1 / 15

Frameworks of Online Learning Environment

Frameworks of Online Learning Environment. W enzhi Chen April 2, 2003. References. Dringus, L.P., 1999, The framework for DIRECTED online learning environment, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 55-67.

raquel
Download Presentation

Frameworks of Online Learning Environment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Frameworks of Online Learning Environment Wenzhi Chen April 2, 2003

  2. References • Dringus, L.P., 1999, The framework for DIRECTED online learning environment, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 55-67. • MacDonald, C.J., Stodel, E.J., Farres, L.G., Breithaupt, L., and Gabriel, 2001, The demand-driven learning model: a framework for Web-based learning, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 4, pp. 9-30. • Khan, B. H., 2001, A framework for e-Learning. e-learning magazine, December 18, 2001. online: elearningmag.com/elearning/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=5163 • Stacey, E., and Rice, M., 2002, Evaluating an online learning environment, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 323-340.

  3. Defining an OLE • Dringus [1999] define an OLE as a distinct, pedagogically meaningful and comprehensive online learning environment by which learners and faculty can participate in the learning and instructional process at anytime and any place. OLEs manifest a variety of technical tools that support instructional delivery and communication in online formats. In addition, dynamic delivery structures are embedded to enhance the instructional, learning and communication processes taking place.

  4. Framework for DIRECTED OLEs • Delivery: A process of presenting and maintaining an Online Learning Environment. • Interaction: The embodiment of meaningful communication and collaboration between faculty and learners. • Resources: Human, information, learning, and technical dimensions that bring the OLE to life. • Evaluation: An iterative process for assessing the efficacy and validity of OLEs. • Culture: Identifying the new roles that learners and faculty take on in OLEs, as well as an understanding of a shift toward a learner-centered paradigm. • Technology: Robust and activity-oriented mechanisms and tools that are interfaced by the computer-mediated environment. • Education: The embodiment of learning and instructional processes directed toward supporting a learner-centered paradigm. • Design: Included in the continuum of delivery challenges are critical areas of concern for design.

  5. The demand-driven learning model • Learner outcomes • High-quality WBL programs provide outcomes such as lower costs for learner (i.e., employee) and employer and other personal advantages for the learner, while achieving learning objectives. • Ongoing program evaluation • The publication and dissemination of findings on DDLM-based programs contribute to theory and practice. • Continual adaptation and improvement • A consequence of the evolution of operational definitions of the components in the DDLM is the need to adapt and improve the model. • Consumer demands • Consumers in DDLM-based learning programs demand appropriate and quality content, delivery, and service. • Superior structure as the quality standard • Superior structure is proposed as the high-quality standard for WBL. • In the DDLM, superior structure is achieved by anticipating the needs of the learners and considering what motivates learners.

  6. A Framework for E-learning • Pedagogical: refers to teaching and learning, concerning content analysis, audience analysis, goal analysis, medium analysis, design approach, organization and methods and strategies of e-learning environments. • Technological: This includes infrastructure planning, hardware and software. • Interface design: page and site design, content design, navigation, and usability testing. • Evaluation: both assessment of learners and evaluation of the instruction and learning environment. • Management: maintenance of learning environment and distribution of information. • Resource support: the online support and resources required to foster meaningful learning environments. • Ethical: considerations of e-learning relate to social and political influence, cultural diversity, bias, geographical diversity, learner diversity, information accessibility, etiquette, and the legal issues. • Institutional: concerned with issues of administrative affairs, academic affairs and student services related to e-learning.

  7. IMDC Framework Objectives . Materials Activities . Course Strategy Delivery Participation Process Pedagogy . Organ- ization . Motivation OLE Teacher Learner Performance Evaluation Access Capability . . Limitation Internet cost

  8. Evaluating an online learning environment Stacey, E., and Rice, M., 2002, Evaluating an online learning environment, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 323-340.

  9. Abstract • This paper reports on an evaluation undertaken under the auspices of the cross-institutional CUTSD funded project which was established to facilitate evaluations of computer facilitated learning with an action inquiry model of evaluation (Phillips, 2002). • The evaluation focused on students' learning processes and outcomes in an online learning environment established for postgraduate education students studying an Open and Distance Education Specialism in a Masters program at Deakin University. • Processes refers to all cognitive activities that contribute to learning, (e.g. problem solving, reflection) as well as the manner in which these activities are carried out (e.g. individually, in groups, teacher or student-directed). • Learning outcomes refer to the things students are able to do as a result of their engagement in a course of study. This includes both discipline-specific and generic skills.

  10. Methodology • Action Inquiry is a term for the deliberate use of any kind of a plan, act, describe, review cycle for inquiry into action in a field of practice. • This allowed practitioners to adjust methods and schedules in response to contingencies that arose.

  11. Evaluation objectives and questions

  12. Data collection methods • Voluntary online focus group conference: Students were asked to respond both to questions about their experiences of learning online, and to reflections about online practice posted in this area during and at the end of the semester. These questions were also emailed to any student who had not participated in the focus group conference. • Online observation: used to analyses communication and learning processes through ongoing response to student comments, and retrospective analysis of conference message archives. • Analysis of conference message content: used to determine the students' learning processes online. • Calculation of frequency and distribution of message use: used to establish communication patterns and as a form of triangulation of data. • Comparison of students' results and interaction frequency: to see if simple trends of interaction rate and outcome were interrelated. • A summative online discussion: held three months after semester ended. Students were asked to comment on a summary of previously analyses findings which were posted on a short term computer conference set up for the purpose.

  13. Conclusions • Student feedback supported the use of online conferencing in encouraging a learning community with teacher presence seen as central to this. • Frequency analysis showed that required online involvement generated high frequency of messaging, a high teacher time requirement that needed more management with responsibility given to students. Patterns of communication showed that high teacher interaction encouraged high student response but in small groups this was devolved and required less teacher interactivity. • Tasks designed for online discussion generated online interaction with a cognitive focus. • Content analysis pointed to the role and importance of the conferences for social interaction and administrative sharing as well as for a cognitive focus. • Summative discussion was a key evaluation innovation and confirmed previous findings establishing the reliability of formatively gathered results. • Students perceived the value of considering other students' perspectives, ideas and resources as a major component of their successful learning online.

  14. The EndThank You for your Listening and Suggestions Email | wenzhi@mail.cgu.edu.tw Wenzhi’s Wonderful World | http://id.cgu.edu.tw/wenzhi CoCreaThink Design Community | http://thinkdesign.cgu.edu.tw Alai Design Research Group | http://Alai_DRG.idv.st

  15. Appendix • Evaluation Cookbook @ LTDI • BRITE IDEAS @ LTDI • Learning-Centred Evaluation of Computer-Facilitated Learning Projects in Higher Education @ TLC, Murdoch University.

More Related