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

240 pages

English

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

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

Libri Publishing Ltd

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

English

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

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.

Sujets

Educational Software

Computers

Informatique

Informations

Publié par	Libri Publishing Ltd
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.

Extrait

E-learning 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 in Higher Education

Rhiannon Evans and Claus Nygaard

THE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION SERIES

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

www.libripublising.co.uk

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

vii

101

115

137

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

165

189

211

Foreword

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,

vii

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

viii

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