learning - Academic Conferences Limited

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Rachel Fitzgerald “The survey was helpful in a way but it didn't make things clear in depth.. I'd prefer a written feedback instead for the same reason that my mistakes were not justified in a clear manner.. overall satisfied with it!” “it felt a bit brief, I felt that had it been written there would have been comments throughout the assignment and therefore more feedback.” “For me, there is no difference between audio and text feedback” Of the rest of general qualitative comments the response is again not particularly in favour of audio, if anything it suggests that written feedback is more purposeful for these students. It would be interesting to have measured whether these responses came from students that received the initial recordings whether tone may have been more enthused or the end of the recordings when the tone may have been more perfunctory. 8. Conclusions and general reflection The JISC guide to effective practice lists digital audio as a tool for “improving the quality of feedback” JISC (2009 p19) but as Rust (2001) advises, when class sizes go up there is likely to be more “superficial feedback” returned to the student. This research established that this is also the case when using audio feedback although it is packaged in a more personal way. Feedback from the students through the various data collection methods suggests that they found the experience more personal and therefore valued the approach over the more traditional scrawl of handwritten feedback. Kerr & McLaughlin (2008) suggest that regardless of feedback style, quality personal feedback makes students feel cared for and that they are thought of as individuals, and as this is difficult to achieve in large cohorts, this must be something that needs to be considered, when looking at method. The next assignment on this module will receive traditional feedback as the numbers are too great to go with audio feedback again. If I were to use audio again, I think I would prefer to work with a smaller cohort and evaluate the impact across different assignments for the same module as I think the quality of the recordings would be better and less repetitive and it would offer opportunity to consider the impact of tone on how the student receives the feedback. Considering a student learning styles and their reception to method of feedback may also warrant further study. In a future cycle I would look for an alternative to the VLE, possibly Dropbox or another Web 2.0 shared space, and find a method that incorporated audio and text. This research suggests that audio feedback alone would not support an international DL student but needs a combination of audio and written feedback, so a future project may consider the Fish & Lumadue (2010) project that uses Jing, software that enables a tutor to merge a text response with audio, something they recommend as a 21 st century yet simple approach. Kerr and McLaughlin (2008) say that the tutors involved in their research would not repeat their attempt at video feedback. The general view, they report, is that the exercise was pointless in terms of time and benefit. From this cycle, I would say that Audio Feedback is a simple method but more suited to smaller groups of students. It can be adopted with ease and requires very little technical skills. The process of recording feedback is faster than writing it and it offers a personal response to students that is hard to achieve with any written method. Brown (2001) says one of the problems with feedback is that it is not always there when students need it; digital audio offers a solution to this, as it can be listened to anytime, although this could also be the case with typed electronic feedback. What does set Audio Feedback apart is the voice and tone of the tutor talking to the student, making feedback less ambiguous and providing a level of personalisation that fits in with NUS recommendations and gained the approval of the students involved in this research and even if the only benefit is that the student feels the marking is personal, then the technique is worth further investigation, Kerr & McLaughlan (2008). References Bols, A. (2010) What Students Want: feedback on assessment; Educational Developments; SEDA; 11:4; 7 Brown, G. (2001) Assessment: A Guide for Lecturers. LTSN Assessment Series: No 3; York, LTSN Generic Centre. Copley, J. (2007) Audio and Video Podcasts of lectures for campus-based students: production and evaluation of student use; Innovations in Education and Teaching International; 44:4; 387-399 Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. Providence, RI: Brown University, Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory. Fish, W., Lumadue, R. (2010) A Technologically Based Approach to Providing Quality Feedback to Students: A Paradigm Shift for the 21 st Century; Academic Leadership The Online Journal [online] http://www.academicleadership.org/article/A_Technologically_Based_Approach_to_Providing_Quality_Feed 264
Rachel Fitzgerald back_to_Students_A_Paradigm_Shift_for_the_21st_Century Accessed (28/1/11) Gibbs, G. (1981) Teaching Students to Learn: A student centred approach. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004) Conditions under which Assessment Supports Students’ Learning: Learning and Teaching in Higher Education; 1:1 Harvey, J. & Mogey, N. (1999). Pragmatic issues when integrating technology into the assessment of students: In Brown, S., Race, P. & Bull, J. (1999) (Eds), Computer-assisted assessment in higher education; London; Kogan-Page. Holmes, K., Papageorgiou, G. (2009) Good Bad and Sufficient: Students’ expectations, perceptions and uses of feedback; Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education; 8:1: 85-96 JISC (2009) Effective Practice in a Digital Age; Bristol; JISC Innovation Group Kaplan-Leiserson, E. (2005) Podcasting in Academic and Corporate Learning. Learning Circuits [online] https://www.astd.org/LC/2005/0605_kaplan.html, Accessed (8/1/11) Kemmis, S; MacTaggart, R. (2005) Participatory Action Research: Communicative action and the public sphere in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, London, Sage. Kerr, W., McLaughlin, P. (2008) The Benefit of Screen Recorded Summaries in Feedback for Work Submitted Electronically; Loughborough University [online] http://hdl.handle.net/2134/5363 Accessed (16/1/11) Koshy, V. (2005) Action research for improving practice: A practical guide. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Merry, S., Orsmond, P. (2007) Students’ Attitudes to and Usage of Academic Feedback Provided Via Audio Files; Bioscience Education eJournal [online] http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol11/beej-11-3.pdf, Accessed (25/1/11) NUS (2010) Charter of Feedback and Assessment [online] http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/asset/news/6010/FeedbackCharter-toview.pdf, Accessed (30/1/11) O’Leary, Z. (2004) The Essential Guide to Doing Research. London: Sage O’Leary, Z., (2005) Researching Real World Problems. London: Sage Price, M. (2007) Should we be giving less feedback; Centre for Bioscience Bulletin [online] http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/ftp/newsletters/bulletin22.pdf Accessed (20/1/11) Rani, N., Yahya, A. (2009) Engaging Learners in their studies via feedback; Teaching and Learning Open Forum [online] http://www.curtin.edu.my/TLForum2009/images/TLOF09-18.pdf Accessed (20/12/10) Rotherham, B. (2008) Using an MP3 to give feedback on student assignments; Educational Developments; SEDA; 8:2 [online] http://sites.google.com/site/soundsgooduk/downloads/MP3_recorder_for_feedback.pdf? Accessed (10/1/11) Rotherham, B. (2009a) It wasn’t me, guv!; Educational Developments. SEDA; 10:1 Rotherham, B. (2009b) Sounds Good: Quicker, better assessment using audio feedback; JISC Final http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/usersandinnovation/sounds%20good%20final%20repo rt.doc, Accessed (15/1/11) Rust, C. (2001) A Briefing on Assessment of Large Groups, Assessment Series No 12; York; LTSN Generic Centre. Saunders, M., Charlier, B., Bonamy, J. (2005) Using Evaluation to create ‘Provisional Stabilities’; Evaluation the International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice; 11:1; 37-54 265
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings of the 10 th European C
