i-manager Publications

i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology (JET)

Current Issue Vol. 21 Issue 2

Preventing Teacher and Counselor Burnout: Self-Care in Training Programs
A Study of Intervention Math Labs and STAAR Math Growth Scores in a South Texas Rural Middle School
Turkish EFL Teachers' Perceptions of their Pedagogical Digital Competence in an EFL Setting
Brief Report: Targeting the Social Communication Skills of an Autistic Adolescent with a Co-Occurring ADHD Diagnosis using Two Formats of a Social Story
The Effectiveness of GeoGebra Assisted Learning on Students' Mathematical Representation: A Meta-Analysis Study

Most Cited

Volume 10 Issue 1 April - June 2013

Article

Degree of Hybridity: Peer Review in the Blended Composition Classroom

Rebecca Helminen Middlebrook*

Writing (Communication) Coach/ Instructor, Michigan Technological University, Department of Cognitive and Learning Sciences, Houghton.

Middlebrook , R. H. (2013). Degree Of Hybridity: Peer Review In The Blended Composition Classroom. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.1.2299

Abstract

As the move to increase availability of composition courses in the online environment continues, it is important to understand the ways in which composition instructors take on the challenges associated with moving their teaching online and how they modify, or re-mediate, their pedagogy for this new teaching and learning environment. By investigating the views composition instructors hold regarding technology use in their teaching practices, factors that may influence the degree of re-mediation of pedagogical practices seen in hybrid, or blended, first-year composition courses were identified. One factor in particular that had a great effect on the degree of pedagogical re-mediation in this study was identified and defined as degree of hybridity.

References

[1]. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2009). “Blending In: The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the United States.” The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from web January 27.

[2]. Berlin, J. (1982). “Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories.” College English, 44.8: p. 765-77.

[3]. Bliuc, A., Goodyear, P.& Ellis, R.A. (2007). “Research Focus and Methodological Choices in Studies into Students' Experiences of Blended Learning in Higher Education.” Internet and Higher Education, 10: p. 231-244.

[4]. Bolter, J. D. & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

[5]. Bruffee, K. A. (1984). “Collaboration and the 'Conversation of Mankind.'” College English. 46: 635-52.

[6]. “Course Delivery Modalities.” (2009). Center for Distributed Learning. University of Central Florida. Retrieved from web February 15, 2009.

[7]. DiPardo, A., & Freedman S. (1988). “Peer Response Groups in the Writing Classrooms: Theoretic Foundations and New Directions.” Review of Educational Research. 58:2: 119-49.

[8]. Draper, S., Brown, J. M., Henderson, F., & McAteer, E. (1996). “Integrative Evaluation: An Emerging Role for Classroom Studies of CAL.” Computers and Education, 26(1-3): 17-31.

[9]. Erdosne Toth, E., Morrow, B., & Ludvico, L. (2009). “Designing Blended Inquiry Learning in a Laboratory Context: A Study of Incorporating Hands-On and Virtual Laboratories.” Innovative Higher Education, 33(5): 333-344.

[10]. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). “Blended Learning: Uncovering its Transformative Potential in Higher Education.” Internet and higher Education, 7: 95-105.

[11]. Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2009). “Evaluating the Quality of E-learning at the Degree Level in the Student Experience of Blended Learning.” British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4):652-663.

[12]. Graham, C. R. (2006). “Blended Learning Systems: Definitions, Current Trends and Future Directions.” In Bonk, Curtis J. and Charles R. Graham, eds. The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco: Wiley. 3-21.

[13]. Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (1991). “The Rhetoric of Technology and the Electronic Writing Class.” College Composition and Communication 42, 1: 55-65.

[14]. Hwang, A. & Arbaugh, J.B. (2009). “Seeking Feedback in Blended Learning: Competitive Versus Cooperative Student Attitudes and their Links to Learning Outcome.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3): 280-293.

[15]. Ireland, J., Martindale, S., Johnson, N., Adams, D., Eboh, W., & Mowatt, E. (2009). “Blended Learning in Education: Effects on Knowledge and Attitude.” British Journal of Nursing, 18(2): 124-130.

[16]. Kastman Breuch, L. (2004). Virtual Peer Review: Teaching and Learning about Writing in Online Environments. Albany: State University of New York Press.

