i-manager Publications

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

Current Issue Vol. 20 Issue 4

Most Cited

Volume 4 Issue 4 January - March 2008

Article

Strategies To Integrate Web Videoconferencing Software Into An Online Counselor Education Course

Dawn Lorraine Mcbride* , Paul M.Muhlbach**

* Assistant Professor at University of Lethbridge.

** Computer Network Administrator.

Dawn Lorraine Mcbride and Paul M. Muhlbach (2008). Strategies To Integrate Web Videoconferencing Software Into An Online Counselor Education Course. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.568

Abstract

This article will outline how a web based video conferencing system (Marratech) was used in a graduate online counsellor education course as part of a blended online graduate degree in Counseling. Since the course is open to students from around North America, a variety of e-delivery methods of instruction is critical to the program’s success. A rationale for using web conferencing will be presented followed by details on how to integrate web videoconferencing into an online course. Recommendations on using this e-learning tool in online courses are provided.

References

[1]. Angelo, J. (2007, April). Getting a bigger picture.

[2]. Bedi, K., & Lange, H. (2007). The impact of faculty interaction on the learning experience and outcomes of online learners. Proceedings from Ascilite Singapore 2007.

[3]. Boye, J., & Hogan, M. (2004). Theory application for online learning success. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(4).

[4]. Coyner, D. (n.d.). Webconferencing 101: A dozen ideas to improve your next online event. The Advisor.

[5]. Even, R., & Ismail, N. (2006). Conferencing scenarios [White paper]. Retrieved from The Internet Engineering Task Force.

[6]. Fulford, C., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8-21.

[7]. Hillman, D., Willis., & Gunawardena, C. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.

[8]. Kerr, M. (2007). Teaching psychology online: Approaching excellence and avoiding defeat. Excellence in Teaching, 7.

[9]. Knapczyk, D., Frey, T., & Wall-Marencik, W. (2005). An evaluation of web conferencing in online teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28(2), 114-124.

[10]. Luong, E., McBride, D., & Hope, T. (2008). CAAP 6601: Assignment 1: Self change project [course materials]. Retrieved January 4, 2008 from Campus Alberta Applied Psychology at the University of Lethbridge.

[11]. Marratech (n.d.). [Software].

[12]. McBride. D., Hope, T., & Luong, E. (2008). CAAP 6601: Lesson 1 overview [course materials].

[13]. Paré, A. (1999).The use of reflective teams in clinical training. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 33(4), 293- 306.

[14]. Pattillo, R. (2007). Decreasing transactional distance in a web-based course. Nurse Educator, 32(3), 109-112.

[15]. Peterson, C. (2004). Making interactivity count: Best practices in video conferencing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research,15(1), 63-74.

[16]. Powell, S. (2007). Marratech: Getting started in Mac OS X.

[17]. Raymond, E. (1999). Learners with mild disabilities: A characteristics approach. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

[18]. Ross, S. (n.d.). Netiquette home page. Retrieved January 6, 2008, from www.albion.com/netiquette/

[19]. Smyth, R. (2005). Broadband videoconferencing as a tool for learner-centered distance learning in higher education. British Journal of Education Technology, 36(5), 805-820.

[20]. Strom, D. (2008, January 22). Web-based conferencing services. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from www.strom.com/places/wc.html

[21]. Sutton, L. (1999). Interaction.

[22]. Thomases, H. (2002, April 18). Web conferencing – A powerful presentation tool. Internet Marketing Strategies and Solutions.

[23]. Woolley, D. (n.d.). Web conferencing review.

[24]. Zelenka, A. (2007, January 28). 27 tips for teleconferencing. Web Worker Daily.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Article

Improving Learning With Constructivist Technology Tools

Melodee Landis*

Associate Professor, Teacher Education, University of Nebraska at Omaha.

Melodee Landis (2008). Improving Learning With Constructivist Technology Tools. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.571

Abstract

This article traces the development of the constructivist theory of teaching and learning, overviews the research that links technology to constructivism and highlights some of the teaching and learning tools, systems and models that are successfully using technology to develop learners' thinking and understanding. Constructivist viewpoints represent a range of thinking on different dynamics, such as:
· Teacher-directed instruction vs. student-empowered learning
· Standardization vs. customization
· Solitary vs. community-based learning
· Simulation vs authentic experience
There are now a variety of tools and systems available to assist with learning across these spectra. Recent research has shown that electronic performance support systems (EPSS) offer a great deal of potential for users to adapt or design the framework of their activities and their own materials to empower the learner; various multimedia combinations have shown a great deal of promise in supporting learners to create their own visual schema; simulations and virtual environments come closer to attaining the same results as real-world experiences and models that exist which will help us to organize these resources to attain optimal impact. The article closes with a review of available tools and implications for research.