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Paper Title Author(s) Page
Page 5 and 6:
Paper Title Author(s) Page No. A Qu
Page 7 and 8:
The Project Mobile Game Based Learn
Page 9 and 10:
Extreme Scaffolding in the Teaching
Page 11 and 12:
Malaysia); Tuomo Kakkonen (Universi
Page 13 and 14:
Preface These Proceedings represent
Page 15 and 16:
Mini Track Chairs Dr Antonios Andre
Page 17 and 18:
Cornélia Castro is a PhD student i
Page 19 and 20:
Manuel Frutos-Perez is the Leader o
Page 21 and 22:
David Mathew works at the Centre fo
Page 23 and 24:
Research interests include the inve
Page 25:
Novita Yulianti is a PhD student at
Page 28 and 29:
Samuel Adu Gyamfi et al. the develo
Page 30 and 31:
Samuel Adu Gyamfi et al. completion
Page 32 and 33:
Samuel Adu Gyamfi et al. interactio
Page 34 and 35:
Survey of Teachers’ use of Comput
Page 36 and 37:
Babatunde Alabi Alege and Stephen O
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Issues and Challenges in Implementi
Page 44 and 45:
Hussein Al-Yaseen et al. 2000/2001
Page 46 and 47:
Hussein Al-Yaseen et al. phase invo
Page 48 and 49:
Hussein Al-Yaseen et al. Berthold,
Page 50 and 51:
Antonios Andreatos Figure 1: Estima
Page 52 and 53:
Antonios Andreatos exchange applied
Page 54 and 55:
Antonios Andreatos knowledge space,
Page 56 and 57:
Figure 5: Video metadata from YouTu
Page 58 and 59:
Antonios Andreatos The organisatio
Page 60 and 61:
Constructing a Survey Instrument fo
Page 62 and 63:
Jonathan Barkand The teacher demon
Page 64 and 65:
Jonathan Barkand Indicator 2.3: Has
Page 66 and 67:
References Jonathan Barkand Allen,
Page 68 and 69:
2. Pedagogical agents Orlando Belo
Page 70 and 71:
Orlando Belo Type (Tp), the refere
Page 72 and 73:
3.3 The agent’s architecture Orla
Page 74 and 75:
Some Reflections on the Evaluation
Page 76 and 77:
Nabil Ben Abdallah and Françoise P
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Designing A New Curriculum: Finding
Page 84 and 85:
Andrea Benn For this new course, it
Page 86 and 87:
Andrea Benn Technology is already i
Page 88 and 89:
Andrea Benn To bring about the co-o
Page 90 and 91:
Latefa Bin Fryan and Lampros Stergi
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Faculty development Online course
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Alice Bird being reviewed under the
Page 102 and 103:
Alice Bird Developing the process m
Page 104 and 105:
Alice Bird Reflecting on the feasib
Page 106 and 107:
3.3 Early stage implementation Alic
Page 108 and 109:
Enhancement of e-Testing Possibilit
Page 110 and 111:
Martin Cápay et al. of Likert scal
Page 112 and 113:
Martin Cápay et al. Figure 3 Proce
Page 114 and 115:
Martin Cápay et al. Figure 4: An e
Page 116 and 117:
Martin Cápay et al. On the other h
Page 118 and 119:
Tim Cappelli demand from students t
Page 120 and 121:
Tim Cappelli at a time and increasi
Page 122 and 123:
Tim Cappelli forms were processed a
Page 124 and 125:
Objectives More efficient and faste
Page 126 and 127:
Digital Educational Resources Repos
Page 128 and 129:
Cornélia Castro et al. Economic:
Page 130 and 131:
Cornélia Castro et al. Dimension E
Page 132 and 133:
Cornélia Castro et al. feedback on
Page 134 and 135:
Cornélia Castro et al. EdReNe (200
Page 136 and 137:
Ivana Cechova et al. The influence
Page 138 and 139:
4. Methodology Ivana Cechova et al.
Page 140 and 141:
Ivana Cechova et al. Although this
Page 142 and 143:
8. Conclusion Ivana Cechova et al.
Page 144 and 145:
Yin Ha Vivian Chan et al. What is s
Page 146 and 147:
Yin Ha Vivian Chan et al. as a viab
Page 148 and 149:
Yin Ha Vivian Chan et al. the ILC h
Page 150 and 151:
The Development and Application of
Page 152 and 153:
Serdar Çiftci and Mehmet Akif Ocak
Page 154 and 155:
4.3 Data collection Serdar Çiftci
Page 156 and 157:
Serdar Çiftci and Mehmet Akif Ocak
Page 158 and 159:
Table 8: Students’ responses to q
Page 160 and 161:
An Exploratory Comparative Study of
Page 162 and 163:
Marija Cubric et al. Web 2.0 tools
Page 164 and 165:
Marija Cubric et al. Despite all th
Page 166 and 167:
Marija Cubric et al. Staff profile
Page 168 and 169:
Marija Cubric et al. In case 3.2, a
Page 170 and 171:
Marija Cubric et al. Sorcinelli, M.