[17]. Khine, M.S. & Lourdusamy, A. (2003). “Blended Learning Approach in Teacher Education: Combining face-to-face Instruction, Multi-media Viewing and On-line Discussion.” British Journal of Education Technology, 34(5: 671-675.

[18]. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). “Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication.” London: Edward Arnold Press.

[19]. McLuhan, M. (2005). The Medium is the Message. Ginko Press.

[20]. Moran, C. (2001). “Technology and the Teaching of Writing.” In Tate, Gary, Amy Rupiper, and Kurt Schick, eds., A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 203-223.

[21]. Motteram, G. (2006). “'Blended' Education and the Transformation of Teachers: A Long-term Case Study in Postgraduate UK Higher Education.” British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1): 17-30.

[22]. Murray, D. M. (2003). “Teach Writing as a Process Not Product.” In Villanueva, Victor, ed., Cross-Talk in Comp Theory. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

[23]. Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). “Can 'Blended Learning' Be Redeemed?” E-Learning, 2(1): 17-26.

[24]. Roblyer, M.D., & Doering, A. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. 6th Edn. Boston, Allyn Bacon.

[25]. Skill, T. D., & Young, B. A. (2002). “Embracing the Hybrid Model: Working at the Intersection of Virtual and Physical Learning Spaces.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92: 23-32.

[26]. “The Sloan Consortium.” (2009). Retrieved from web July 1, 2009.

[27]. Tabor, S. W. (2007). “Narrowing the distance; Implementing a Hybrid Learning Model for Information Security Education.” The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8:1: 47-57.

[28]. Tuzi, F. (2004). “The Impact of E-feedback on the Revisions of L2 Writers in an Academic Writing Course.” Computers and Composition 21: 217-235.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

OTLA: A New Model for Online Teaching, Learning and Assessment in Higher Education

Yaron Ghilay* , Ruth Ghilay**

* Lecturer in the Neri Bloomfield Centre of Design and Education, Haifa, Israel and the Jerusalem College.

** Educational Counsellor in Primary Education.

Ghilay, Y., and Ghilay , R.(2013). OTLA: A New Model For Online Teaching, Learning And Assessment In Higher Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.1.2300

Abstract

The study examined a new asynchronous model for online teaching, learning and assessment, called OTLA. It is designed for higher-education institutions and is based on LMS (Learning Management System)as well as other relevant IT tools. The new model includes six digital basic components: text, hypertext,text reading, lectures (voice/video), exercises (optional and compulsory) and a final computerised exam. It is accompanied by deep daily involvement of the course lecturer. The research was based on two samples of students studying in two colleges (n₁=50, n₂ =46) who participated in OTLA courses.All students were asked to answer the same questionnaire focused on three areas: the course components, characteristics of learning process and time investment. Besides,achievements of an OTLA course were compared to the same course in a "face to face" format. The research reveals that according to students' views, the new model is very helpful for their studying process. Furthermore, achievements in an OTLA course were found to be equal or better in comparison to an equivalent face-to-face course. The study's results point out that there is a significant worthiness to adopt the new model in universities and colleges.

References

[1]. Bernard R. M., Abrami P. C., Lou Y., Borokhovski E., Wade, A., Wozney L., Wallet P.A., Fiset M. & Huang B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research 74 (3):379–439.

[2]. Bransford J. D., Brown A. L. & Cocking R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

[3]. Clark R. C. & Mayer R. E. (2011). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. Pfeiffer, San Francisco.

[4]. Cuban L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology, since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

[5]. Dede C. (2006). Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and methods. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Publishing Group.

[6]. Jaffe R., Moir E., Swanson E. & Wheeler G. (2006). E-Mentoring for Student Success: Online mentoring and professional development for new science teachers. In Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and methods, ed. Dede C., 89–116. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Press.

[7]. Harlen W. & Doubler S. (2004). Can teachers learn through enquiry online? Studying professional development in science delivered online and on-campus. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (10): 1247–67.

[8]. Hiltz S. R. & R. Goldman, eds. 2005. Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[9]. Mayer, R.E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

[10]. Mayer, R.E. (2009). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[11]. Means B., Toyama Y., Murphy R., Bakia, M. & Jones. K (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. U.S. Department of Education.

