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 11 Issue 2 July - September 2014

Article

Learning-Style Assessment in Online Courses: A Prerequisite for Academic Success

Gina Cicco*

Associate Professor of Counselor Education, St. John's University, Queens, New York.

Cicco, G. (2014). Learning-Style Assessment in Online Courses: A Prerequisite for Academic Success. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.11.2.2916

Abstract

Educational researchers have extensively documented the benefits of utilizing learning styles in the processes of teaching and learning from early childhood to Adult Education (Burke & Dunn, 2003; Cicco, 2009). This article examines the need to consider and employ learning-styles instruction in the online classroom. Adult learners are unique in that they have already developed strategies to navigate through their academic courses and to succeed, even in adverse conditions. As adult learners enter the world of online instruction, their techniques may or may not prove to be effective in allowing them to master course objectives (Kasworm, Rose, & Ross-Gordon, 2010). Introducing a learning-styles approach to differentiate the instruction in online courses may assist adult learners in recognizing their learning needs and preferences, while providing them with a repertoire of learning options which capitalize on their personal strengths. Implementation of learning-styles pedagogical methods in online courses offers educators and their adult students a new approach to de-mystify successful pathways for academic success (Cicco, 2009; Cicco, 2013; Fearing & Riley, 2005). Five important steps for integrating this proven method of instruction in online courses are discussed as prerequisites in contemporary Adult Education.

References

[1]. Bernstein, D., & Bass, R. (2005). The scholarship of teaching and learning. Academe, 91(4), pp.37-4.

[2]. Burke, K., & Dunn, R. (2003). Learning style--based teaching to raise minority student test scores: There's no debate. Social Studies, 94(4), pp.167-170.

[3]. Cicco, G. (2009). Online versus in-class courses: Learning-style assessment as an advisement tool. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(2), pp.161-173.

[4]. Cicco, G. (2011). Assessment in online courses: How are counseling skills evaluated? i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), pp.9-15.

[5]. Cicco, G. (2013). Strategic lesson planning in online courses: Suggestions for counselor educators. i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, 8(3), pp.1-8.

[6]. Drago-Severson, E. (2009). Leading adult learning: Supporting adult development in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

[7]. Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarski, A. (2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward flexible online learning in management education. Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), pp.331-338.

[8]. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (2006). Dunn & Dunn Model – English. International Learning Styles Network.

[9]. Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (Eds.). (2003). Synthesis of the Dunn and Dunn learning-style model research: Who, what, when, where, and so what? New York: St. John's University.

[10]. Fearing, A., & Riley, M. (2005). Graduate students' perceptions of online teaching and relationship to preferred learning styles. MEDSURG Nursing, 14(6), pp.383-389.

[11]. Hollins-Alexander, S. (2013). Online professional development through virtual learning communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

[12]. Kasworm, C.E., Rose, A.D., & Ross-Gordon, J.M. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of adult and continuing education. Los Angeles: Sage.

[13]. Rudestam, K.E., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (Eds.). (2010). nd Handbook of online learning (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[14]. Rundle, S.M. (2006). An introduction to the Building Excellence Survey. Pittsford, NY: Performance Concepts International.

[15]. Swenson, P., & Taylor, N.A. (2012). Online teaching in the digital age. Los Angeles: Sage.

[16]. Zacharis, N.Z. (2011). The effect of learning style on preference for web-based courses and learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), pp.790-800.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

TMOC: A Model for Lecturers' Training to Management of Online Courses in Higher-Education

Yaron Ghilay* , Ruth Ghilay**

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

** Educational Counsellor in Primary Education.

Ghilay,Y., and Ghilay, R. (2014). TMOC: A Model For Lecturers' Training To Management Of Online Courses In Higher-Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 6-16. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.11.2.2917

Abstract

The study examined a new model called TMOC: Training to Management of Online Courses. The model is designed to train lecturers in higher-education to successfully create, deliver and develop online courses. The research was based on a sample of lecturers, who studied in a course based on the new model at the Mofet Institute in Tel-Aviv (n=20). The course included all components and characteristics of TMOC and learners were asked to answer a questionnaire focused on the following two basic constituents:

1. Required contents that should be studied in order to become a successful manager of online courses in highereducation.

2. Effective ways needed in order to achieve that mission.

The research reveals that according to faculty members' views, the new model is very helpful for them to become online course managers. Therefore, there is a significant worthiness to adopt it for training lecturers in higher-education to deal with online learning.

References

[1]. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States. Needham MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.

[2]. 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), pp. 379–439.

[3]. Brogden, L.M., & Couros, A. (2002). Contemplating the virtual campus: Pedagogical and administrative considerations. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 68(3), pp. 22-30.

[4]. Brown, G., Bull, J. &Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing student learning in higher-education (Routledge, London).

[5]. Bull, J. & McKenna, C. (2004). Blueprint for Computer- Assisted Assessment. RoutledgeFalmer, NY.

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

[7]. Colaric, S., & Taymans, J. (2004). Introducing Faculty to Online Learning: An Online Course as Professional Development. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher-education 2004 (pp. 549-554). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[8]. Farrer, S. (2002). End short contract outrage. MPs insist, Times Higher-education Supplement.

[9]. Gerlich, R. N. (2005). Faculty perception of distance learning. Distance Education Report, 9(17), pp.8.

[10]. Ghilay Y. & Ghilay R. (2013). OTLA: A New Model for Online Teaching, Learning and Assessment in Highereducation. i-manager ’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), pp.10-21, ISSN Print: 0973-0559, ISSN Online: 2230-7125.

[11]. Ghilay Y. & Ghilay R. (2012). Student Evaluation in Higher-education: a Comparison Between Computer Assisted Assessment and Traditional Evaluation. imanager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), pp.8- 16, ISSN Print: 0973-0559, ISSN Online: 2230-7125.

[12]. Ginzburg, E., Chepya, P. & Demers, D. (2007). Creating an effective training curriculum for faculty who teach online. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher-education 2007 (pp. 2025-2026). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[13]. 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).

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

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

[16]. Jaffe R., Moir E., Swanson E. & Wheeler G. (2006). EMentoring 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., pp.89–116. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Press.

[17]. Johnson, A. (2008). A nursing faculty's transition to teaching online. Nursing Education Perspectives, 29(1), pp.17-22.

[18]. Keeler, C., & Horney, M. (2007). Online course designs: are specials needs being met. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), pp.65-75.

[19]. Keengwe, J., Kidd, T. T., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009). Faculty and technology: Implications for faculty training and technology leadership. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 18 (1), pp.23-28.

[20]. Kim, K.J., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher-education: The survey says… Educause Quarterly, 29(4), pp.22-30.

[21]. Kurzweil, D., & Marcellas, B. (2008). The Faculty - Instructional Designer Dyad.In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 3445-3446). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[22]. Lao, T., & Gonzales, C. (2005). Understanding online learning through a qualitative description of professors and students' experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), pp.459-474.

[23]. Laurillard, D. (2002,). Rethinking university teaching a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd edn). RoutledgeFalmer, London.

[24]. Lorenzetti, J. P. (2004). Changing faculty perceptions of online workload. Distance Education Report, 8(20), pp.1-6.

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

[26]. McQuiggan, C. A. (2007). The role of faculty development in online teaching's potential to question teaching beliefs and assumptions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,10 (3).

[27]. 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.

[28]. Panda, S., & Mishra, S. (2007). E-Learning in a mega open university: Faculty attitudes, barriers, and motivation. Educational Media International, 44 (4), pp.323-338.

[29]. Pankowski, M. (2008). Training and Support for Online Faculty in Postsecondary Institutions. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 633-636). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[30]. Rockwell, K., Schauer, J., Fritz, S. M., & Marx, D. B. (1999). Incentives and obstacles influencing higher-education faculty and administrators to teach via distance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(4). pp.98.

[31]. Sellani, R. J., & Harrington, W. (2002). Addressing administrator/faculty conflict in an academic online environment. Internet and Higher-education, Vol.5, pp.131-145.

[32]. Wegmann, S., & McCauley, J. (2008). Shouting through the fingertips: Computer-mediated discourse in an asynchronous environment. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 805-808). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[33]. 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

Effects of Practice Type in the Here and Now Mobile Learning Environment

Jeremy I. Tutty* , Florence Martin**

* Interim Faculty Chair, Rio Salado College, Arizona

** Associate Professor in Instructional Systems Technology, University of North Carolina Charlotte

Tutty, J. I. and Martin, F. (2014). Effects of Practice type in the here and now Mobile Learning Environment. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.11.2.2918

Abstract

This generation of technology is characterized by mobile and portable devices such as smartphones and tablet computers with wireless broadband access. Mobile technologies enable a new kind of learning called “here and now learning,” where learners have access to information anytime and anywhere to perform authentic activities in the context of their learning. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of three levels of practice type (assessment Aligned, Reflective, None) on student performance and attitude in the here and now mobile learning environment. Results indicated that, the inclusion of practice activities in mobile instruction had a positive effect on student performance. Study participants who received either assessment aligned or reflective practice significantly outperformed the participants who did not receive practice. Further, the study results also indicated that, the inclusion of practice activities in here and now mobile learning has a positive effect on the students’ attitude. Through the systematic consideration of a specific element of instruction, this study begins the process of building the framework for the effective design and implementation of here and now mobile learning.

References

[1]. Al-Fahad, F. (2009). Student's attitudes and perceptions towards the effectiveness of mobile learning in King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2).

[2]. Anderson, T. (2009). Toward a theory of online learning.In T. Anderson, Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University Press.

[3]. Arrigo, M. & Ciprì, G. (2010). Mobile learning for all. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 6(1), pp. 94 - 102

[4]. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educational Researcher, Vol.18, pp.32-42.

[5]. Caverly, D., Ward, A., & Caverly, M. (2009). Techtalk: mobile learning and access. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(1), pp.38-39.

[6]. Cavus, N., & Ibrahim, D. (2009). Mobile learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), pp.78-91.

[7]. Ching, D., Shuler, C., Lewis, A., & Levine, M. (2009). Harnessing the potential of mobile technologies for children and learning. In mobile technology for children: designing for interaction and learning (2).

[8]. Dede, C. (2011). Emerging technologies, ubiquitous learning, and educational transformation. In Towards Ubiquitous Learning (Kloos, Gillet, Crespo, Wild, WolpersEds). Heidelberg, Springer.

[9]. Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (Revised edn.), Boston: D. C. Heath.

[10]. Disabato, J. (2011). Reflective Practice. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16(2), pp.89-89.

[11]. Elias, T. (2011). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), pp.143-156.

[12]. Farmer, B., Yue, A., & Brooks, C. (2008). Using blogging for higher order learning in large cohort university teaching: A case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), pp.123-136.

[13]. Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., and Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of Instructional Design. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning.

[14]. Gikas, J. (2011). Understanding change: Implementing mobile computing devices in higher education. (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest. (3485889)

[15]. Jonassen, D.,H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, Vol. 31, pp.28-33.

[16]. Knoernschild, K. (2010). Market Profile: Rich Mobile Application Platforms for the Smartphone 2010. Burton Group, Application Platform Strategies In-Depth Research Market Profile, pp.1-25.

[17]. Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy In Action: Applying Modern Principles Of Adult Learning (The Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series)

[18]. Knowles, Z., Tyler, G., Gilbourne, D., & Eubank, M. (2006). Reflecting on reflection: Exploring the practice of sports coaching graduates. Reflective Practices, 7(2), pp.163-179.

[19]. Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. The modern American college, pp.232-255.

[20]. Kreutzer, T. (2009). Generation mobile: Online and digital media usage on mobile phones among lowincome urban youth in South Africa.

[21]. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction, ReCALL, 20(3), pp. 271-289.

[22]. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[23]. Mann, S., & Reimann, P. (2007). Mobile technology as a mediating tool for learning in the convergences from technology, collaboration and curriculum perspectives. In 6th International conference of Mobile Learning, MLearn 2007.

[24]. Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology, Computers & Education, Vol.68, pp.76-85

[25]. Martin, F., & Klein, J. (2008). Effects of objectives, practice, and review in multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2) pp. 171- 189.

[26]. Martin, F, Klein, J. D. & Sullivan, H. (2007). The impact of instructional elements in computer-based instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), pp. 623 - 636

[27]. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), pp.43-59.

[28]. Miller, G. A. & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), pp.40-48.

[29]. Nihalani, P. K., & Mayrath, M. C. (2010). Statistics I. Findings from using an iPhone app in a higher education course.White Paper.

[30]. Pollara, P., & Broussard, K. K. (2011). Student perceptions of mobile learning: A review of current research. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 1643-1650). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[31]. Quinn, C. (2000). mLearning: Mobile, Wireless, In- Your- Pocket Learning.LineZine: Learning in the New Economy emagazine.

[32]. Quinn, C., N. (2012). Mobile learning: The time is now. The eLearning Guild. Santa Rosa, CA.

[33]. Reiser, R. A. (2007). What field did you say you were in? Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, 2-9.

[34]. Reiser, R.A., & Dick, W. (1996). Instructional planning: A guide for teachers (2nd ed.). Boston , Massachusetts : Allyn & Bacon.

[35]. Reynolds, M. (2011). Reflective practice: Origins and interpretations. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 8(1), pp.5-13.s

[36]. Ryu, H., & Parsons, D. (2012). Risky business or sharing the load? – Social flow in collaborative mobile learning. Computers & Education, 58(2), pp. 707-720

[37]. Shih, J. L., Chu, H. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2011). An [37]. Shih, J. L., Chu, H. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2011). An

[38]. Solvberg, A., M. &Rismark, M. (2012). Learning spaces in mobile learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(1) pp. 23-33.

[39]. Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 1(1), pp.1-12.

[40]. Traxler,J. (2010). Distance education and mobile learning: Catching up, taking stock. Distance Education, 31(2), pp.129-138.

[41]. Uzunboylu, H., Cavus, E. E., & Ercag, F. (2009). Using mobile learning to increase environmental awareness. Computers & Education, 52(2), pp.381-389

[42]. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), pp.451-468.

[43]. Wang, M., Shen, R., Novak, D., & Pan, X. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on students' learning behaviours and performance: Report from a large blended classroom. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 40(4), pp.673-695.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

The Development and Evaluation of a Network for Producing and Sharing Video Presentations

Alaa Sadik*

Department of Instructional and Learning Technology, College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

Sadik, A. (2014). The Development And Evaluation of A Network For Producing And Sharing Video Presentations. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.11.2.2919

Abstract

This paper describes the technology and methodology used in the development and evaluation of an online network to help the instructors to produce and share video presentations in a new and innovative way. The network offers an application and platform for recording and sharing video presentations. The application allows instructors to narrate and annotate PowerPoint slides and synchronize a variety of visual aids, including webcam footage, whiteboard, drawing board, and web browser. The platform uses ‘YouTube API’ to upload and integrate videos with scrollable slide thumbnails. Quantitative and qualitative techniques were implemented to collect data and report the usability of the network and effectiveness of the video presentations. The results of usability evaluation showed that, the network was perceived by instructors and students as effective, efficient, and relevance for self- production and sharing of video presentations. In addition, video presentations produced by participants met the criteria of quality of video presentations.

References

[1]. Cunningham, A. & Friedman, A. (2009). Captivating Young Learners and Preparing 21st Century Social Studies Teachers: Increasing Engagement with Digital Video. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 1797-1803). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[2]. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management.

[3]. Dey, E.L., Burn, H.E., and Gerdes, D. (2009). Bringing the classroom to the Web: Effects of using new technologies to capture and deliver lectures. Research in Higher Education, 50 (4), pp.377-393.