Page 172 and 173:
Figure 1: Adaptive eLearning system
Page 174 and 175:
Blanka Czeczotková et al. knowledg
Page 176 and 177:
Blanka Czeczotková et al. Figure 2
Page 178 and 179:
Changing Academics, Changing Curric
Page 180 and 181:
Christine Davies 2.2.4 Seminars CEL
Page 182 and 183:
Web Conferencing for us, by us and
Page 184 and 185:
Mark de Groot, paper (Elluminate 20
Page 186 and 187:
Mark de Groot, requested. The targe
Page 188 and 189:
Mark de Groot, members of the group
Page 190 and 191:
6.1 The quick wins Mark de Groot, S
Page 192 and 193:
Tools for Evaluating Students’ Wo
Page 194 and 195:
Jana Dlouhá et al. course was dist
Page 196 and 197:
2.4 Feedback - student perceptions
Page 198 and 199:
Jana Dlouhá et al. virtual learnin
Page 200 and 201:
3. Discussion Jana Dlouhá et al. Q
Page 202 and 203:
Jana Dlouhá et al. Sadler, R.D. (2
Page 204 and 205:
Jon Dron et al. Social networking i
Page 206 and 207:
Jon Dron et al. However, it is also
Page 208 and 209:
Jon Dron et al. further in enabling
Page 210 and 211:
4.3 Differentiated friends Jon Dron
Page 212 and 213:
Experimental Assessment of Virtual
Page 214 and 215:
Michaela Drozdová et al. to the or
Page 216 and 217:
Michaela Drozdová et al. Figure 1:
Page 218 and 219:
Figure 4: Decision tree for visual
Page 220 and 221:
Michaela Drozdová et al. very few
Page 222 and 223:
Glenn Duckworth Other studies have
Page 224 and 225:
Glenn Duckworth merely skim read th
Page 226 and 227:
8. Finance resources Glenn Duckwort
Page 228 and 229:
Glenn Duckworth was seen as being v
Page 230 and 231:
Francisco Perlas Dumanig et al. Stu
Page 232 and 233:
Francisco Perlas Dumanig et al. in
Page 234 and 235:
Francisco Perlas Dumanig et al. 3.6
Page 236 and 237:
Do you see What I see? - Understand
Page 238 and 239:
2.2 Deuteranopia Colin Egan et al.
Page 240 and 241: Colin Egan et al. Figure 5: HCBE's
Page 242 and 243: Figure 8a: Normal vision LogicWorks
Page 244 and 245: Researching in the Open: How a Netw
Page 246 and 247: Antonella Esposito previous edition
Page 248 and 249: Antonella Esposito However, beyond
Page 250 and 251: Antonella Esposito Moreno, M. A., F
Page 252 and 253: Gert Faustmann with an evaluation o
Page 254 and 255: Gert Faustmann come from the same s
Page 256 and 257: Gert Faustmann Figure 5: UML class
Page 258 and 259: Gert Faustmann The learner her/him
Page 260 and 261: Gert Faustmann (i.e. who has to pro
Page 262 and 263: Ana Mª Fernández-Pampillón et al
Page 272 and 273: Cognitive Communication 2.0 in the
Page 274 and 275: Sérgio André Ferreira et al. and
Page 276 and 277: Sérgio André Ferreira et al. is p
Page 278 and 279: Sérgio André Ferreira et al. Look
Page 280 and 281: Sérgio André Ferreira et al. In F
Page 282 and 283: To What Extent Does a Digital Audio
Page 284 and 285: Rachel Fitzgerald consideration of
Page 286 and 287: Rachel Fitzgerald understand, altho
Page 288 and 289: Rachel Fitzgerald Although this is
Page 292 and 293: Messages of Support: Using Mobile T
Page 294 and 295: Julia Fotheringham and Emily Alder
Page 296 and 297: Julia Fotheringham and Emily Alder
Page 298 and 299: Table 6: Results for reflective cyc
