Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Politicians, educators, and investigators have been unanimous in stating that we need to design schools to teach 21st century skills (i.e., creativity, innovation, critical thinking, problem solving, communication, and collaboration); however, HEIs are paralyzed by the lack of consistent and intelligent ways to assess these skills/competences. One of the difficulties is that, usually, the current assessment instruments are based on products and not on processes, due to the intrinsic complexities in capturing detailed process data for large numbers of users. In turn, data mining technologies, signal processing, text-mining, machine learning to explore multimodal process-based learner assessments could offer a possible solution to capture/analyze massive amounts of process data of classroom online activities.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
Chatteur, F., Carvalho, L., & Dong, A. (2008). Design for Pedagogy Patterns for E-learning. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 341–343). DC: IEEE Computer Society.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre/University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Collins, M., & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. In Proceedings of FSU/AECT Distance Education Conference. Retrieved from http://penta.2.ufrgs.br/edu/teleduc/wbi/flcc.htm
Conole, G., de Laat, M., & Darby, J. (2008). ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new? findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50(2), 511–524. CrossRef
Devedižić, V. (2006). Semantic web and education. New York: Springer.
Dias, S. B., & Diniz, J. A. (2013). FuzzyQoI model: A fuzzy logic-based modelling of users’ quality of interaction with a learning management system under blended learning. Computers & Education. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.016.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105. CrossRef
Graf, S. (2007). Adaptivity in learning management systems focussing on learning styles. PhD thesis, Vienna University of Technology, AU. http://sgraf.athabascau.ca/publications/PhDthesis_SabineGraf.pdf
Grant, M.R., & Thornton, H.R. (2007). Best practices in undergraduate adult-centered online learning: mechanisms for course design and delivery. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), (pp. 346–356). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/documents/grant.pdf
Hellwege, J., Gleadow, A., & McNaught, C. (1996). Paperless lectures on the Web: An evaluation of the educational outcomes of teaching Geology using the Web. In Proceedings of 13th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary education (ASCILITE ‘96), Adelaide: University of South Australia. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide96/papers/26.html
Herrington, J., Reeves, T., & Oliver, C. (2007). Immersive learning technologies: Realism and online authentic learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(1), 65–84. CrossRef
Hijón, R., & Velázquez, A. (2006). Web, log analysis and surveys for tracking university students. In Proceedings of IADIS International Conference on Applied Computing (pp. 561–564), ISBN: 972-8924-09-7.
Hijón, R.N., & Velázquez, A.I. (2010). From the discovery of students access patterns in e-learning including Web 2.0 resources to the prediction and enhancement of students outcome, e-learning experiences and future. In S. Soomro (Ed.). E- learning Experiences and Future, InTech (ch. 14, pp. 276–294). Retrieved from http://www.intechopen.com/books/e-learning-experiences-and-future/from-the-discovery-of-students-accesspatterns-in-e-learning-including-web-2-0-resources-to-the-pred
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kickul, J., & Kickul, G. (2002). New pathways in e-learning: The role of student proactivity and technology utilization. In Proceedings of the 45 rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Academy of Management Conference (Management Education: Teaching & Instruction). Retrieved from http://cobacourses.creighton.edu/MAM/2002/papers/Kickul.doc
Kidd, T. (2005). Key aspects affecting students’ perception regarding the instructional quality of online and web based courses. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(10). http://itdl.org/Journal/Oct_05/article05.htm
Lim, C. J., & Lee, S. (2007). Pedagogical usability checklist for ESL/EFL e-learning websites. Journal of Convergence Information Technology, 2(3), 67–76.
McIsaac, M. S., Blolcher, J. M., Mahes, V., & Vrasidas, C. (1999). Student and teacher perceptions of interaction in online computer-mediated communication. Educational Media International, 36(2), 121–131. CrossRef
Nian-Shing, C., & Kan-Min, L. (2002). Factors affecting e-learning for achievement. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2002) (pp. 200–205) Retrieved from http://lttf.ieee.org/icalt2002/proceedings/t502_icalt148_End.pdf
Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (1997). Interactions in audio-graphics and learning environments. American Journal of Distance Education,, 11(1), 34–54. CrossRef
Peled, A., & Rashty, D. (1999). Logging for success: Advancing the use of WWW logs to improve computer mediated distance learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research,, 21(4), 413–431.
Ping, T.A., Cheng., A.Y., & Manoharan, K. (2010). Students interaction in the online learning management systems: A comparative study of undergraduate and postgraduate courses. In Proceedings of the AAOU- 2010 Annual Conference (pp. 1–14) http://www.academia.edu/1228815/Students_Interaction_in_the_Online_Learning_Management_Systems_A_Comparative_Study_of_Undergraduate_and_Postgraduate_Courses
Ramos, C., & Yudko, E. (2008). “Hits” (not “Discussion Posts”) predict student success in online courses: A double crossvalidation study. Computers & Education, 50, 1174–1182. CrossRef
Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka K., Bacigalupo M., Ferrari A., & Punie Y. (2009). Learning 2.0: The impact of web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe. Joint Research Centre (JRC)-Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/Learning-2.0.html
Sheard, J., Albrecht, D.W., & Butbul, E. (2005). ViSION: Visualization student interactions online. In A. Treloar & A. Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian World Wide Web Conference (pp. 48–58), Gold Coast, Australia, 2-6 July 2005: Southern Cross University, Lismore, ISBN: 0975164430.
Singleton, D.M. (2012). The transition from traditional to blended on-campus learning experience. PhD thesis, Nova Southeastern University, USA. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1039162923/fulltextPDF?accountid=8359
Tillett, J. (2012). Project Tin Can–The Next Generation of SCORM. Float Mobile Learning. In Pedagogy and Learning, Tin Can, Webinars. http://floatlearning.com/2012/04/project-tin-can-the-next-generation-of-scorm/
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. Am J Distance Educ, 8(2), 6–26. CrossRef
Wall, J. (2012). Strategically integrating blended learning to deliver lifelong learning. In J.L. Moore, & A.D. Benson (Eds.). International Perspectives of Distance Learning in Higher Education, in subject Business, Management and Economics, InTech (ch. 7, pp. 133–148). http://www.intechopen.com/books/international-perspectives-of-distance-learning-in-higher-education/strategically-integrating-blended-learning-to-deliver-lifelong-learning
- On Modeling Users’ Quality of Interaction with LMS Using Fuzzy Logic
Sofia B. Dias
José A. Diniz
Leontios J. Hadjileontiadis
- Chapter 10
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA