both quantitative and qualitative data. The first set of questions gathered information on the factors which motivated students to engage using online discussion boards and their overall experience as learners. The second group of questions were reflective and open-ended, designed to generate descriptive data on student experiences and asked about students’ proficiency and how they used discussion boards for learning. Research ethics approval was obtained for this study (H0013544). Results The students surveyed in this pilot study were enrolled in an undergraduate unit in health sciences or sociology in which discussion boards were utilised as either an assessment item (assessed) or a formative learning tool (non-assessed). A total of 78 students completed the questionnaire representing a small sample of the total cohort. Gender, level of education, and preferred language were similar for each group. The mean age of the assessed group was slightly older (aged over 25 years, 60%) than the non-assessed group (over 25 years, 41%). In addition, the non-assessed group were more likely to be studying part-time (81%) than the assessed group (36%) although a mixture of part-time and full-time status existed across the four units. Just over ninety percent (94%) of students in the assessed group were comfortable using the internet before starting their course, compared to 45% of the non-assessed students. However, differences identified between the nature of the two groups were not significant and were not related to discussion board access as 92% of the assessed group (and 72% of the non-assessed group) did not encounter any barriers to access. The assessed group were more comfortable in initiating (62%) and responding (66%) to discussion posts than the non-assessed group, in which only 37% were comfortable to respond to posts with 52% expressing some comfort in initiating posts in a discussion board. Seventy per cent of students who participated in assessed online discussion boards found the discussion valuable to their learning and 41% of these respondents stated that the online discussions did assist them with the completion of other assessment tasks in the unit. Respondents who were not assessed in their discussion postings did find the postings valuable (62%), however, not as valuable in relation to their assessment tasks (26%). In the assessed group, assessment was a motivating factor for participation according to 65%, while 33% of respondents in the non-assessed units indicated that linking assessment to discussion postings may motivate them to engage. Similarly, 56% of respondents in the assessed group indicated that discussion boards were useful to develop group engagement; however only 25% of the non-assessed group identified that this would be useful in their unit. Referencing of discussion posts was perceived similarly between the two groups with 43% in the assessed group finding referencing 425 CP:73
Page 1 and 2:
ascilite2015 Australasian Society f
Page 3 and 4:
To type or handwrite: student's exp
Page 5 and 6:
Concise papers Learning maps: A des
Page 7 and 8:
The three pillars to building staff
Page 9 and 10:
Posters Metacognitive Development i
Page 11 and 12:
Discussion Papers Decisions and des
Page 13 and 14:
The Conceived, the Perceived and th
Page 15 and 16:
concentration of evaluations being
Page 17 and 18:
“I just felt like we skimmed over
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 3: Student Infographic Proto
Page 21 and 22:
Learning design for science teacher
Page 23 and 24:
existing teaching practice with tec
Page 25 and 26:
the module, 7% said they had heard,
Page 27 and 28:
Calculus 1, 2014 (undergraduat e, 5
Page 29 and 30:
ambitions towards educational techn
Page 31 and 32:
Tensions and turning points: explor
Page 33 and 34:
Virtual Learning Environment Teachi
Page 35 and 36:
• Virtual Learning Environment
Page 37 and 38:
newsroom role-playing scenario requ
Page 39 and 40:
Lisa’s fourth turning point event
Page 41 and 42:
vertically in that the lecturer may
Page 43 and 44:
Navigate Me: maximising student pot
Page 45 and 46:
improve academic outcomes, rather t
Page 47 and 48:
Figure 4: Part of an action plan Fr
Page 49 and 50:
Most common issues One useful produ
Page 51 and 52:
communication/assessment and assist
Page 53 and 54:
Designing an authentic professional
Page 55 and 56:
for designing authentic learning en
Page 57 and 58:
Bannan (2010) proposes a simpler fo
Page 59 and 60:
An overview of CMALT requirements W
Page 61 and 62:
students. From the roof, the overal
Page 63 and 64:
Bruns, A. (2007, March 21-23). Beyo
Page 65 and 66:
Investigating the effectiveness of
Page 67 and 68:
labile, and diachronic interaction,
Page 69 and 70:
learning. It was thought that this
Page 71 and 72:
Table 2: Summary of questionnaire r
Page 73 and 74:
the material (E) my colleagues (S)
Page 75 and 76:
co-construction of knowledge by sup
Page 77 and 78:
Community volunteers in collaborati
Page 79 and 80:
Induction and persistence How are v
Page 81 and 82:
Figure 1: Contributions made in gen
Page 83 and 84:
such acts as mentorship: One is the
Page 85 and 86:
established a record of high qualit
Page 87 and 88:
the OERu project or similar open de
Page 89 and 90:
A ‘participant first’ approach
Page 91 and 92:
five ways in which learning resourc
Page 93 and 94:
Participant Perspective Consider yo
Page 95 and 96:
key focus was on designing tasks th
Page 97 and 98:
Management System, the primary tool
Page 99 and 100:
Jordan, K. (2015). MOOC completion
Page 101 and 102:
new pedagogical methods to engage t
Page 103 and 104:
een perceived to be boring, with lo
Page 105 and 106:
accounting concepts to others. Post
Page 107 and 108:
the one model provided by the resea
Page 109 and 110:
workplace. A further graduate attri
Page 111 and 112:
Moy, J. (1999). The Impact of gener
Page 113 and 114:
provider to understand the dependen
Page 115 and 116:
• In the first semester of their
Page 117 and 118:
Age at Course Start 22.98 4.3 >99.9
Page 119 and 120:
3 1 Figure 4. Attrition Rate: (Top)
Page 121 and 122:
New applications, new global audien
Page 123 and 124:
The modality of game-based learning
Page 125 and 126:
3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Education Other H
Page 127 and 128:
Machinima is being utilised to supp
Page 129 and 130:
a lack of support from many institu
Page 131 and 132:
2015). There are new hardware and s
Page 133 and 134:
Gregory, S., Gregory, B., Wood, D.,
Page 135 and 136:
studies have found that university
Page 137 and 138:
Importantly, TEL is a broad term an
Page 139 and 140:
needs, etc.). Educators create digi
Page 141 and 142:
could take the form of authorities
Page 143 and 144:
To type or handwrite: student's exp
Page 145 and 146:
Phase 1 Institution wide online sur
Page 147 and 148:
There were just over 200 students (
Page 149 and 150:
exam questions for computerisation,
Page 151 and 152:
students on these two issues by cou
Page 153 and 154:
from http://educationtechnologysolu
Page 155 and 156:
Predictors of students’ perceived
Page 157 and 158:
Lim, Morris, and Yoon (2006) sugges
Page 159 and 160:
The questionnaire was pilot tested
Page 161 and 162:
** p < .001 - a This parameter was
Page 163 and 164:
Among the four exogenous variables,
Page 165 and 166:
influence on perceived course outco
Page 167 and 168:
5(3), 255-269. Marks, R. B., Sibley
Page 169 and 170:
and continuously evaluate the deliv
Page 171 and 172:
supporting teachers in the transiti
Page 173 and 174:
etween other VET schools and the co
Page 175 and 176:
sharing of the tasks, and their pee
Page 177 and 178:
learning. Digital education has led
Page 179 and 180:
McLoughlin, C. (2013). Teacher prof
Page 181 and 182:
advancing learning analytics (Dawso
Page 183 and 184:
contact students. Additionally, we
Page 185 and 186:
Figure 4: Screenshot of part of the
Page 187 and 188:
Change The IRAC framework allowed u
Page 189 and 190:
Mazza, R., Bettoni, M., Faré, M.,
Page 191 and 192:
misconceptions (e.g. Lehman, D'Mell
Page 193 and 194:
understanding of the material on th
Page 195 and 196:
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Excited Interested Co
Page 197 and 198:
Results The participants in the sim
Page 199 and 200:
The two studies presented here were
Page 201 and 202:
The author(s) assign a Creative Com
Page 203 and 204:
approach which focuses on documenti
Page 205 and 206:
within the context of their assessm
Page 207 and 208:
perceptions of the use of technolog
Page 209 and 210:
frequently than library databases.