[12]. Riel M. and Polin L.(2004). Online communities: Common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments. In Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning, ed. Barab S. A., Kling R.& Gray J. H. 16–50. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

[13]. Schwen T. M. & Hara. N. (2004). Community of practice: A metaphor for online design. In Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning, ed. Barab S. A., Kling R. & Gray J. H., 154–78. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

[14]. Vrasidas C. & Glass G. V. (2004). Teacher professional development: Issues and trends. In Online professional development for teachers, ed. Vrasidas C. & Glass G. V., 1–12. Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age.

[15]. Zhang D. (2005). Interactive multimedia-based e-learning: A study of effectiveness. American Journal of Distance Education, 19 (3):149–62.

[16]. Zhao Y., Lei J., Yan B., Lai C. & Tan H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107 (8):183684.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

University ESL Learners’ Cross-Cultural Transitions through Web-Based Project Work

Migyu Kang* , Katherine Richardson Bruna**

*-** Iowa State University..

Kang , M., and Bruna, K. R. (2013). University ESL Learners' Cross-Cultural Transitions Through Web-Based Project Work. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 22-35. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.1.2301

Abstract

This study sought to account for East Asian learners’ cross-cultural transitions to US university Intensive English classroom culture within a technology-mediated language teaching approach, PrOCALL (Project-Oriented Computer Assisted Language Learning). It explored the influence of this approach on classroom interaction patterns acquired in the prior EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classrooms of their countries of origin. Our interpretation of this influence demonstrates that web-based project work has potential to boost cross-cultural communication, facilitating East Asian learners’ socialization to the interactive norms of the US university Intensive English classroom. In the study, a group of ESL (English as a Second Language) learners in a university Intensive English high-intermediate reading class implemented a cross-cultural project using web-based authentic materials and tasks. They were involved in decision-making on a cultural topic for a group project, data collection on their cultural topic, group webpage design, and oral presentation. During these activities, learners showed interest and engagement in getting to know other cultures and increased oral interactions. Interviews with the learners confirmed that their classroom interactions had been enhanced through the web-based project implementation

References

[1]. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison Wesley Longman. USA.

[2]. Andrews, C. (2000). Project-oriented use of the World Wide Web for teaching and learning culture. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4-5), 357-376.

[3]. Blanchard, J., McLain, J., & Bartshe, P. (2005). The web and reading instruction. Computers in the Schools, 21(3-4), 5-14.

[4]. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: David McKay.

[5]. Bond, M. (1996). The Handbook of Chinese Psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

[6]. Boykin, A. W., Tyler, K. M., & Miller, O. A. (2005). In search of cultural themes and their expressions in the dynamics of classroom life. Urban Education, 40(5), 521-549.

[7]. Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating internet-based reading materials into the foreign language curriculum: From teacher- to student-centered approaches. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 87-107.

[8]. Chun, D. M. (2001). L2 reading on the web: Strategies for accessing information in hypermedia. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(5), 367-403.

[9]. Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Facilitating reading comprehension with multimedia. System, 24(4), 503-519.

[10]. Cummings, W. K. (1996). Asian values, education and development. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 26(3), 287-303.

[11]. de Bettignies, H-C., & Tan, C. K. (2007). Values and management education in China. International Management Review, 3(1), 17-37.

[12]. Debski, R. (2000). Guest editorial. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4-5), 303-306.

[13]. DuFon, M. A. (2002). Video recording ethnographic SLA research: Some issues of validity in data collection, Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 40-59.

[14]. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice, New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

[15]. Elliot, J. (Ed.) (2005). Motivation, engagement and educational performance: International perspectives on the context for learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

[16]. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432.

[17]. Ercetin, G. (2003). Exploring ESL learners' use of hypermedia reading glosses. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 261-283.

[18]. Fetzer, J. S., & Soper, J.C. (2007). The effect of Confucian values on support for democracy and human rights in Taiwan. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 3(1), 143-154.

[19]. Gambrell, L. (2005). Reading literature, reading text, reading the internet: The times they are changing. Reading Teacher, 58(6), 588-591.

[20]. Gaspar, C. (1998). Situating French language teaching and learning in the age of Internet. The French Review, 72(1), 69-80.

[21]. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

[22]. Hancock, J. (1999). Teaching literacy using information technology: A collection of articles from the Australian literacy educator's association. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.

[23]. Jean-Ellis, G., Debski, R., & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Oral interaction around computers in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 121-145.

