Views
3 months ago

Advances in E-learning-Experiences and Methodologies

E-Learning Value and Student Experiences IntroductIon E-learning is used as a comprehensive term to identify the use of a variety of information and communication technologies to enhance and support learning, often blending their use. Online learning can be defined as an implementation of e- learning using Web-based technologies (Petrova, 2007). Online learning and e-learning are used as synonyms throughout the text. Across universities worldwide, participants’ engagement and achievement and the support provided by educational technology have become the subject of intensive research, development, and discussion (Blinco, Mason, McLean, & Wilson, 2004; Buzzetto-Moore & Pinhey, 2006; Kickul & Kickul, 2006; Lee & Nguyen, 2005; Sharpe & Benfield, 2005). The work presented here has a specific focus on understanding how the quality of student learning and the student learning experience could be improved whilst working within environmental and academic constraints, believing that a better understanding of student behaviour might help course design. The main objective of the chapter is to identify some of the important issues and trends related to the perceived value of e-learning. To this end, the outcomes of two studies of e-learning are revisited and analysed further using a framework, which conceptualises the value of e-learning. Current and emerging trends about the drivers of student satisfaction are discussed and recommendations are presented. BAckground E-learning was first introduced into the undergraduate business programme at the New Zealand university used in this case study as early as 1999. However, since these early adoption days e-learning has become widespread across the whole university and its importance is now recognised as a strategic approach to providing a learning environment that promotes and supports student success. The programme used in this case study is a typical three-year undergraduate programme. A cornerstone of its philosophy is to encourage independent student led learning. Entrants to the programme come from a range of backgrounds. Due to ethnic diversity, some students might have English as an alternative language and even full time students work long hours. E-learning was introduced in an attempt to alleviate some of these problems. However there is evidence to suggest that the continuing effort involved in developing and delivering e-learning courses may lead to a significant demand on academics’ time and institutional resources, as the amount of individual attention needed may “rival a one-to-one course” (Tastle, White, & Shackleton, 2005, p. 249). Since 1999, e-learning within the case study programme case has gradually developed into two distinct teaching and learning models of Web-based online learning, known as “flexible mode” and “enhanced mode.” Both models belong to the category of “hybrid” or “blended” learning (Mortera-Gutierrez, 2006; Petrova, 2001) as their delivery format combines face-to-face and online teaching and learning. In enhanced mode, e-learning is used to complement (in-class) and enhance (off-campus) the 3 hours per week classroom teaching by using the institutional e-learning platform (BlackBoard). E-learning activities include exercises and demonstrations; off-campus they are mostly used as a vehicle for questions and answers about the course and assessment. As a rule, in enhanced mode online activities are not formally assessed. In flexible mode, a portion of the face-to-face teaching is replaced by the equivalent time in online activities, performed off-campus, in the students’ own time. Students are given detailed instructions about the e-learning activities they are expected to engage in, and about the expected outcomes. The “flexible” online activities may

E-Learning Value and Student Experiences be either individual or group, and often require significant preparatory research. Typically, they will have a fixed completion deadline, and may be incorporated into the assessment programme. The overall spread of e-learning in the case study programme is relatively high: following their specific study pathway, a typical undergraduate student might be engaged in e-learning in up to 58% of their studies (Petrova & Sinclair, 2005). This rather “massive” advent of e-learning has introduced a significant change to many aspects of the teaching and learning environment, including stakeholder perceptions about its value. e-LeArnIng vALue: stAkehoLder PersPectIves Studies in the area of change processes and management related to the introduction of new educational technologies have found that students might be resistant to change. In an early article on the use of information technology to enhance education in business schools, Leidner and Jarvenpraa (1995) pointed out that there was a need to understand better the role of students in learning models involving information technology, and suggested that students would be “likely to resist the new learning models” (Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995, p. 287). Students are identified as one of the recognised stakeholder groups involved in e-learning, therefore any emerging organizational formats developed to accommodate this educational paradigm need to be managed carefully in order to avoid early student disillusionment and the subsequent failure of students to realise the full education potential of e-learning (Hunt, Thomas, & Eagle, 2002; Sharpe & Benfield, 2005). Student participation in e-learning and student perceptions in particular have been the emphasis of research (Hisham, Campton, & FitzGerald, 2004; Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons, 2002; Phillimore, 2002; Swan, 1995; Wells, Fieger, & de Lange, 2005). More specifically Lizzio, et al. (2002) found that student perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and the assessment practice contribute to the development of deeper approaches to studying. They established that positive perceptions of the environment directly influence both measured academic outcomes, for example, academic achievement and also qualitative learning outcomes, workplace related skills. Other studies have highlighted usage patterns in terms of time, place, and functional components (Blinco et al., 2004; Burr & Spennemann, 2004; McKnight & Demers, 2002). An important point made in the reviewed research studies and reports inform the studies presented here: analysis of students’ perceptions in conjunction with factual data can provide a valuable input to the processes of curriculum development and management (Burr & Spennemann, 2004; Buzetto-More & Pinhey, 2006; Kickul, & Kickul, 2006; McKnight & Demers 2002; Sharpe & Benfield, 2005). Two studies were carried out during the period 2003-2005, both investigating the case study programme. Based on the assumption that improving the scholarship of e-learning depends on understanding stakeholders’ perspectives, the overall research framework used in the studies (Figure 1) includes students as they interact with the e-learning platform in the context of courses delivered online, while academics participate in e-learning as course developers and implementers. E-learning is facilitated by the organizational formats and structures of the university. The work aimed to identify and explore criteria for stakeholder evaluation of e-learning, to identify patterns of online platform usage, and to provide a basis for the understanding of student satisfaction with e-learning. Two research questions were investigated: 1. What is the perceived value of e-learning from a stakeholder perspective? 2. Are students satisfied with e-learning and what are the manifestations of satisfaction?