Page 211 and 212:
Figure 1: Sample of technology mapp
Page 213 and 214:
Conclusion In contrast with other s
Page 215 and 216:
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessm
Page 217 and 218:
Erickson, Greer, & Gutwin, 2011), e
Page 219 and 220:
higher than the Australian universi
Page 221 and 222:
educators must be careful to offer
Page 223 and 224:
Miles, C.A. (2015). Strong and incr
Page 225 and 226:
in formal online education. To do s
Page 227 and 228:
week analysis for the 8-week 3 cour
Page 229 and 230:
First Quartile 1 1 Median 1 1 Mean
Page 231 and 232:
participation. Similar to Gilliani
Page 233 and 234:
Coffrin, C., Corrin, L., de Barba,
Page 235 and 236:
Designing for relatedness: learning
Page 237 and 238:
inquiry. This collaborative yarning
Page 239 and 240:
online in the LMS until connections
Page 241 and 242:
each other in educational environme
Page 243 and 244:
Figure 2: Evaluation of Components
Page 245 and 246:
Conclusion The experience of Aborig
Page 247 and 248:
Torche, F., & Valenzuela, E. (2011)
Page 249 and 250:
types of content and new models of
Page 251 and 252:
ased on real journalism content 10
Page 253 and 254:
efficiently access the key literatu
Page 255 and 256:
systems. These initiatives are valu
Page 257 and 258:
Ren, X. (2013). Beyond open access:
Page 259 and 260:
within a constructivist framework (
Page 261 and 262:
library, learning centers and couns
Page 263 and 264:
testing occurs beyond that? What is
Page 265 and 266:
Interdisciplinary opportunities and
Page 267 and 268:
interdisciplinary project that aime
Page 269 and 270:
J F M A M J J A S O N D 2014 Academ
Page 271 and 272:
also vital. Achieving the correct b
Page 273 and 274:
odies. Moreover, attracting enough
Page 275 and 276:
Paving the way for institution wide
Page 277 and 278:
Activity (Workshop) Description and
Page 279 and 280:
Keyboard The physical keyboard is a
Page 281 and 282:
• Annotating diagrams • Ability
Page 283 and 284:
Conclusion This project demonstrate
Page 285 and 286:
MyCourseMap: an interactive visual
Page 287 and 288:
Figure 1: MyCourseMap visual overvi
Page 289 and 290:
The tool has particular applicabili
Page 291 and 292:
11. Media gallery 10. Graduate attr
Page 293 and 294:
Barriers or challenges. actually go
Page 295 and 296:
Figure 8: The unit information page
Page 297 and 298:
Standing on the shoulders of others
Page 299 and 300:
designer employed by La Trobe Unive
Page 301 and 302:
student interaction are essential c
Page 303 and 304:
Figure 2: Weekly learning design se
Page 305 and 306:
The current [template] speaks clear
Page 307 and 308:
Weaver, D, Robbie, D, Kokonis, S &
Page 309 and 310:
Background Learning analytics The r
Page 311 and 312:
and conducted workshops as the proj
Page 313 and 314:
• Communication (email, Facebook,
Page 315 and 316:
180 Daily Weekly Fortnightly Monthl
Page 317 and 318:
Relevance and comprehensiveness of
Page 319 and 320:
Further Information More informatio
Page 321 and 322:
Virtual worlds have great potential
Page 323 and 324:
conceptual understanding, and (3) m
Page 325 and 326:
Figure 5: Map and Hints of the VW E
Page 327 and 328:
All quiz questions are saved in a X
Page 329 and 330:
Gütl, C. (2011). The Support of Vi
Page 331 and 332:
Remote Access Laboratories for Prep
Page 333 and 334:
een derived from the STEBI-B (Enoch
Page 335 and 336:
15 Students’ achievement in techn
Page 337 and 338:
RALfie offers both hands-on and onl
Page 339 and 340:
and non-user groups and efforts hav
Page 341 and 342:
Maxwell, A. D., Orwin, L., Kist, A.