References

[1]. Amill, L. (1999-2000). Telementoring: A view from the facilitator's screen. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.

[2]. Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.

[3]. Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52(4), 399-413.

[4]. Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning, Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4-12.

[5]. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the nd science of instruction. (2 ed.) San Francisco: Pfeiffer, John Wiley & Sons.

[6]. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[7]. Cuban, L. (2001). Computers, oversold and underused. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

[8]. Dodge, B. (2007). WebQuest.org. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University.

[9]. Emissary Project. Electronic emissary.

[10]. Harry, V. (2000). Technology advancing a continuous community of learners (TACCOL): Integrating technology into teacher preparation. ERIC #ED440071.

[11]. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Marra, R. M., & Crismond, D. (2007). Meaningful learning with rd technology (3 edition). Upper Saddle Creek, JG: Pearson Education.

[12]. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

[13]. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.

[14]. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17- 27.

[15]. Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

[16]. Locke, J. (1996). An essay concerning human understanding. K. P. Winkler (Ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 33–36

[17]. Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing Instruction for Constructivist Learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 141-159.

[18]. Nanjappa, A., & Grant M. M. (2003). Constructing on constructivism: The role of technology. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education.

[19]. Pringle, R. M. (2002). Developing a community of learners: Potentials and possibilities in web mediated discourse. [Online serial]. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 2(2).

[20]. Rao, M. P. (n.d.). Effect of concept-mapping in science on science achievement, cognitive skills and attitude of students. Mysore, India: Regional Institute of Education.

[21]. Richards, R. T. (1998). Infusing technology and literacy into the undergraduate teacher education curriculum through the use of electronic portfolios. T.H.E. Journal, 25(9), 46-50.

[22]. Rosen, Y., & Salomon, G. (2007). The differential learning achievements of constructivist technologyintensive learning environments as compared with traditional ones: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(1), 1-14.

[23]. Shuell, T. J. (1988). The role of the student in learning from instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychologist. 13, 276-295.

[24]. Simons, P. R.-J. (1993). Constructive learning: The role of the learner. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 291-313). Berlin; New York: Springer-Verlag.

[25]. Staub, F. C., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers' pedagogical content beliefs matters for students' achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24(3), 344-355.

[26]. Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson M., Hawkes, M., and Raack, L. (2000). Computer-based technology and learning: Evolving uses and expectations. North Central Regional Lab.

[27]. Virginia Tech. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship.

[28]. Verizon. (2008). Thinkfinity: Literacy, education and technology.

[29]. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[30]. Walker, M. (2000). Learning how to learn in a technology course: A case study. Open Learning, 15(2), 173-189.

[31]. Yahoo. (n.d.). Del.icio.us. Sunnyvale, CA: Yahoo, Inc.

[32]. Zhang, C. (2002). An Investigation of Traditional and Constructivism Models of Internet Training and Effects on Cognitive Gain. In C. Crawford, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 2002 (pp. 2343-2344). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Article

A Methodology For The Evaluation Of Online Learning Resources

Tom Page* , Gisli Thorsteinsson, Lorna Uden*, Milka Lehtonen****

* Lecturer, Dept.of Design & Technology, Loughborough University, UK.

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Design and Craft, Iceland University of Education.

* Staffordshire University, UK.

**** Researcher, MOMENTS and Associate Professor, Media Education, University of Finland.

Tom Page, Gisli Thorsteinsson, Lorna Uden and Milka Lehtonen (2008). A Methodology For The Evaluation Of Online Learning Resources. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.574

Abstract

Novel and innovative modes of interacting with website information have arisen which necessitate methods and tools for their evaluation. However, it is essential to develop such methods from contexts of use at a macro (i.e. cultural) and micro (individual use contexts) level. Activity theory has been used extensively in systems evaluation as it bridges these two levels. This article will extend activity theory by the development of a method, Analytical Activity Method (AAM). The purpose of this method is as a tool to enable web designers and usability engineers to conduct usability evaluations of web interfaces, particularly the mobile web. Based on the theoretical underpinnings of activity theory, AAM seeks to extend the activity checklist (Kaptelinin, Nardi, and Macaulay, 1999) for evaluation of websites on computers or mobile devices. The application of this method contains the possibility to make visible that which was not obviously apparent from the theoretical tropes of Activity theory at system, historical and cultural level. Finally, this paper concludes that the AAM has provided a comprehensive framework within which to conduct website evaluations and informs future designs. It proposes some exciting new applications based on the AAM which not only extend activity theory but also provide a framework for understanding new methods of information access.