[24]. Johnson, B. N. (1982). Education as environmental socialization: Classroom spatial patterns and the transmission of sociocultural norms. Anthropological Quarterly, 55(1), 31-43.

[25]. Johnson, A., & Heffernan, N. (2006). The short readings project: A CALL reading activity utilizing vocabulary recycling. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 63-77.

[26]. Khan, B. (1997). Web-based instruction (WBI): What is it and why is it? In B. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 5-18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

[27]. Kramsch, C., A'Ness, F., & Lam, E. (2000). Authenticity and authorship in computer-mediated acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 78-104.

[28]. Kumamoto-Healey, J. (2000). Website creation: A Japanese learning project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4-5), 449-455.

[29]. Lee, J-K. (2001). Confucian thought affecting leadership and organizational culture of Korean higher education. Radical Pedagogy (2001).

[30]. Lee, L. (1998). Going beyond classroom learning: Acquiring cultural knowledge via on-line newspapers and intercultural exchanges via on-line chat rooms. CALICO, 16(2), 101-120.

[31]. Lee, S-H. (2000). Asian values and the future of the Confucian culture. The Institute for East Asian Studies, 12(1).

[32]. Levine, A., Ferenz, O., & Reves, T. (2000). EFL academic reading and modern technology: How can we turn our students into independent critical readers? TESL-EJ, 4(4), 1-9.

[33]. Lewis, A., & Atzert, S. (2000). Dealing with computer-related anxiety in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4-5), 377-395.

[34]. Lin, H., & Chen, T. (2007). Reading authentic EFL text using visualization and advance organizers in a multimedia learning environment. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 83-106.

[35]. Liu, J. (2004). Effects of comic strips on L2 learners' reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 225-243.

[36]. Luck, K. (2008). Web-based foreign language reading: Affective and productive outcomes. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 305-325.

[37]. Lynch, B. K. (2000). Evaluating a project-oriented CALL innovation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4/5), 417-440.

[38]. Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon, North Somerset: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

[39]. Mehan, H. (1998). The study of social interaction in educational settings: Accomplishments and unresolved issues. Human Development, 41(4), 245-269.

[40]. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[41]. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[42]. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[43]. Morkes, J., & Nielsen, J. (1997). Concise, SCANNABLE, and objective: How to write for the web.

[44]. Nelson, L. (1995). Cultural differences in learning styles. International Journal of Behavior Development, 28(1), 26-36.

[45]. Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.

[46]. Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently….and why. New York, NY: Free Press.

[47]. Ogbu, J. U. (1982). Cultural discontinuities and schooling. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 13(4), 290-307.

[48]. Osuna, M., & Meskill, C. (1998). Using the World Wide Web to integrate Spanish language and culture: A pilot study. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 66-87.

[49]. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

[50]. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (2001). Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.

[51]. Sinyor, R. (1998). Integration and research aspects of Internet technology in Italian language acquisition. Italica, 75(4), 532-540.

[52]. Stoller, F. L. (1997). Project work: A means to promote language content. Forum, 35(4), 1-10.

[53]. Toyoda, E. (2000). Arduous but exciting: Web-creation project in Japanese. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4-5), 441-448.

[54]. Toyoda, E. (2001). Exercise of learner autonomy in project-oriented CALL. CALL-EJ Online, 2(2).

[55]. Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118- 128.

[56]. Tyler, K. M., Boykin, A. W., & Walton, T. R. (2006). Cultural considerations in teachers' perceptions of student classroom behavior and achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 998-1005.

[57]. Tyler, K. M., Uqdah, A. L., Dillihunt, M. L., Beatty-Hazelbaker, R., Conner, T., Gadson, N., Henchy, A., Hughes, T., Mulder, S., Owens, E., Roan-Belle, C., Smith, L., & Stevens, R. (2008). Cultural discontinuity: Toward a quantitative investigation of a major hypothesis in education. Educational Researcher, 37(5), 280-297.

[58]. Verhoeven, L., & Snow, C. (Eds.) (2001). Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[59]. Walz, J. (1998). Meeting standards for foreign language learning with World Wide Web activities. Foreign Language Annals, 31(1), 103-114.