Page 343 and 344:
To evaluate the feasibility of usin
Page 345 and 346:
their observed behaviour. Towards t
Page 347 and 348:
study and help them adapt to a new
Page 349 and 350:
main student concern, there are add
Page 351 and 352:
Information delivered through the a
Page 353 and 354:
Learning maps: A design-based appro
Page 355 and 356:
4 Integrative • Mixed research me
Page 357 and 358:
Dede, C. (2004). If design-based re
Page 359 and 360:
LAK demonstrates a great deal of co
Page 361 and 362:
Experiences from early reusability
Page 363 and 364:
The future of practice-based resear
Page 365 and 366:
1.1. Consider factoring in control
Page 367 and 368:
3. Consider the research questions
Page 369 and 370:
Features of an online English langu
Page 371 and 372:
Figure 2: Embedded Matbury’s MP3
Page 373 and 374: References Ayres, P., & Sweller, J.
Page 375 and 376: that will provoke a specific kind o
Page 377 and 378: Preliminary results The study is on
Page 379 and 380: Using expectation confirmation theo
Page 381 and 382: Findings and Discussion The data an
Page 383 and 384: Fawcett, S. L. (2002). Group gaming
Page 385 and 386: visualization affects learning but
Page 387 and 388: Demonstrate the ability to construc
Page 389 and 390: Implementing blended learning at fa
Page 391 and 392: Exploring approaches taken at other
Page 393 and 394: But, J. & Shobbrook, R. (2012). Web
Page 395 and 396: potential of social media in educat
Page 397 and 398: Another tweet included a photo of t
Page 399 and 400: Teachers Cloud-based Content Creati
Page 401 and 402: Deviation CBLD? 1. Learning Outcome
Page 403 and 404: McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blend
Page 405 and 406: The Next Wave of learning Innovatio
Page 407 and 408: than a static system / website / mo
Page 409 and 410: Loop: A learning analytics tool to
Page 411 and 412: Figure 1: The Loop tool dashboard f
Page 413 and 414: efore it is released as an open sou
Page 415 and 416: programmed through freely available
Page 417 and 418: In addition to this experiment, at
Page 419 and 420: An investigation of blended learnin
Page 421 and 422: Results The experiences of learning
Page 423: Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learne
Page 427 and 428: Discussion Linking assessment to on
Page 429 and 430: Digital Futures research and societ
Page 431 and 432: challenges of specifying real-world
Page 433 and 434: Hemsley-Brown, J., & Sharp, C. (200
Page 435 and 436: is taking digital technologies into
Page 437 and 438: The Making the Connection project t
Page 439 and 440: Jeroschewski, A., Levisse, A., Sala
Page 441 and 442: (2014, p.19). New business models f
Page 443 and 444: Table 3. Badges on lifelong learnin
Page 445 and 446: The Agile Learning Model: Using big
Page 447 and 448: Preliminary results Methodology A p
Page 449 and 450: (e.g. students that were directed t
Page 451 and 452: It has been predicted that “by th
Page 453 and 454: including: timely access to teacher
Page 455 and 456: Occupational Medicine Simulation Pr
Page 457 and 458: just being presented with a data sh
Page 459 and 460: Gustafson, P. (2001). Meanings of p
Page 461 and 462: This exploratory research step focu
Page 463 and 464: Week 3 of the course. Figure 2: Acc
Page 465 and 466: A pedagogical end game for exams: a
Page 467 and 468: that a bachelor degree is the new h
Page 469 and 470: However, this vision is not pie-in-
Page 471 and 472: Are Higher Education Institutions P
Page 473 and 474: Method Design In order to reach a l
