E-Learning 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 in Higher Education
240 pages

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

E-Learning 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 in Higher Education , livre ebook

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris
Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus
240 pages
Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus


This book has a completely new take on e-learning in higher education, introducing a novel framework which distinguishes between e-learning 1.0 (distribution), e-learning 2.0 (dialogue), and e-learning 3.0 (construction). Through this framework, the use of e-learning is actively linked to three theoretical perceptions of learning: 1.0 (behavioural learning theory), 2.0 (cognitive learning theory), and 3.0 (social learning theory). E-learning 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 guides the reader through the design and use of e-learning by the central framework.

The book introduces eight practical examples of e-learning design considerations and e-learning implementations as academic colleagues from around the world present their concrete use-cases of e-learning technologies. The included information will enable readers to use the framework for e-learning and its link to associated learning theories to inform their own design and use of e-learning technologies for the benefit not only of teachers, but also the engagement and learning of students.



Publié par
Date de parution 31 janvier 2019
Nombre de lectures 0
EAN13 9781912969517
Langue English
Poids de l'ouvrage 14 Mo

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,2650€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.


E-learning 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 in Higher Education
E-learning 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 in Higher Education
Rhiannon Evans and Claus Nygaard
First publised in 2019 by Libri Publising
Copyrigt © Libri Publising
Autors retain copyrigt of individual capters.
he rigt of Riannon Evans and Claus Nygaard to be identified as t e ed itors of tis work as been asserted in accordance wit te Copyrigt, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.
ISBN 978-1-911450-39-9eISBN 978-1-912969-51-7 All rigts reserved. No part of tis publication may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mecanical, potocopying, recording or oterwise, witout te prior written permission of te copyrigt older for wic application sould be addressed in te first instance to te publisers. No liability sall be attaced to te autor, te copyrigt older or te publisers for loss or damage of any nature suffered as a result of reliance on te reproduction of any of te contents of tis publication or any errors or omissions in its contents.
A CIP catalogue record for tis book is available from he Britis Library.
Cover design by Helen Taylor
Design by Carnegie Book Production
Printed by Ligtning Source
Libri Publising Brunel House Volunteer Way Faringdon Oxfordsire SN7 7YR
Tel: +44 (0)845 873 3837
Contents Foreword Birgit Loch
Capter 1: An Introduction to e-learning in iger education: 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. Malinda Hoskins Lloyd, Willie McGuire, Reya Saliba, Rachid Bendriss, Flemming Meier, Rhiannon Evans, and Claus Nygaard
Capter 2: E-learning as a strategy for improving university students’ learning outcomes Claus Nygaard
Capter 3: Using a peer-centred online learning platform to support students’ academic-professional transition Willie McGuire and Olan Harrington
Capter 4: he effectiveness of e-learning in Business Communication at te University of Joannesburg? Wat students say! Magas R. Pather
Capter 5: Using Wordpress, Canvas LMS, Dropbox and Facebook to enance students’ online engagement in postgraduate education Anne Hørsted
Capter 6: Using e-learning to improve te student experience of lectures Rhiannon Evans
Capter 7: he E-CIL framework: an instructional practice for promoting student engagement wit content, te instructor, and oter learners in online courses Malinda Hoskins Lloyd
Contents Capter 8: Experiential learning in premedical education: enancing atudents’ experience troug e-learning Reya Saliba & Rachid Bendriss
Capter 9: Ten e-learning tecnologies to support problem-based collaborative work Flemming Meier & Claus Nygaard
Capter 10: Using e-learning to supervise students’ project work in iger education: some pedagogical requirements Flemming Meier
Wen I tink of e-learning, I find tere are tree questions tat occupy my mind. he first is ow we coose te most effective tecnologies, including latest e-learning trends suc as learning from any device, but also te Internet of hings, artificial intelligence, as well as virtual and augmented reality. I believe particularly augmented reality as enormous potential as it merges pysical and virtual learning spaces. To give an example, in anatomy teacing an interactive tree-dimensional model of te uman body, accessible to our students via a smart pone or tablet, may reduce te reliance on expensive and pysical space-intensive cadaver teacing. It allows students to undertake assessment tasks witout waiting for teir next class, werever tey are and wenever tey like. And it allows design of new forms of assessment we may not ave tougt of before. he second question I tink of is ow best to engage teacing staff in e-learning, and te tird, ow we can involve our students in te design of e-learning environments. I will pick up tese two points again in a moment. Particularly, I will address a couple of capters in no particular order and sare te tougts tat went troug my mind wile reading. E-learning 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 are introduced in Capter 2 by Claus Nygaard, togeter wit a curriculum design model, commencing wit te question ow we perceive learning, ten ow we perceive e-learning, and finally ow we perceive curriclulum. I woleeartedly agree wit Nygaard’s views tat most current e-learning practice is aligned wit E-learning 1.0, Distribution of information to students, as tis is te traditional model tat most current lecturers ave learnt troug, and it is te safest model as te teacer is te autority and remains in control. One also needs to keep in mind tat most lecturers ave been appointed on te basis of teir researc, wit very few olding formal qualifications in adult learning or oter forms of engagement wit educational teory. I would be interested to see current e-learning approaces analysed using tis model, to inform curriculum reform projects. One could commence wit te question ow curriculum is perceived in te current design, ow e-learning is designed, wat tis tells us about ow we perceive learning,