[4]. Fernandez, V., Simon, P. and Salan, J. (2009). Podcasting: A new technological tool to facilitate good practice in higher education. Computers and Education, Vol. 53, pp.385-392.

[5]. Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2007). Integrating technology for meaningful learning. (5th ed.), New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company

[6]. Gunawardena, C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, Vol. 1, pp.147–166.

[7]. Harrison, J. Seeman, J. Behm, R. (1991). Development of a distance education assessment instrument. Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(4), pp.65–77.

[8]. Homer, B., Plass, J., & Blake, L. (2008). The effects of video on cognitive load and social presence in multimedia-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 24, pp.786–797.

[9]. Lohr, L., Javeri, M., Mahoney, C., Gall, J., Li, K. & Strongin, D. (2003). Using Rapid Application Development to Improve the Usability of a Preservice Teacher Technology Course. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(2), pp.41–55.

[10]. Loisel, M. & Galer, R. (2004). Uses of PowerPoint in the 314L Classroom. Computer Writing and Research Lab. White Paper Series: #040505-3.

[11]. Martin L. (1990). Detecting and defining science problems: A study of video-mediated lessons. In Moll, L. (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology, Cambridge (pp 372–402): Cambridge University Press, MA.

[12]. Mayer, R. (2001). Multimedia-learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[13]. Mayer, R. & Moreno, R. (1998). A split- attention effect in multimedia-learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 90, pp.312–320.

[14]. Mayer, R. & Anderson, R. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), pp.484-490.

[15]. Mills, S. C., & Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Technology tools for teachers: A Microsoft Office® tutorial (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

[16]. Moskal, M. (2003). Recommendations for developing classroom performance assessments and scoring rubrics. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(14).

[17]. Laird, T. F. & Kuh, G. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), pp.211-233.

[18]. Parette, H. P., Blum, C., Boeckmann, N. M., & Watts, E. H. (2009). Teaching word recognition to young children using Microsoft PowerPoint coupled with direct instruction. Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol.36, pp.393–401.

[19]. Park, C.N. & Son, J.B. (2009). Implementing Computer-Assisted Language Learning in the EFL classroom: teachers' perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5(2), pp.80–101.

[20]. Rogers, M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation, 4th ed., New York: The Free Press.

[21]. Rushby, J. (1997). Quality criteria for multimedia. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 5(2), pp.18-30.

[22]. Scacchi, W. (2001). Process Models in Software Engineering. In Marciniak, J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, 2nd Edition, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

[23]. Schwartz, L., & Hartman, K. (2007). It is not television anymore: Designing digital video for learning and assessment. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 349- 366). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[24]. Whatley, J. and Ahmad, A. (2007). Using Video to Record Summary Lectures to Aid Students' Revision. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, Vol.3, pp.185-196.

[25]. Wilson, K. R., Wallin, J. S., & Reiser, C. (2003). Social stratification and the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 21(2), pp.133-143.

[26]. Zue, E. and Bergom, I. (2010). Lecture Capture: A guide for Effective Use. Tomorrow's Professor, Email Newsletter Number 1018.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Towards Total Quality Management in Universities: Quality Function Deployment Paradigm And Beyond

Isam Najib Al-Fuqaha*

Philadelphia University, Jordan.

Al-Fuqaha, I. N. (2014). Towards Total Quality Management in Universities: Quality Function Deployment Paradigm and Beyond. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.11.2.2920

Abstract

This paper is an endeavor to develop a customised and computerized matrix of Quality Function Deployment paradigm (QFD) that has been applied in industry, with the aim of probing quality assurance and enhancement in Universities. Results of testing the new matrix proved that, it is efficient and time-saving while compared with a detailed field study conducted at Philadelphia University, Jordan by the Jordan Accreditation Council. Challenges facing the application of the diverse relevant methodologies are mainly the scarcity of communication technologies and lack of physical and financial resources. This paper supports the adoption of the customized paradigm, to point out the following such as, Hybrid edutainment should be implemented; offices of quality management should be given a role in decision-making in Universities; awareness programs regarding the methods of quality assurance and enhancement should be organized, the culture of collaboration and interactivity among faculty members should be supported; and formation of regional networks of quality management should be advocated.