Page 475 and 476:
of LA frameworks and on expected be
Page 477 and 478:
Talented, and Learning and Behaviou
Page 479 and 480:
I felt prepared to set my own LGs 5
Page 481 and 482:
Measuring creativity in collaborati
Page 483 and 484:
y Beghetto and Kaufman (2013), who
Page 485 and 486:
And how does this creativity become
Page 487 and 488:
In short, research in these paradig
Page 489 and 490:
esearch is heavily context dependen
Page 491 and 492:
Collaboration between Primary Stude
Page 493 and 494:
Results The analysis of the observa
Page 495 and 496:
even difficult for them to bring to
Page 497 and 498:
A digital what? Creating a playspac
Page 499 and 500:
As of writing, plans are underway t
Page 501 and 502:
Lamond, H. & Rowatt, A.J. (2015). A
Page 503 and 504:
Furthermore, staff PD in digital te
Page 505 and 506:
Figure 1: Expert Review of Peer Rev
Page 507 and 508:
Developing Self-Regulated Learning
Page 509 and 510:
Technological Structure The underly
Page 511 and 512:
analytics-functionality-and-wirefra
Page 513 and 514:
model of professional learning that
Page 515 and 516:
ecognition of their teaching in a t
Page 517 and 518:
Connecting fun and learning- an act
Page 519 and 520:
Figure 1. Engestrom's Activity Syst
Page 521 and 522:
pedagogical and technological barri
Page 523 and 524:
(e.g. Graesser et al., 2005), it ca
Page 525 and 526:
ability to perform well on a test a
Page 527 and 528:
Exploring my university students’
Page 529 and 530:
15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% created a
Page 531 and 532:
Miller, M. D. (2014). Online Learni
Page 533 and 534:
component, evaluation that connects
Page 535 and 536:
not be enough to encourage its wide
Page 537 and 538:
Benchmarking for technology enhance
Page 539 and 540:
Findings groups to try and streamli
Page 541 and 542:
Author, M. (2014a). Benchmarking fo
Page 543 and 544:
uploaded document with consistent m
Page 545 and 546:
Promoting Critical Thinking in a La
Page 547 and 548:
Table 1: Overview Summary of How In
Page 549 and 550:
and post-exam online surveys were a
Page 551 and 552:
Seow, T.K. & Soong, S.K.A. (2015).
Page 553 and 554:
family and friends to help them. Di
Page 555 and 556:
Upon completion of the unit, studen
Page 557 and 558:
Blended Learning Adoption Monitorin
Page 559 and 560:
for each stage are listed as Strate
Page 561 and 562:
References Alammary, A., Sheard, J.
Page 563 and 564:
environment), and (3) civic engagem
Page 565 and 566:
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential le
Page 567 and 568:
Freitas, 2006; Fröding & Peterson,
Page 569 and 570:
The research methodologies appropri
Page 571 and 572:
Teräs, H. (2014). Collaborative on
Page 573 and 574:
Upon completion of a learning activ
Page 575 and 576:
Figure 3: Drag and drop application
Page 577 and 578:
Pre-service teachers’ reflections
Page 579 and 580:
like the Renaissance, and the teach
Page 581 and 582:
from http://www.researchgate.net/pu
Page 583 and 584:
concept of summer learning loss. Th
Page 585 and 586:
Figure 2: Relationships between Cou
Page 587 and 588:
Webby, B., Quinn, D., Albrecht, A.,
Page 589 and 590:
The University’s Approach to a Le
Page 591 and 592:
Figure 2: Draft CSU Learning Analyt
Page 593 and 594:
Dreaming of Electric Sheep: CSU’s
Page 595 and 596:
student learning. Furthermore, many
Page 597 and 598:
something that is done by the “da
Page 599 and 600:
SkillBox: a pilot study Rachel Anne
Page 601 and 602:
agree, A=agree, N=neutral, D=disagr
Page 603 and 604:
Whitsed, R.A. & Parker, J. (2015).
Page 605 and 606:
critical theory and feminist studie
Page 607 and 608:
connectedness between individual an
Page 609 and 610:
Description of proposed interventio
Page 611 and 612:
Kaufman & L. Li (Eds.), Routledge i
Page 613 and 614:
Matthews, A., Aggarwal, R., and Lim
Page 615 and 616:
Schau, C., & Mattern, N. (1997). Us
Page 617 and 618:
eight of the nine interviewees in a
Page 619 and 620:
communicate proposals, plans, compa
Page 621 and 622:
Creating concept vignettes as a mod
Page 623 and 624:
Preparing Students for Future Learn
Page 625 and 626:
References Association for the Adva
Page 627 and 628:
The use of rubrics for the assessme
Page 629 and 630:
Developing an online challenge-base
Page 631 and 632:
Let’s Talk Learning Analytics and
Page 633 and 634:
Experiential Learning in Accounting
Page 635 and 636:
The CSU Online Learning model Tim K
Page 637 and 638:
MOOCs as spaces to innovate Alison
Page 639 and 640:
Page 641 and 642:
In terms of educational uses, the l
Page 643 and 644:
The framework At the University of
Page 645 and 646:
Enhancing Workplace Learning throug
Page 647 and 648:
Figure 2: GPS for WPL structure Con
Page 649 and 650:
The success of this new support mod
Page 651 and 652:
Acknowledgement Supported by the Di
Page 653 and 654:
Discussion Who owns learning? Educa
Page 655 and 656:
Pawlaczek, Z. & Allan, G. (2015). D
Page 657 and 658:
These divergent student perceptions
Page 659 and 660:
Connecting or constructing academic
Page 661 and 662:
define one academic literacy for al
Page 663 and 664:
Learning, 12(3), 139-160. Retrieved
Page 665 and 666:
Data collection The seven case stud
Page 667 and 668:
share their own experiences in orde
Page 669 and 670:
of Goals-Signals-Metrics as columns
Page 671 and 672:
material, perform self-assessment t
Page 673 and 674:
Many educational technology researc
Page 675 and 676:
non-technical users can participate
Page 677 and 678:
particularly in the early stages. T
Page 679 and 680:
Williams, T., Kaui,T. & Ernst, J. (
Page 681 and 682:
Campbell & Oblinger, 2007; Clow, 20
Page 683 and 684:
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., & Ha
Page 685 and 686:
sine qua non of LA, and a recent co
Page 687 and 688:
Lodge, J., & Lewis, M. (2012). Pige
Page 689 and 690:
academic referencing system Sente 6
Page 691 and 692:
Norton, A. (2012). Mapping Australi
Page 693 and 694:
How new teaching methods affect our
Page 695 and 696:
Calderon, O., Ginsberg, A., Ciabocc
Page 697 and 698:
thus enabling libraries to learn ab
Page 699 and 700:
Formulating research questions whic
Page 701 and 702:
as well as examples of each element
Page 703 and 704:
the learning materials are presente
Page 705 and 706:
activity results in a collaborative
Page 707 and 708:
the definition, not the technology.
Page 709 and 710:
in researching and developing teach
Page 711 and 712:
2. Examples of open scholarship net
Page 713 and 714:
#NPF14LMD Learners and Mobile Devic
Page 715 and 716:
Adrienne Moyle Academic Advisor wit
Page 717 and 718:
Easing into mobile learning Angela
Page 719 and 720:
Clinical Logs: Best Practices in th
Page 721 and 722:
Digitally enabled learning through
Page 723 and 724:
Using interactive multimedia for
Page 725 and 726:
References Barbezat, D., & Bush, M.
Page 727 and 728:
Page 729 and 730:
ascilite 2015 Reviewers Reem Abu As
Page 731 and 732:
Kulari Lokuge Dona Swinburne Univer
show all

ascilite2015

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?