[60]. Warschauer, M (1999). Electronic literacies: Languages, culture and the power in online education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[61]. Wilhelm, I. (2011, September 25). U.S. colleges seek greater diversity in foreign-student enrollment. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

[62]. H. S. (1998). Knowledge in action: The promise of project-based learning. Focus on Basics, 2(D).

[63]. Yanguas, I. (2009). Multimedia glosses and their effect on L2 text comprehension and vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 48-67.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Pedagogy Redefined: Frameworks of Learning Approaches Prevalent in the Current Digital Information Age

Isam Najib Al-Fuqaha*

Philadelphia University, Jordan.

Alfuqaha, I. N. (2013). Pedagogy Redefined: Frameworks Of Learning Approaches Prevalent In The Current Digital Information Age. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.1.2302

Abstract

This paper attempts to delineate the frameworks of learner-centered vis-à-vis teacher-centered processes of learning prevalent in the second decade of the twenty-first century. It defines the pedagogical changes that have emerged due to the development of delivery technologies, and the interrelations among teachers, students, and knowledge.The paper clarifies the following frameworks of learning approaches: learner-centered yet teacher-determined pre-web pedagogy, the multi-directed web 1.0 learning (andragogy), the learner-determined web 2.0 learning (heutagogy), and the network-directed web 3.0 learning (paragogy). The difference between the pedagogy and andragogy paradigms is succinctly that the first is child-centered, while the second is adult-centered. The difference between the heutagogy and paragogy paradigms is a matter of degree of maturity and autonomy, as well as self-direction versus instructor-control. Paragogy requires more autonomy and self-direction. A study conducted at Philadelphia University- Jordan, revealed that 62% of faculty members surveyed considered themselves performing the role of andragogy (Teacher Multi-directed Adult Learning paradigm), 21% appeared to perform that of the pedagogy paradigm (pre-web or Teacher Uni-directed Student Learning paradigm), while 12% said that they perform the role of heutagogy (Self-directed Learning paradigm), and 5% that of paragogy (Network-directed Learning paradigm). This paper also tries to outline the basic theories of connectedness and collaboration, as well as the four stages of development of the learning processes, ranging from pre-web learning styles (comprising traditional, radio learning. Video books, and computer– assisted learning styles), web 1.0 (including electronic and blended learning styles), web 2.0 (making mobile and ubiquitous learning styles possible), and web 3.0 (facilitating the pervasive learning style). It describes the impact of new social software technologies upon teacher-knowledge, learner-knowledge, teacher–learner relations, and social networking. The main contribution of this paper is one of awareness that the traditional role of faculty members operating in pre-web content-based situations has become obsolete and improper. It clarifies the frameworks of self-determined life-long learning that made educational institutions redefine the packages of services they offer, and procure the infrastructure required to perform their duties in the current digital age. Redefinition of pedagogy to meet requirements of the twenty-first century students seems to be a must, and should form an integral part of any professional training program designed for university faculty members.

References

[1]. AlFuqaha, Isam (2012). Blended Learning Environments in Arab Universities: Probing Current Status and Projecting Future Directions, Conference on e-learning and Blended Learning: A Strategic Choice in Arab Universities, Philadelphia University, Jordan.

[2]. Anderson, T. (2010). Theories for Learning with Emerging Technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.

[3]. Aviram, A., & Assor, A. (2010). In Defense of Personal Autonomy as a Fundamental Educational Aim in Liberal Democracies: A Response to Hand. Oxford Review of Education, 36(1), 111-126.

[4]. Baldazzi A., Ricci L. and Baroz V. (eds) (2011). E-Learning Quality Assurance: A Multi-Perspective Approach, Gangemi Editore spa, Roma, Italy, ISBN 978-88-492-2259-3.

[5]. Beich, E. (2008). ASTD Handbook for Workplace Learning Professionals. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.

[6]. Brown, A. L. (1994). The Advancement of Learning. Educational Researcher, 23 (8), pp.4-12.

[7]. Canning, N. (2010). Playing with Heutagogy: Exploring Strategies to Empower Mature Learners in Higher Education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(1), 59-71.

[8]. Dede, Chris. (1995). The Transformation of Distance Education to Distributed Learning.

[9]. Dede, C. and Palumbo, D. (1991). Implications of hypermedia for cognition and communication. Impact Assessment Bulletin, 9,1-2.

[10]. Downes, S. (2007). What Connectivism Is.