References

[1]. Bærentsen, K. B. & J. Trettvik (2002). An Activity Theory Approach to Affordance. Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction. ACM Press, pp. 51-60.

[2]. Benyon, D., Crerar, A., & Wlkinson, S. (2001). Inclusive differences and Inclusive Design. In C. Stephanidis (Eds.), User Interfaces for All – Concepts, Methods and Tools (Vol. 1, pp. 21-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

[3]. Bertelsen, O.W., & Bodker, S. (2003). Activity Theory. In Carroll, J.M. (ed.). HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, pp. 291-324.

[4]. Bloglines.

[5]. Bodker, S. (1991). Through the interface: A Human Activity Approach to User Interface Design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[6]. Brooks, R. (1991), Comparative task analysis: an alternative direction for Human-computer interaction science, Designing interaction: psychology at the human-computer interface, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

[7]. Buyukkokten, O., Garcia-Molina, H. & Paepcke A. (2001). Seeing the Whole in Parts: Text Summarization for Web Browsing on Handheld Devices. Proceedings of the Tenth International World Wide Web Conference, New York, NY: ACM,.

[8]. Chernobilsky, E., Nagarajan, A., Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2005). Problem-based learning online: Multiple perspectives on collaborative knowledge construction. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T-W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL (pp. 63-52).

[9]. Cold, J (2006). Using Really Simple Syndication (RSS) to enhance student research. ACM SIGITE Newsletter. Vol. 3 Issue 1, pp.6 -9.

[10]. Dey, A and Abowd G. (2001). Towards a Better Understanding of Context and Context Awareness. GVU Technical Report GIT-GVU-99-22. College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology.

[11]. Engeström, Y. (1990). Activity theory and individual nd and social transformation. Opening address at 2 InternationalCongress for Research on Activity Theory, Lahti, Finland, May, pp. 21–25.

[12]. Hertzum, M., & Jacobsen, N. E. (2001). The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13(4), pp. 421-443.

[13]. Kaptelinin V. (1996). Computer-Mediated Activity: Functional Organs in Social and Developmental Contexts. In B.A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity Theory and Human–Computer Interaction, (pp.17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

[14]. Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B. A. & Macaulay, C. (1997). The Activity Checklist: a Tool for Representing the Space of Context. Interaction, pp.27–39.

[15]. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a Potential Framework for Human– Computer Interaction Research. In B.A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity Theory and Human–Computer Interaction, (pp.17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

[16]. Leontjev, A. (1978): Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall

[17]. Lewis, C. (1997). Cognitive Walkthrough. In M.G. Helander, et al., (eds.) Handbook of Human Computer Interaction (pp. 717-732). Elsevier.

[18] . Mobile Data Association.

[19]. Monk, A. F. & Wright, P. C. (1991) Observations and Inventions: New Approaches to the Study of Human- Computer Interaction. Interacting with Computers, No.3, pp.204-216.

[20]. Nardi, B. A., (ed). (1996). Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[21]. Nardi, B. (1997). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[22]. Norman, D. (2006). Words Matter. Talk about People: Not customers, not consumers, not users. Interactions Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 49 - 63.

[23]. Nielson, J. & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic Evaluation of User Interfaces. In Proc. of CHI 90: Human Factors in Computer Systems. Seattle, WA: April 1-5, pp 249-256. New York, ACM/SIUGCHI.

[24]. Page, T., Lehtonen, M. and Thorsteinsson, G. (2006) 'The web-orientation agent (WOA) for simulated learning in technology education. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(1), pp 62-76.

[25]. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S., & Carey, T. (1994). Human-computer interaction. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, UK.

[26]. Quek, A. and Shah, H. (2004) The Activity Theoretical Iterative Evaluation Method. In Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on Activity Theory Based Practical Methods for IT Design, part of the 3rd Nordic Conference on Cultural and Activity Research, Copenhagen, Denmark.

[27]. Ryu, T., (2006). Walkthroughs in Web Usability in Zaphiris and Kurnaiwan (eds), Human Computer Interaction Research in Web Design and Evaluation pp. 229 -257.

[28]. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press.

[29]. Uden, L. (2007). Activity theory for designing mobile learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation. Vol. 1, Number 1, 29 October 2006, pp. 81- 102(22).