References

[1]. AlFuqaha, Isam (2013). Pedagogy Redefined: Frameworks of Learning Approaches Prevalent in the Current Digital Information Age, i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology, Vol.10, No. 1. ISSN Print- 0973- 0559, ISSN Online-2230-7125.

[2]. AlFuqaha, Isam (2013b). Towards a Customized Paradigm of “House of Quality” for Deployment in Universities: Philadelphia University as a Model. Journal of the National Center for Education and Development Research (in Arabic), Egypt, No. 24.

[3]. Aungst Stan, Barton Russell & Wilson, David (2001). The Pennsylvania State University ISBM Report 6 – 2001, Institute for the Study of Business Markets.

[4]. Gidley, Stan (2004). The 5Ss of Workplace Organization, Institute of Business Excellence.

[5]. Gill, A. (2009). “Knowledge management initiatives at a small University”, International Journal of Educational Management 23(7), pp.604–616.

[6]. Hallinger P., Snidvongs K. (2008). “Educating leaders: is there anything to learn from business management?”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol.36, pp.9–31.

[7]. Sullivan, L.P. (1986). "Quality Function Deployment", Quality Progress, June 1986, pp 39-50.

[8]. Stukalina, Yulia (2012). “Addressing Service Quality Issues in Higher Education: The Educational Environment Evaluation from the Students' Perspective”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 18(1): pp. 84–98.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Practice Paper

What Major Search Engines Like Google, Yahoo And Bing Needs To Know About Teachers In The UK?

Faezeh Seyedarabi*

Visiting lecturer and Researcher, City University, London.

Seyedarabi, F.(2014). What Major Search Engines Like Google, Yahoo And Bing Needs To Know About Teachers In The UK? i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 52-54. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.11.2.2921

Abstract

This article briefly outlines the current major search engines approach to teachers’ web searching. The aim of this article is to make Web searching easier for teachers when searching for relevant online teaching materials, in general, and UK teacher practitioners at primary, secondary and post-compulsory levels, in particular. Therefore, major search engines are strongly recommended to design and develope personalised search tools for teachers in addition to carrying out extensive studies on teachers' online searching needs and preferences in order to fully achieve search engine personalisation for individual teachers.

References

[1]. Faezeh Seyedarabi (2013). “Developing a model of teachers' web-based information searching: a study of search options and features to support personalised educational resource discovery”, University of London, Institute of Education, December 2013.

[2]. Faezeh Seyedarabi (2011). “Personalisation: An emerging direction for tackling teachers' ICT barriers when searching online for teaching resources”, Webology, 8 (2), Article 90, December 26, 2011.

[1]. Faezeh Seyedarabi (2012). "Reviewing Web Searching In the 21st Century Education", i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, 7(4), March-May 2012, pp 48-60, ISSN Print- 0973-2217, ISSN Online-2230-7133.

[2]. Faezeh Seyedarabi (2012). "Reviewing the barriers associated with the technological needs of teachers in the 21st century education", i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, 7 (3), December 2011 – February 2012, pp. 46-55, ISSN Print- 0973-2217, ISSN Online-2230- 7133.

[3]. Faezeh Seyedarabi (2006). "The Front-End to Google for Teachers Online Searching", i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology, 3 (1), April- June 2006, pp 66-73, ISSN Print- 0973-0559, ISSN Online-2230-7125.

[4]. Faezeh Seyedarabi (2005). Don Peterson and Kevin Keenoy "Personalised Search Tool for teachers – PoSTech!", i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol.1, No.2 September-November 2005, pp. 38-49, ISSN Print – 0973-2217, ISSN Online-2230-7125.