  • Page 2 and 3:

    Advances in E-Learning: Experiences

  • Page 4 and 5:

    Table of Contents Preface .........

  • Page 6 and 7:

    Chapter XIV Open Source LMS Customi

  • Page 8 and 9:

    Chapter III Philosophical and Epist

  • Page 10 and 11:

    of constructive and cooperative met

  • Page 12 and 13:

    Chapter XIV Open Source LMS Customi

  • Page 14 and 15:

    contents, learning contexts, proces

  • Page 16 and 17:

    xv these organizations do not get a

  • Page 18 and 19:

    xvii QuALIty In e-LeArnIng Before t

  • Page 20 and 21:

    allow that the teachers in training

  • Page 22 and 23:

    xxi ISO. (1986). Quality-Vocabulary

  • Page 24 and 25:

    Chapter I RAPAD: A Reflective and P

  • Page 26 and 27:

    RAPAD in fields such as law, engine

  • Page 28 and 29:

    RAPAD mystery to the new student. B

  • Page 30 and 31:

    RAPAD example, whereas Laurillard h

  • Page 32 and 33:

    RAPAD Ontologically, systems philos

  • Page 34 and 35:

    RAPAD information related processes

  • Page 36 and 37:

    RAPAD methods and techniques accord

  • Page 38 and 39:

    RAPAD 2. An introduction to learnin

  • Page 40 and 41:

    RAPAD then asked to reflect on and

  • Page 42 and 43:

    RAPAD Figure 4. A rich picture to h

  • Page 44 and 45:

    RAPAD Again using techniques from t

  • Page 46 and 47:

    RAPAD university preparation course

  • Page 48 and 49:

    RAPAD The third interface is at the

  • Page 50 and 51:

    RAPAD Knight, P.T., & Trowler, P. (

  • Page 52 and 53:

    RAPAD AddItIonAL reAdIngs Goodyear,

  • Page 54 and 55:

    A Heideggerian View on E-Learning t

  • Page 56 and 57:

    A Heideggerian View on E-Learning (

  • Page 58 and 59:

    A Heideggerian View on E-Learning s

  • Page 60 and 61:

    A Heideggerian View on E-Learning r

  • Page 62 and 63:

    A Heideggerian View on E-Learning o

  • Page 64 and 65:

    A Heideggerian View on E-Learning n

  • Page 66 and 67:

    A Heideggerian View on E-Learning M

  • Page 68 and 69:

    A Heideggerian View on E-Learning W

  • Page 70 and 71:

    Philisophical and Epistemological B

  • Page 72 and 73:

    Philisophical and Epistemological B

  • Page 74 and 75:

    Philisophical and Epistemological B

  • Page 76 and 77:

    Philisophical and Epistemological B

  • Page 78 and 79:

    Philisophical and Epistemological B

  • Page 80 and 81:

    Philisophical and Epistemological B

  • Page 82 and 83:

    Philisophical and Epistemological B

  • Page 84 and 85:

    Chapter IV E-Mentoring: An Extended

  • Page 86 and 87: E-Mentoring However, what is unders
  • Page 88 and 89: E-Mentoring baugh, & Williams, 2004
  • Page 90 and 91: E-Mentoring Table 2. Contact. Diffe
  • Page 92 and 93: E-Mentoring Table 10. Ethical impli
  • Page 94 and 95: E-Mentoring Table 15. Technology st
  • Page 96 and 97: E-Mentoring Table 21. Coaching. Bes
  • Page 98 and 99: E-Mentoring Table 27. Moment. Best
  • Page 100 and 101: E-Mentoring Moreover, existing rese
  • Page 102 and 103: E-Mentoring Kasprisin, C. A., Singl
  • Page 104 and 105: E-Mentoring Ensher, E. A., Heun, C.
  • Page 106 and 107: Chapter V Training Teachers for E-L
  • Page 108 and 109: Training Teachers for E-Learning FL
  • Page 110 and 111: Training Teachers for E-Learning ne
  • Page 112 and 113: Training Teachers for E-Learning A
  • Page 114 and 115: Training Teachers for E-Learning yo
  • Page 116 and 117: Training Teachers for E-Learning Di
  • Page 118 and 119: Training Teachers for E-Learning ht
  • Page 120 and 121: The Role of Institutional Factors i
  • Page 122 and 123: The Role of Institutional Factors i
  • Page 124 and 125: The Role of Institutional Factors i
  • Page 126 and 127: The Role of Institutional Factors i
  • Page 128 and 129: The Role of Institutional Factors i
  • Page 130 and 131: The Role of Institutional Factors i
  • Page 132 and 133: The Role of Institutional Factors i
  • Page 134 and 135: The Role of Institutional Factors i
  • Page 138 and 139: E-Learning Value and Student Experi
  • Page 140 and 141: E-Learning Value and Student Experi
  • Page 142 and 143: E-Learning Value and Student Experi
  • Page 144 and 145: E-Learning Value and Student Experi
  • Page 146 and 147: E-Learning Value and Student Experi
  • Page 148 and 149: E-Learning Value and Student Experi
  • Page 150 and 151: E-Learning Value and Student Experi
  • Page 152 and 153: E-Learning Value and Student Experi
  • Page 154 and 155: E-Learning Value and Student Experi
  • Page 156 and 157: Integrating Technology and Research
  • Page 158 and 159: Integrating Technology and Research
  • Page 160 and 161: Integrating Technology and Research
  • Page 162 and 163: Integrating Technology and Research
  • Page 164 and 165: Integrating Technology and Research
  • Page 166 and 167: Integrating Technology and Research
  • Page 168 and 169: Integrating Technology and Research
  • Page 170 and 171: Integrating Technology and Research
  • Page 172 and 173: Chapter IX AI Techniques for Monito
  • Page 174 and 175: AI Techniques for Monitoring Studen
  • Page 176 and 177: AI Techniques for Monitoring Studen
  • Page 178 and 179: AI Techniques for Monitoring Studen
  • Page 180 and 181: AI Techniques for Monitoring Studen
  • Page 182 and 183: AI Techniques for Monitoring Studen
  • Page 184 and 185: AI Techniques for Monitoring Studen
  • Page 186 and 187:

    AI Techniques for Monitoring Studen

  • Page 188 and 189:

    AI Techniques for Monitoring Studen

  • Page 190 and 191:

    AI Techniques for Monitoring Studen

  • Page 192 and 193:

    AI Techniques for Monitoring Studen

  • Page 194 and 195:

    AI Techniques for Monitoring Studen

  • Page 196 and 197:

    Chapter X Knowledge Discovery from

  • Page 198 and 199:

    Knowledge Discovery from E-Learning

  • Page 200 and 201:

    Knowledge Discovery from E-Learning

  • Page 202 and 203:

    Knowledge Discovery from E-Learning

  • Page 204 and 205:

    Knowledge Discovery from E-Learning

  • Page 206 and 207:

    Knowledge Discovery from E-Learning

  • Page 208 and 209:

    Knowledge Discovery from E-Learning

  • Page 210 and 211:

    Knowledge Discovery from E-Learning

  • Page 212 and 213:

    Knowledge Discovery from E-Learning

  • Page 214 and 215:

    Knowledge Discovery from E-Learning

  • Page 216 and 217:

    Knowledge Discovery from E-Learning

  • Page 218 and 219:

    Knowledge Discovery from E-Learning

  • Page 220 and 221:

    Knowledge Discovery from E-Learning

  • Page 222 and 223:

    Chapter XI Swarm-Based Techniques i

  • Page 224 and 225:

    Swarm-Based Techniques in E-Learnin

  • Page 226 and 227:

    Swarm-Based Techniques in E-Learnin

  • Page 228 and 229:

    Swarm-Based Techniques in E-Learnin

  • Page 230 and 231:

    Swarm-Based Techniques in E-Learnin

  • Page 232 and 233:

    Swarm-Based Techniques in E-Learnin

  • Page 234 and 235:

    Swarm-Based Techniques in E-Learnin

  • Page 236 and 237:

    Chapter XII E-Learning 2.0: The Lea

  • Page 238 and 239:

    E-Learning 2.0 Table 1. Different s

  • Page 240 and 241:

    E-Learning 2.0 Figure 1. Difference

  • Page 242 and 243:

    E-Learning 2.0 where the blog is al

  • Page 244 and 245:

    E-Learning 2.0 process. Along this

  • Page 246 and 247:

    E-Learning 2.0 forth, and, of cours

  • Page 248 and 249:

    E-Learning 2.0 Finally, it is impor

  • Page 250 and 251:

    E-Learning 2.0 never be a hotchpotc

  • Page 252 and 253:

    E-Learning 2.0 McPherson, K. (2006)

  • Page 254 and 255:

    E-Learning 2.0 Rosen, A. (2006). Te

  • Page 256 and 257:

    Telematic Environments and Competit

  • Page 258 and 259:

    Telematic Environments and Competit

  • Page 260 and 261:

    Telematic Environments and Competit

  • Page 262 and 263:

    Telematic Environments and Competit

  • Page 264 and 265:

    Telematic Environments and Competit

  • Page 266 and 267:

    Telematic Environments and Competit

  • Page 268 and 269:

    Telematic Environments and Competit

  • Page 270 and 271:

    Telematic Environments and Competit

  • Page 272 and 273:

    Telematic Environments and Competit

  • Page 274 and 275:

    Open Source LMS Customization Intro

  • Page 276 and 277:

    Open Source LMS Customization or ev

  • Page 278 and 279:

    Open Source LMS Customization compa

  • Page 280 and 281:

    Open Source LMS Customization Figur

  • Page 282 and 283:

    Open Source LMS Customization Figur

  • Page 284 and 285:

    Open Source LMS Customization Figur

  • Page 286 and 287:

    Open Source LMS Customization Haina

  • Page 288 and 289:

    Evaluation and Effective Learning p

  • Page 290 and 291:

    Evaluation and Effective Learning r

  • Page 292 and 293:

    Evaluation and Effective Learning t

  • Page 294 and 295:

    Evaluation and Effective Learning p

  • Page 296 and 297:

    Evaluation and Effective Learning m

  • Page 298 and 299:

    Evaluation and Effective Learning c

  • Page 300 and 301:

    Evaluation and Effective Learning H

  • Page 302 and 303:

    Chapter XVI Formative Online Assess

  • Page 304 and 305:

    Formative Online Assessment in E-Le

  • Page 306 and 307:

    Formative Online Assessment in E-Le

  • Page 308 and 309:

    Formative Online Assessment in E-Le

  • Page 310 and 311:

    Formative Online Assessment in E-Le

  • Page 312 and 313:

    Formative Online Assessment in E-Le

  • Page 314 and 315:

    Formative Online Assessment in E-Le

  • Page 316 and 317:

    Formative Online Assessment in E-Le

  • Page 318 and 319:

    Formative Online Assessment in E-Le

  • Page 320 and 321:

    Formative Online Assessment in E-Le

  • Page 322 and 323:

    Formative Online Assessment in E-Le

  • Page 324 and 325:

    0 Chapter XVII Designing an Online

  • Page 326 and 327:

    Designing an Online Assessment in E

  • Page 328 and 329:

    Designing an Online Assessment in E

  • Page 330 and 331:

    Designing an Online Assessment in E

  • Page 332 and 333:

    Designing an Online Assessment in E

  • Page 334 and 335:

    Designing an Online Assessment in E

  • Page 336 and 337:

    Designing an Online Assessment in E

  • Page 338 and 339:

    Designing an Online Assessment in E

  • Page 340 and 341:

    Designing an Online Assessment in E

  • Page 342 and 343:

    Quality Assessment of E-Facilitator

  • Page 344 and 345:

    Quality Assessment of E-Facilitator

  • Page 346 and 347:

    Quality Assessment of E-Facilitator

  • Page 348 and 349:

    Quality Assessment of E-Facilitator

  • Page 350 and 351:

    Quality Assessment of E-Facilitator

  • Page 352 and 353:

    Chapter XIX E-QUAL: A Proposal to M

  • Page 354 and 355:

    E-QUAL is proposed to evaluate the

  • Page 356 and 357:

    E-QUAL provide competent, service-o

  • Page 358 and 359:

    E-QUAL 2004; Scalan, 2003) and qual

  • Page 360 and 361:

    E-QUAL benchmarks address technolog

  • Page 362 and 363:

    E-QUAL E-learning added two differe

  • Page 364 and 365:

    E-QUAL Table 6. Application of the

  • Page 366 and 367:

    E-QUAL Future trends The future of

  • Page 368 and 369:

    E-QUAL (EQO) co-located to the 4 th

  • Page 370 and 371:

    E-QUAL SMEs: An analysis of e-learn

  • Page 372 and 373:

    E-QUAL Meyer, K. A. (2002). Quality

  • Page 374 and 375:

    Compilation of References Argyris,

  • Page 376 and 377:

    Compilation of References Biggs, J.

  • Page 378 and 379:

    Compilation of References Cabero, J

  • Page 380 and 381:

    Compilation of References Comezaña

  • Page 382 and 383:

    Compilation of References Downes, S

  • Page 384 and 385:

    Compilation of References Fandos, M

  • Page 386 and 387:

    Compilation of References national

  • Page 388 and 389:

    Compilation of References Hudson, B

  • Page 390 and 391:

    Compilation of References Harbour.

  • Page 392 and 393:

    Compilation of References Little, J

  • Page 394 and 395:

    Compilation of References Metros, S

  • Page 396 and 397:

    Compilation of References ONeill, K

  • Page 398 and 399:

    Compilation of References Preece, J

  • Page 400 and 401:

    Compilation of References Sadler, D

  • Page 402 and 403:

    Compilation of References Shin, N.,

  • Page 404 and 405:

    Compilation of References tional Co

  • Page 406 and 407:

    Compilation of References Vermetten

  • Page 408 and 409:

    Compilation of References Yu, F. Y.

  • Page 410 and 411:

    About the Contributors Juan Pablo d

  • Page 412 and 413:

    About the Contributors part: “An

  • Page 414 and 415:

    About the Contributors María D. R-

  • Page 416 and 417:

    About the Contributors Applications

  • Page 418 and 419:

    Index e-learning tools, automated p

  • Page 420:

    Socrates 55 Sophists 55 student-foc

The Quality Turn. Political and Methodological Challenges in ...
ADVANCES
ROI Methodology for e-Learning Courses - Cecoa
Lexicon of Online and Distance Learning - PEEF's Digital Library
proceedings of Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-LEARNING
Download Methodology Report - Ministry of Fisheries
Non-inferiority trials: advances in concepts and methodology
Online Advanced Placement Courses - WICHE
AMR Corporation Risk Assessment Methodology - IIA Dallas Chapter
Advancing Equity through More and Better STEM Learning
Afterschool Programs Inspiring Students with a Connected Learning Approach
blended learning activities for advanced proficiency in listening
Professional Development - Vol. IV, Part I
Danish Museums' Learning Potential
Advanced Training of Trainers - Pathfinder International
Advancing Social Inclusion Albania
GRAPHIC - ACT - Advanced Communication Technologies
Advanced Effective Communication, Cultural Competence, and ...
Social Media for Government - April 4-7, 2011 - Advanced Learning ...
International Education Guide - China - Enterprise and Advanced ...
International Education Guide - Korea - Enterprise and Advanced ...
Collaborative Learning Guide - For Ecosystem Management - CICEET
(A.S.K.) - Advanced Digital Systems and Services for Education and ...
Review of Advanced e-Assessment Techniques (RAeAT) Final ... - Jisc
1WU9OQ
To Kill a Mockingbird - Perfection Learning
What Is a Strategic Learning and Evaluation System (SLES)? - FSG
Social Media for Pharma - December 6-8, 2010 - Advanced ...
2013-Series-37-HHS_IEN_ESL_UpdatedMay5final
Diversity Pathfinders Evaluation - Communities and Local Government