[11]. Knowles, M.(1975). Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. United States of America: Cambridge Adult Education.

[12]. Siemens, G. (2011). Moving Beyond Self-Directed Learning: Network-Directed Learning.

[13]. Smith, P. & Dillon, C.L. (1999). “Comparing Distance Learning and Classroom Learning: Conceptual Considerations”. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13, No. 2:6.

[14]. Wheeler, S. (2011). Learning with e's: Digital Age Learning.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

The Triangulation Algorithmic: A Transformative Function for Designing and Deploying Effective Educational Technology Assessment Instruments

James Edward Osler II*

North Carolina Central University.

Osler , J. E. (2013). The Triangulation Algorithmic: A Transformative Function for Designing and Deploying Effective Educational Technology Assessment Instruments. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.1.2303

Abstract

This paper discusses the implementation of the Tri–Squared Test as an advanced statistical measure used to verify and validate the research outcomes of Educational Technology software. A mathematical and epistemological rational is provided for the transformative process of qualitative data into quantitative outcomes through the Tri–Squared Test as an efficient technique for the rapid testing of software applications designed for the educational setting. The design of fixed-parameter algorithms for software engineering problems can prove to be beneficial to the Educational Technologist who has to efficiently and rapidly evaluate a software tool for deployment. This novel methodology provides elegance and has a wide range of applicability to practically address important and relevant problems in the “trial and error” process of application evaluation. This research is the continuation of a dynamic mixed methods approach that is a transformative process which changes qualitative data into quantitative outcomes through the Tri–Squared statistical measure first introduced in i-manager's Journal of Mathematics

References

[1]. Apostol, T. M. (1967). Calculus, second edition, Volume one: One-variable calculus, with an introduction to linear algebra. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.

[2]. Kant, I. (2007). Critique of pure reason (based on Max Müller's translation). P. Classics a Division of Pearson PLC. New York, NY.

[3]. Orlich, D. & Harder, R. (2004). Teaching Strategies: A Guide to Effective Instruction. Houghton Mifflin. Boston, Mass.

[4]. Osler, J. E. (2013a). The Psychometrics of Educational Science: Designing Trichotomous Inventive Investigative Instruments for Qualitative and Quantitative for Inquiry. December 2012–February 2013, i-manager's Journal on Educational Psychology. Vol. 8, No. 3.

[5]. Osler, J. E. (2013b). The Psychological Efficacy of Education as a Science through Personal, Professional, and Contextual Inquiry of the Affective Learning Domain. February–April, i-manager's Journal on Educational Psychology. Vol. 6, No. 4.

[6]. Osler, J. E. (2012). Trichotomy–Squared – A novel mixed methods test and research procedure designed to analyze, transform, and compare qualitative and quantitative data for education scientists who are administrators, practitioners, teachers, and technologists. July – September. i-manager's Journal on Mathematics. Vol. 1, No 3.

[7]. Rust, J. &Golombok, S. (1989). Modern psychometrics: The science of psychological assessment(2nd ed.). Florence, KY, US: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.Sensagent: Retrieved, May 9, 2012:http://dictionary.sensagent. com / trichotomy+(mathematics)/en-en/

[8]. Singh, S. (1997). Fermat's enigma: The epic quest to solve the world's greatest mathematical problem. A. Books a Division of Random House. New York, NY.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Does smart classroom an effective technology for teaching: a research Analysis

Ananta Kumar Jena*

Department of Educational Sciences, Assam University, Silchar, Assam, India..

Jena , A. K. (2013). Does Smart Classroom An Effective Technology For Teaching: A Research Analysis. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.1.2304

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate the elementary school students’ perception towards the traditional over smart classroom instruction. In the present study, hundred elementary school students from two Indian schools have been randomly selected as the sample of the study. The learners’ perception scores were analyzed by chi-square and Univariate factor analysis techniques. It was found that traditional instructional strategy, and the teachers’ knowledge, modes of transaction, skill of presentation, use of the blackboard, illustration with examples, questioning, reinforcement, and the feedback was comparatively better than smart class instruction.

References

[1]. Banilower, E., & Shimkus, E. (2004). Professional development observation study. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.v.