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Article

The Quantum Human Computer (QHC) Hypothesis

Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan*

English Department, College of Humanities, University of Zanjan, Iran

Dr. Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan (2008). The Quantum Human Computer (QHC) Hypothesis. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 28-32. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.575

Abstract

This article attempts to suggest the existence of a human computer called Quantum Human Computer (QHC) on the basis of an analogy between human beings and computers. To date, there are two types of computers: Binary and Quantum. The former operates on the basis of binary logic where an object is said to exist in either of the two states of 1 and 0. The latter, however, operates on the basis of fuzzy logic where an object can exist in more than two states simultaneously. Through analogy, it is hypothesized that human beings are superb quantum computers that operate on the basis of human logic that accepts multiple states for objects simultaneously. Moreover, and since human beings are composed of physique, mind, memory, soul, and spirit, it is also hypothesized that the QHC legalizes the existence of objects in Hilbert space. Finally, it is further suggested that, as fictitious as it may seem, human learning can be reduced into a "suggestion model" whereby information is suggested into the human computer in much the same way as a given software is setup on a digital computer; the paper proposes a model for human learning based on its description of the quantum human computer. It is claimed that human learning can be whole sale rather than being linear, sequential and time-consuming. Sleep and hypnosis are presented as examples.

References

[1]. Deutsch, D., & Ekert, A. (1998). Quantum Computation. Physics World, March 1998 Issue.

[2]. Preskill, J. (1997). Quantum computing: Pro and con. Quantum Physics, Volume 3, August 1997.

[3]. Preskill, J. (1999). Battling decoherence: The faulttolerant quantum computer. Physics Today, June 1999 Issue.

[4]. Shor, P. W. (1994). Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society Press.

[5]. West, J. (2000). The quantum computer: An introduction.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Article

Fishing For Learning With A Podcast Net

Jace Hargis* , Kathleen Schofield , David Wilson*

* Assistant Provost for Faculty Development, University of the Pacific, Pacific Avenue Stockton, CA.

Teacher, Science & Technology, Clay County School District, Spencer Plantation Blvd, Orange Park, Florida.

* Coordinator of Educational Media, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive.

Jace Hargis, Kathleen Schofield and David Wilson (2008). Fishing For Learning With A Podcast Net. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 33-38. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.576

Abstract

Communicating through the internet has quickly evolved from email, listservs, discussion boards, instant messaging, blogging and now to podcasting. Many of these communication tools have been exploited by the educational community and the latter appears to be no exception. This paper will share background on blogs and podcasts as well as real-world samples, academic examples and a plan to use podcasts as a teaching and learning tool.

References

[1]. Berkman Center 2005., (2008). RSS at Harvard law.

[2]. Blood, R. ., (2000). Weblogs: A history and perspective.

[3]. British Brodcasting Corporation. , (2004). In our time.

[4]. Curry, A. ., (2000). Adam Curry's weblog.

[5]. Curry, A. ., (2004). ipodder- A brief history.

[6]. Eaton, B. 2002.., (2007). Eatonweb.

[7]. Garrett, J. 2002.., (2008). The page of only webblogs.

[8]. Ibrahim, H. ., (2001). Examining the impact of the guided constructivist teaching method on students' misconceptions about concepts of Newtonian physics. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Central Florida: Orlando.

[9]. Muller, T. ., (1998). A sound study of conceptual understanding during constructivist teaching. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of North Dakota: Grand Forks.

[10]. Podcast research. ., (n.d..).

[11]. Wikipedia. 2005., (2008). Podcasting. 20,2005March 9.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Teaching Digital Natives: 3-D Virtual Science Lab In The Middle School Science Classroom

Teresa J.Franklin*

* Assistant Professor, Instructional Technology, Ohio University

Teresa J. Franklin (2008). Teaching Digital Natives: 3-D Virtual Science Lab In The Middle School Science Classroom. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 39-47. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.577

Abstract

This paper presents the development of a 3-D virtual environment in Second Life for the delivery of standards-based science content for middle school students in the rural Appalachian region of Southeast Ohio. A mixed method approach in which quantitative results of improved student learning and qualitative observations of implementation within middle school classrooms are provided. The Interactive Science Lab Game found in the Teen Grid of Second Life has been used for the past year to improve the understanding of genetics (Fruit Fly Experiment) and Gallery Walk was used to improve the learning of science in grades 6 to 8. Participant teacher reactions and concerns in the use of 3-D simulations in middle school will be addressed.

References

[1]. Annetta, L. (2007, Nov/Dec). Video Games and Simulations as Teaching Tools. Multimedia & Internet@Schools. 14(6), pps. 9-13.

[2]. Boulos, M.N., Hetherington, L, & Wheeler, S. (2007). Second Life: an overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24, 233–245.

