
Volume 8 Issue 1 / Jan 2010
pp1‑50
Editor: Shirley Williams
Editorial
As we enter 2010 it is interesting to reflect how learning has changed over the past decade. Technology has changed considerably over this time period, as have learners’ expectations. In the last 10 years we have gone from internet access as a luxury to many seeing it as a necessity. In this climate it is interesting to look at the data collected by Littlejohn and her colleagues, and to speculate what will happen in the next 10 years, and whether there will be more similarities or differences across the disciplines represented in the papers that form this edition. Shirley Williams Reading January 2010
Keywords: assessment for learning, blended learning, collaborative learning, digital literacy, engineering education, English for Academic Purposes (EAP), e-portfolio, , higher education , interdisciplinary collaboration, learning design, learning objects., online assessment, online faculty, online learning, pedagogy, reusability, students’ expectations of technology use, study skills, teacher education, technology-enhanced learning, TPCK, transfer of assessment practices, Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), Web 2.0,
Share this item:
Ronald Beebe, Selma Vonderwell, Marius Boboc
Look inside Download PDF (free)
Abstract
This study explores the transfer of assessment practices from f2f to online environments by college instructors, with a particular interest in the factors influencing assessment in online learning settings. Assessment is a critical aspect of the learning environment, and considerable research has suggested various methods of formative and summative assessment for the f2f classroom. However, there has been less research into the ways in which these traditional forms of assessment are being incorporated into the online learning environment, or whether they may even be appropriate. This study investigated the perceptions of seven higher education faculty, with experience teaching courses in both the f2f and online environments, regarding the transfer of assessment practices between the two delivery formats. Specifically, this study explored the transfer of assessment practices from f2f to online environments by college instructors in two higher education institutions: a four‑year college and a two‑year community college. The authors propose that an understanding of both assessment for learning and of learning is needed to support effective faculty practices and enhanced student learning in online courses. Consequently, it is important to study the impact of assessment strategies and techniques faculty employ to better understand various instructional practices that effectively centre on enhanced student learning. A phenomenological approach was employed for the analysis of data involving seven online course instructors at two higher education institutions, a four‑year college and a two‑year community college. Findings indicate several factors that influence the transfer of assessment practices from f2f to online environments. Data analysis points to several areas of interest related to the design of online assessment: time management, complexity of content, structure of online medium, student responsibility and initiative, and informal assessment. Authors suggest the incorporation of tradition classroom assessment techniques in the online learning environment should be considered in light of the factors described above. In particular, assessments for continuous and improved learning are important for the development of an engaged community of learners in the online environment. As technologies continue to evolve, a pedagogical framework that considers the learning environment differences between traditional and face to face classes becomes increasing imperative, both in terms of understanding the delivery and mediation of instruction. Such a framework will need to address both aspects of process and product in assessment. Consequently, future research needs to examine what strategies of techniques are effective in the assessment for learning in online instruction.
Keywords: Online learning, online assessment, assessment for learning, assessment of learning, transfer of assessment practices, online faculty
Share this item:
Allison Littlejohn, Anoush Margaryan, Gabriele Vojt
Look inside Download PDF (free)
Abstract
This study investigates changing patterns in students use of electronic tools over a four year period, mapping changes in social communications with expectations in formal learning. The data, collected from 2001 to 2004, reflect the views of 2215 university entrants, the majority of whom were aged between 17 and 20 years across a range of disciplines (Business, Science and Engineering) on their first day at university. Although the data was collected prior to the emergence of the contemporary social technologies, it tests an underlying assertion that students expectations of learning are strongly influenced by their prior experiences. Results show no correlation between the extent of university entrants use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) and their expectations of how they will learn. Despite a dramatic increase in students use of ubiquitous technologies over a four‑year period, their expectation of how they might learn at university remained relatively static over the same timeframe.
Keywords: ICT use, digital literacy, technology-enhanced learning, e-learning, students expectations of technology use, higher education
Share this item:
Dharmadeo Luchoomun, Joe McLuckie, Maarten van Wesel
Look inside Download PDF (free)
Abstract
þÿ 000000000000T 000000000000h 000000000000i 000000000000s 000000000000 000000000000p 000000000000a 000000000000p 000000000000e 000000000000r 000000000000 000000000000p 000000000000r 000000000000e 000000000000s 000000000000e 000000000000n 000000000000t 000000000000s 000000000000 000000000000a 000000000000n 000000000000 000000000000i 000000000000n 000000000000n 000000000000o 000000000000v 000000000000a 000000000000t 000000000000i 000000000000v 000000000000e 000000000000 000000000000a 000000000000p 000000000000p 000000000000r 000000000000o 000000000000a 000000000000c 000000000000h 000000000000 000000000000t 000000000000o 000000000000 000000000000e 000000000000‑