[2]. Blau,I.,Koohang,A., Eshet-Alkalai, Y., Caspi,A., Eden, S., Geri, N., & Yair,Y.(2011). Teachers for "Smart Classrooms": The Extent of Implementation of an Interactive Whiteboard-based Professional Development Program on Elementary Teachers' Instructional Practices. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects Volume 7.

[3]. Clarke D, Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education ,18:947–967.

[4]. Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Studying teacher education: What we know and need to know. Journal of Teacher education, 56(4), 301–306.

[5]. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294–343.

[6]. Embi, Z. C. Hussain, H. (2005). Analysis of Local and Foreign Edutainment Products--An Effort to Implement the Design Framework for an Edutainment Environment in Malaysia. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science teaching, 24(1), 27-42.

[7]. Ghani, A.S. (2009). Cooperative Learning Versus The Lecture Method of Instruction in An Introductory Statistics Course. Journal Sains Dan Matematik , 1(1), Malaysia.

[8]. Glazerman, S., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Isenberg, E., Lugo- Gil, J. (2008). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Results from the first year of a randomized control study (NCEE 2009–4034). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

[9]. Grierson, A.L & Tiffany, L.G. (2009). Seeing is believing: creating a catalyst for teacher change through a demonstration classroom professional development initiative. Professional Development in Education, 35 (4), 567-584.

[10]. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media, and Technol-ogy, 32, 283-301.

[11]. Jacob, B., & Lefgren, L. (2004). The impact of teacher training on student achievement: Quasi-experimental evidence from school reform efforts in Chicago. Journal of Human Resources, 39(1), 50–79.

[12]. Jena, A.K. (2011a). Concept mapping as a constructivist approach for meaning making in science learning and attitude among elementary school children. An Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar.

[13]. Jena, A.K. (2011b). Students' perception towards teachers' depth of knowledge inventory, unpublished tool, Assam University, Silchar, Assam, India.

[14]. Lee Mowbry, C.P. (2011). Use of SMART Boards for teaching, learning and assessment in kindergarten science.

[15]. Linn, M. C., Husic, F., Slotta, J.D., & Tinker, R. (2006). Technology Enhanced Learning in Science (TELS): Research Programs. Educational Technology, 46(3), 54-68.

[16]. Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers' Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15: 129-151. (REF. OKAY).

[17]. Lui, M., Tissenbaum, M., Slotta, J.D. (2011). Scripting Collaborative Learning in Smart Classrooms: Towards Building Knowledge Communities surface learning.

[18]. Manny-Ikan, E., Dagan, O., Tikochinski, T.B., Rachel Zorman, R. (2011). Using the Interactive White Board in Teaching and Learning – An Evaluation of the SMART CLASSROOM Pilot Project. Interdisciplinary, Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, Volume 7, 2011, IJELLO, special series of Chais Conference 2011 best papers.

[19]. Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

[20]. Morgan, G. L. (2008). Improving student engagement: Use of the interactive whiteboard as an instructional tool to improve engagement and behavior in the junior high school classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University).

[21]. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge: Ten years of learning to teach elementary science. Journal of research in Science teaching, 42(7), 767-790.

[22]. Nir, A., & Bogler, R. (2008). The antecedents of teacher satisfaction with professional development programs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 377–386.

[23]. Ozer Kendig, E. (2010). Inclusion of Technology in the classroom and How It Influences teaching Practice and Student Engagement (ED519510) ProQuest LLC, Ed.D. Dissertation, Wilmington University Delaware.

[24]. Pearcy, M, Duplass, J. A. (2011). Teaching History: Strategies for Dealing with Breadth and Depth in the Standards and Accountability Age (EJ92245 Social Studies, 102(3), 110-116.

[25]. Rescigno, R. C. (1988). Practical Implementation of Educational Technology. The GTE/GTEL Smart-Classroom. The Hueneme School District Experience. ERIC, No. Ed313007.

[26]. Robinson, T.N. & Borzekowski, D.L.G. (2011). Effects of the SMART Classroom Curriculum to Reduce Child and Family Screen Time. Journal of Communication.

[27]. Shi, Y., Xie, W., Xu, G., Shi, R., Chen, E., Mao, Y., and Liu, F. (2003). The Smart Classroom: Merging Technologies for Seamless Tele-Education. IEEE, Pervasive Computing-SHI/20Yua, Accessed date 17.08. 2012.