Page 300 and 301: Blended Learning at the Alpen-Adria
Page 302 and 303: Gabriele Frankl and Sofie Bitter to
Page 304 and 305: Figure 4 Moodle usage among the AAU
Page 306 and 307: Gabriele Frankl and Sofie Bitter No
Page 308 and 309: Gabriele Frankl and Sofie Bitter wh
Page 310 and 311: Evaluating the use of Social Networ
Page 312 and 313: Elaine Garcia et al. The process by
Page 314 and 315: 4.3 Data analysis Elaine Garcia et
Page 316 and 317: Elaine Garcia et al. issues of priv
Page 318 and 319: 8. Conclusions and recommendations
Page 320 and 321: Elaine Garcia et al. Nabi, A. (2011
Page 322 and 323: Danny Glick and Roni Aviram univers
Page 324 and 325: Danny Glick and Roni Aviram most im
Page 326 and 327: Danny Glick and Roni Aviram opinion
Page 328 and 329: Danny Glick and Roni Aviram Bernard
Page 330 and 331: Andrea Gorra and Ollie Jones to hel
Page 332 and 333: Andrea Gorra and Ollie Jones Howeve
Page 334 and 335: Andrea Gorra and Ollie Jones Figure
Page 336 and 337: Andrea Gorra and Ollie Jones Studen
Page 338 and 339: Rose Heaney and Megan Anne Arroll A
Page 340 and 341:
Rose Heaney and Megan Anne Arroll l
Page 342 and 343:
Rose Heaney and Megan Anne Arroll
Page 344 and 345:
Rose Heaney and Megan Anne Arroll J
Page 346 and 347:
Amanda Jefferies learning was furth
Page 348 and 349:
Amanda Jefferies way in which the o
Page 350 and 351:
Amanda Jefferies their teaching mat
Page 352 and 353:
A Methodology for Incorporating Usa
Page 354 and 355:
Anne Jelfs and Chetz Colwell To try
Page 356 and 357:
Anne Jelfs and Chetz Colwell We wor
Page 358 and 359:
The Virtual Learning Environment -
Page 360 and 361:
John Jessel 2.1 An outline framewor
Page 362 and 363:
John Jessel teachers who agreed to
Page 364 and 365:
John Jessel ‘“reduce the clicks
Page 366 and 367:
Mutlimodal Teaching Through ICT Edu
Page 368 and 369:
Paraskevi Kanari and Georgios Potam
Page 370 and 371:
Paraskevi Kanari and Georgios Potam
Page 372 and 373:
Rosario Kane-Iturrioz Regarding lan
Page 374 and 375:
Rosario Kane-Iturrioz Figure 2: Exa
Page 376 and 377:
Rosario Kane-Iturrioz Tests very us
Page 378 and 379:
Rosario Kane-Iturrioz When compared
Page 380 and 381:
Rosario Kane-Iturrioz Although the
Page 382 and 383:
Jana Kapounova et al. eLearning is
Page 384 and 385:
Jana Kapounova et al. Each dimensio
Page 386 and 387:
Jana Kapounova et al. project, conn
Page 388 and 389:
Acknowledgments Jana Kapounova et a
Page 390 and 391:
Andrea Kelz skills and competences
Page 392 and 393:
Andrea Kelz web-based activities in
Page 394 and 395:
Andrea Kelz system. Most other univ
Page 396 and 397:
Open Courses: The Next big Thing in
Page 398 and 399:
Kaido Kikkas et al. However, in the
Page 400 and 401:
Kaido Kikkas et al. generation of w
Page 402 and 403:
Kaido Kikkas et al. Occasional gue
Page 404 and 405:
John Knight and Rebecca Rochon guid
Page 406 and 407:
Evaluation of Quality of Learning S
Page 408 and 409:
Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. Essalmi
Page 410 and 411:
Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. (LOs), l
Page 412 and 413:
Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. Then hie
Page 414 and 415:
Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. If we lo
Page 416 and 417:
Models of eLearning: The Developmen
Page 418 and 419:
Stella Lee et al. Converging (AC a
Page 420 and 421:
Stella Lee et al. knowledge. Meta k
Page 422 and 423:
Stella Lee et al. Figure 3: Home pa
Page 424 and 425:
Stella Lee et al. Azevedo, R., Crom
Page 426 and 427:
Jake Leith et al. opportunities ble
Page 428 and 429:
Jake Leith et al. Data was collecte
Page 430 and 431:
Jake Leith et al. their informal sk
Page 432 and 433:
Jake Leith et al. For the summative
Page 434 and 435:
Sophisticated Usability Evaluation
Page 436 and 437:
Stephanie Linek and Klaus Tochterma
Page 438 and 439:
Page 440 and 441:
Page 442 and 443:
Social Networks, eLearning and Inte
Page 444 and 445:
Birgy Lorenz et al. 135 students p
Page 446 and 447:
Birgy Lorenz et al. The experts' st
Page 448 and 449:
Birgy Lorenz et al. Akdeniz, Y. (19
Page 450 and 451:
Arno Louw programmes, and within th
Page 452 and 453:
Arno Louw It should be clearly stat
Page 454 and 455:
Arno Louw somewhat an unwritten con
Page 456 and 457:
Arno Louw Lecturers assume that le
Page 458 and 459:
A treasure hunt has to be done to f
Page 460 and 461:
How to Represent a Frog That can be
Page 462 and 463:
Robert Lucas Occasionally we will a
Page 464 and 465:
Robert Lucas Note the need to creat
Page 466 and 467:
Robert Lucas Figure 5: A model of a
Page 468 and 469:
Learning by Wandering: Towards a Fr
Page 470 and 471:
Marie Martin and Michaela Noakes wa
Page 472 and 473:
Marie Martin and Michaela Noakes Th
Page 474 and 475:
Marie Martin and Michaela Noakes is
Page 476 and 477:
Linda Martin et al. across the sect
Page 478 and 479:
Linda Martin et al. confidence. Alt
Page 480 and 481:
8. Conclusion Linda Martin et al. T
Page 482 and 483:
Personalized e-Feedback and ICT Mar
Page 484 and 485:
Maria-Jesus Martinez-Argüelles et
Page 486 and 487:
Source: Own elaboration from survey
Page 488 and 489:
Page 490 and 491:
Page 492 and 493:
1.1 Semantic dimension Maria-Jesús
Page 494 and 495:
2. Methodology Maria-Jesús Martín
Page 496 and 497:
Maria-Jesús Martínez-Argüelles e
Page 498 and 499:
Maria-Jesús Martínez-Argüelles e
Page 500 and 501:
David Mathew members of staff frigh
Page 502 and 503:
David Mathew disclose this informat
Page 504 and 505:
David Mathew baboon smells the wate
Page 506 and 507:
Peter Mikulecky framing learning, p
Page 508 and 509:
Peter Mikulecky inhabitants or work
Page 510 and 511:
Acknowledgements Peter Mikulecky Th
Page 512 and 513:
Karen Hughes Miller and Linda Leake
Page 514 and 515:
Page 516 and 517:
Page 518 and 519:
An Analysis of Collaborative Learni
Page 520 and 521:
2.3 Flexible and accessible learnin
Page 522 and 523:
3.1 Definition of case study Peter
Page 524 and 525:
Peter Mkhize et al. Basically, soci
Page 526 and 527:
Peter Mkhize et al. you’ve got yo
Page 528 and 529:
Ideas for Using Critical Incidents
Page 530 and 531:
Jonathan Moizer and Jonathan Lean I
Page 532 and 533:
Jonathan Moizer and Jonathan Lean o
Page 534:
Jonathan Moizer and Jonathan Lean M
show all

learning - Academic Conferences Limited

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?