[5]. Faezeh Seyedarabi and Arefeh Seyedarabi (2005). "A need for an Adaptive Search Tool for Teachers: case study", i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, June-August 2005, pp.40-47, ISSN Print-0973-2217, ISSN Online- 2230-7133.

[1]. Faezeh Seyedarabi, (2006). “The Missing Link: How search engines can support the informational needs of teachers”, Education and Technology in prospective: eLearn Magazine, 6 April 2006.

[1]. Faezeh Seyedarabi (2009). "PoSTech, Front-End to AltaVista search engine: A case study", Paper accepted for the Asian Conference on Education 2009 'Local Problems, Global Solutions?', Osaka, Japan, 24-25 October 2009.

[2]. Faezeh Seyedarabi (2008). "Teaching Teachers to Google: Development of a Personalised Search Tool for Teachers' Online Searching", Paper accepted for the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Las Vegas, USA, 3-7 March 2008.

[3]. Faezeh Seyedarabi (2007). "System Development Lifecycle for Building PoSTech: a Personalised Search Tool for Teachers' online searching", Paper accepted for the ELearn 2007-World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Quebec, Canada, 15-19 October 2007.

[4]. Faezeh Seyedarabi (2004). "Teacher's Search Service", Doctoral School Conference, Institute of Education (IoE), 17 December 2004.

[5]. Faezeh Seyedarabi (2004). "Help! I am a teacher in need of Adaptive Navigational Support", Doctoral School Conference, Institute of Education (IoE), 25th June 2004.

[6]. Faezeh Seyedarabi (2003). "Avoiding The Mosaic Effect in Personalising E-Learning, Tearing & Sharing The Web", Poster Conference, Doctoral School, Institute of Education (IoE), 12th December 2003.

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

Current Issue Vol. 21 Issue 2

Most Read

Most Cited

Volume 11 Issue 2 July - September 2014

Learning-Style Assessment in Online Courses: A Prerequisite for Academic Success

Gina Cicco*

Associate Professor of Counselor Education, St. John's University, Queens, New York.

Cicco, G. (2014). Learning-Style Assessment in Online Courses: A Prerequisite for Academic Success. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.11.2.2916

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

TMOC: A Model for Lecturers' Training to Management of Online Courses in Higher-Education

Yaron Ghilay* , Ruth Ghilay**

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

Ghilay,Y., and Ghilay, R. (2014). TMOC: A Model For Lecturers' Training To Management Of Online Courses In Higher-Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 6-16. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.11.2.2917

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Effects of Practice Type in the Here and Now Mobile Learning Environment

Jeremy I. Tutty* , Florence Martin**

* Interim Faculty Chair, Rio Salado College, Arizona ** Associate Professor in Instructional Systems Technology, University of North Carolina Charlotte

Tutty, J. I. and Martin, F. (2014). Effects of Practice type in the here and now Mobile Learning Environment. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.11.2.2918

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

The Development and Evaluation of a Network for Producing and Sharing Video Presentations

Alaa Sadik*

Department of Instructional and Learning Technology, College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

Sadik, A. (2014). The Development And Evaluation of A Network For Producing And Sharing Video Presentations. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.11.2.2919

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Towards Total Quality Management in Universities: Quality Function Deployment Paradigm And Beyond

Isam Najib Al-Fuqaha*

Philadelphia University, Jordan.

Al-Fuqaha, I. N. (2014). Towards Total Quality Management in Universities: Quality Function Deployment Paradigm and Beyond. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.11.2.2920

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

What Major Search Engines Like Google, Yahoo And Bing Needs To Know About Teachers In The UK?

Faezeh Seyedarabi*

Visiting lecturer and Researcher, City University, London.

Seyedarabi, F.(2014). What Major Search Engines Like Google, Yahoo And Bing Needs To Know About Teachers In The UK? i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 52-54. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.11.2.2921

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

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

** Educational Counsellor in Primary Education.

* Interim Faculty Chair, Rio Salado College, Arizona

** Associate Professor in Instructional Systems Technology, University of North Carolina Charlotte