[28]. Slotta, J. D., & Aleahmad, T. (2009). WISE technology lessons: Moving from a local proprietary system to a global open source framework. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(2), 169–189.

[29]. Smart, K.L., Cappel, J.J. (2006). Students' Perceptions of Online Learning: A Comparative Study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 201-219.

[30]. Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32, 443–457.

[31]. Solvie, P. (2004). The digital whiteboard: A tool in early literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 484-487.

[32]. Suo, Y., Miyata, N., Morikawa, H., Ishida, T. (2009). Open Smart Classroom: Extensible and Scalable Learning System in Smart Space Using Web Service Technology. CIEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering. 21( 6),June.

[33]. Thomas, J.M. (2002). Technology Levels and teaching American Government. ERIC.

[34]. Tissenbaum, M. (2009). Co-Designing Collaborative Smart Classroom Curriculum for Secondary School Science.

[35]. Tissenbaum, M.,& Slotta, J.D. (2009). A new framework for smart classroom research: Co-designing curriculum, research and technology.

[36]. Tornabene, L. (1998). The SMART Classroom Verses the Traditional Classroom: What the Student's Are Saying. (Ed421963).

[37]. Van den Blink, C. (2009). Uses of Labs and Learning Spaces. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 32 (1) 2009.

[38]. Weiss,K. (2009). Low-no tech teaching: what we lose in the smart classroom. URL:aabss.org/../... pp 1-6 Accessed 17.08.2012.

[39]. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How school matters: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Educational policy Analysis Archives, 10(12).

[40]. Yau, S.S., Gupta, S.K.S, Karim, F., Ahamed, S.I., Wang, Y., and Wang, B. (2012b). Smart Classroom: Enhancing Collaborative Learning Using Pervasive Computing Technology.

[42]. Young, J.R. (2009). When Computers Leave Classrooms, so Does Boredom (EJ853097).Chronicle of Higher Education, 55 (42).

i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology (JET)

Current Issue Vol. 21 Issue 2

Most Read

Most Cited

Volume 10 Issue 1 April - June 2013

Degree of Hybridity: Peer Review in the Blended Composition Classroom

Rebecca Helminen Middlebrook*

Writing (Communication) Coach/ Instructor, Michigan Technological University, Department of Cognitive and Learning Sciences, Houghton.

Middlebrook , R. H. (2013). Degree Of Hybridity: Peer Review In The Blended Composition Classroom. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.1.2299

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

OTLA: A New Model for Online Teaching, Learning and Assessment in Higher Education

Yaron Ghilay* , Ruth Ghilay**

* Lecturer in the Neri Bloomfield Centre of Design and Education, Haifa, Israel and the Jerusalem College. ** Educational Counsellor in Primary Education.

Ghilay, Y., and Ghilay , R.(2013). OTLA: A New Model For Online Teaching, Learning And Assessment In Higher Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.1.2300

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

University ESL Learners’ Cross-Cultural Transitions through Web-Based Project Work

Migyu Kang* , Katherine Richardson Bruna**

*-** Iowa State University..

Kang , M., and Bruna, K. R. (2013). University ESL Learners' Cross-Cultural Transitions Through Web-Based Project Work. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 22-35. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.1.2301

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Pedagogy Redefined: Frameworks of Learning Approaches Prevalent in the Current Digital Information Age

Isam Najib Al-Fuqaha*

Philadelphia University, Jordan.

Alfuqaha, I. N. (2013). Pedagogy Redefined: Frameworks Of Learning Approaches Prevalent In The Current Digital Information Age. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.1.2302

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

The Triangulation Algorithmic: A Transformative Function for Designing and Deploying Effective Educational Technology Assessment Instruments

James Edward Osler II*

North Carolina Central University.

Osler , J. E. (2013). The Triangulation Algorithmic: A Transformative Function for Designing and Deploying Effective Educational Technology Assessment Instruments. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.1.2303

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Does smart classroom an effective technology for teaching: a research Analysis

Ananta Kumar Jena*

Department of Educational Sciences, Assam University, Silchar, Assam, India..

Jena , A. K. (2013). Does Smart Classroom An Effective Technology For Teaching: A Research Analysis. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.1.2304

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

* Lecturer in the Neri Bloomfield Centre of Design and Education, Haifa, Israel and the Jerusalem College.

** Educational Counsellor in Primary Education.