Foreword to ten question if tis was te intention and if tis is ow learning sould be perceived. In Capter 6, Riannon Evans discusses te low student engagement wit lecture recordings tat are automatically produced in larger lecture teatres. he availability of tese recordings as reduced student attend-ance in te classes tat are being recorded. Wile reading tis capter I was very muc reminded of te work undertaken by one of my PD students, Maimuna Musarrat, at a different university. In an effort to identify barriers and enablers to te adoption of educational tecnology by lecturers, se investigated lecturer attitude towards voluntary use of tecnology in iger education, and mandatory (or automatic) use. he voluntary tecnology was te tablet PC, provided to te lecturers wo volunteered and were offered professional development on ow to use it and membersip in a community of practice to ask questions and sare approaces. he mandatory tecnology was lecture recording tecnology, by default set to automatically record a full lecture-duration of content projected onto te screen wit input from te document camera or computer, wit te recording made available on te LMS sortly after. he introduction of tis tecnology ad not included professional devel-opment. Maimuna surveyed lecturers and followed up in more dept via focus groups. Se identified four types of lecturers: tose wo are “willing users” of lecture recording and encourage teir students to engage wit te recordings; te “non-willing users” wo didn’t know tey could ave opted out, don’t tink it provides benefits to students and are not encour-aging teir students to access te recordings; te “non-willing non-users” wo ave opted out or are glad tey are allocated teacing spaces tat do not provide recording facilities; and finally te “willing non-users”, tose wo can see benefits for teir students and for temselves but are sced-uled in spaces were recordings are not produced. Representatives of tis latter group were requesting to be sceduled in lecture recording enabled rooms. Maimuna found tat te main motivator for adoption of lecture recording is te value perception, were tose wo can see a benefit to learning will embrace a tecnology. A very fitting quote from Capter 1 of tis book is:he role of faculty, we sall argue, is more important for te success of e-learning tan tecnology itself. Of course, tis brings me back to tis book, were muc of te discussion is around te pedagogy, and ow it sould be driving te use
Foreword of tecnology. I like Evans’ suggestion to use availability of automated lecture recording as a trigger to retink teacing, abandon typically teacer-centred lectures and produce good quality bite-size videos instead. I would ten argue tat tis would be a constructive way to move to blended learning were face to face time remains and is used in a more engaging way, to co-construct knowledge and aid understanding. Key to tis development is te careful alignment of te online and te face to face components, so tey complement eac oter and students benefit from te best eac can offer. I will pick up on tis again a bit later were I describe my own approac to avoiding live lecture recordings. In reading troug te capters of tis book, I would like to propose one additional approac to e-learning 3.0 tat I believe as not been covered in a capter: te inclusion of students as partners. his, at its most basic level, means seeking te input of students into te design of curriculum, e.g. before design commences, or during design. Most studies investigate student perception of teir learning environment and curric-ulum wile tey are studying, or at te end of semester. But wat about consulting wit a group of students on wat would work best, before te curriculum is (re)designed? I took tis approac wen redesigning a traditionally-taugt matematics course into blended mode. Students wo ad just completed te course were invited to a focus group were we sougt ideas on improvements to te course. We carefully steered tem towards te idea of an online component. Peraps tis sould ave been expected: students wanted more online material on one and, so tey could catc up if tey missed a class. On te oter and, tey did not want all learning to be online, as tey appreciated te benefits of face to face contact wit a lecturer or tutor, and oter students. hey wanted lecture recordings, but at te same time admitted tey would most likely not watc long recordings. hey wanted to be able to find relevant mate-rial on te LMS, quickly. As a consequence, in te new blended design we opted out of live lecture recordings and, as Evans suggested earlier, instead embedded sort videos explaining concepts or sowing worked examples in te weekly scedule. We explained wy we ad made certain canges, and ow tese aligned wit wat te focus group ad suggested. Feedback after te course ad been taugt in blended mode for te first couple of times was extremely positive, towards te easy of navigation, as well as te availability of online resources. But feedback also clearly
Foreword stated tat students would not want to give up any of te existing face to face ours. We did receive negative feedback from te students wo really wanted live lecture recordings and didn’t understand tat our design ad been suc tat tese live recordings were not needed. he more advanced level of working wit students as partners is teir active inclusion in curriculum design. I was privileged to be visiting Lougboroug University in te UK a few years ago, were students were working on an internsip to improve a second year matematics course tat ad been regarded as difficult by students. hese students ad just completed te course and were creating additional resources for te next coort of students. For example, tey recorded screencasts, video of andwritten explanation on a tablet PC wit audio narration, as support resources tat tey felt were missing to understand concepts. I was able to interview tese students and teir supervising lecturers. he students admitted tat for te first time, tey ad learnt wat it means to study a topic properly, to completely understand it, as tey felt tey needed to before tey could explain it to oters. Involving students in te production of learning resources for teir peers, or allowing tem to actively be involved in te improvement of curriculum requires a retinking towards e-learning 3.0, as I’ve indicated earlier. A concern from one of te lecturers in te Lougboroug study was “but wat about te correctness”? He was worried tat students may not ave te maturity and tecnical knowledge to influence curriculum. In line wit te above and on te topic of learning by teacing, I would like to pick up on an idea mentioned by Flemming Meier and Claus Nygaard in Capter 9, were tey compare e-learning tools for problem-based collaborative work. Wile Kaoot, an online quiz tool wit in-built games-based learning, as scored very low against oter tools, te idea of getting students to write quizzes and use tese wit oter students as potential. By engaging wit assessment and writing assessment tasks as well as correct and incorrect solution options, students will need to understand te content well and identify key concepts to assess. hey will do tis in an environment tey regard as “fun” to work in. I ave used Kaoot and oter audience response systems in my own mate-matics teacing to prepare students for exams: questions are extracted from past exam papers, wit a typical (usually at least sligtly incorrect) solution sown. Students are ten asked ow many marks tey would
  • Univers Univers
  • Ebooks Ebooks
  • Livres audio Livres audio
  • Presse Presse
  • Podcasts Podcasts
  • BD BD
  • Documents Documents