[3]. de Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in immersive worlds: A review of game-based learning. JSIC e-Learning Programme.

[4]. Downes, T. (1999). Playing with computing technologies in the home, Education and Information Technologies, 4, 65-79.

[5]. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming a qualitative researchers. New York: Longman.

[6]. Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 2007, 40(1), 23–38.

[7]. Leach, J. & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science and Education, 12, 91-113.

[8]. Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Educational Leadership, Dec 2005-Jan 2006, 9-13.

[9]. Rymaszewski, M., Au, W., Wallace, M., Winters, C., Ondrejka, C., & Batsone-Cunningham, B. (2007). Second Life the Official Guide. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: New Jersey

[10]. Sinclair, B. (2007). NPD: Game industry reaches $12.5 billion in '06.

[11]. Tekaat-Davey, D. (2006) Virtual learning is the real thing.

[12]. Yair, Y., Mintz, R. & Litvak, S. (2001) 3D virtual reality in science education: an implication for astronomy teaching, Journal in Mathematics and Science Technology, 20(3), 293-305.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

New Desktop Virtual Reality Technology In Technical Education

Lynna J. Ausburn* , Floyd B. Ausburn**

* Assistant Professor of Occupational Education Studies, College of Education, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA

** Adjunct Faculty in Occupational Education Studies, College of Education, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA

Lynna J. Ausburn and Floyd B. Ausburn (2008). New Desktop Virtual Reality Technology In Technical Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 48-61. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.582

Abstract

Virtual reality (VR) that immerses users in a 3D environment through use of headwear, body suits, and data gloves has demonstrated effectiveness in technical and professional education. Immersive VR is highly engaging and appealing to technically skilled young Net Generation learners. However, technical difficulty and very high costs have kept immersive VR out of most education institutions and corporate training programs. Now, a new technology is making the learning benefits and competitive advantages of VR possible cost effectively. This new technology, called desktop virtual reality, has recently improved dramatically and can now put high-quality virtual environments on standard desktop and laptop computers. This paper introduces instructional uses of VR, reviews the characteristics and benefits of desktop VR, overviews the hardware and software required to develop and use desktop VR for learning and training, and reviews the theoretical foundations and experimental findings from a research program on this innovative technology currently in progress at Oklahoma State University in the United States.

References

[1]. Arts and Humanities Data Services. (2002). Creating and using virtual reality: A guide for the arts and humanities.

[2]. Ausburn, F. B., Ausburn, L.J., Cooper, J., Kroutter, P., & Sammons, G. (2007a). Virtual reality technology: current status, applications, and directions for education research. OATE Journal: Oklahoma Association of Teacher Educators, 11, 7-14.

[3]. Ausuburn, L.J., & Ausburn, F.B. (2003). A comparison of simultaneous vs. sequential presentation of images in a visual location task: A study of supplantational instructional design. OATE Journal: Oklahoma Association of Teacher Educators, 7, 1-20.

[4]. Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (2004). Desktop virtual reality: A powerful new technology for teaching and research in industrial teacher education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 41(4), 33-58.

[5]. Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (2006, December). Effects of desktop virtual reality on learner performance and confidence in environmental mastery: Opening a line of inquiry. Paper presented at the National Research and Professional Development Conference, Association of Career and technical Education Research, Atlanta, GA, USA.

[6]. Ausburn, L. J., Ausburn, F. B., Cooper, J., Kroutter, P., & Sammons, G. (2007b, December). Virtual reality in surgical technology education: A study in instructional theory and design. Paper presented at the National Research and Professional Development Conference, Association of Career and Technical Education Research, Las Vegas, NV, USA.

[7]. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

[8]. Bargh, J., Burrows, L., & Chen, M. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230-244.

[9]. Beier, K. P. (2004). Virtual reality: A short introduction.

[10]. Brown, R. D. (2001). Welcome to the world of virtual reality.

[11]. Claypool, H., & DeCoster, J. (2004). A meta-analysis of priming effects on impression formation supporting a general model of informational biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(1), 2-27.

[12]. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.

[13]. Dale, E. (1954). Audio-visual methods in teaching (Rev. ed.). New York: The Dryden Press.

[14]. Dotterer, G. P. (2007, December). Desktop virtual reality and individuals with disabilities: Status of the technology. Paper presented at the National Research and Professional Development Conference, Association of Career and Technical Education Research, Las Vegas, NV, USA.

[15]. Evans, C. (1995, June). WWW-VRML benefits.

[16]. Fakespace. (2007). Products.

[17]. Government Technology. (2003). News release: NIST developing virtual reality training tools for firefighters.

[18]. Halden Virtual Reality Center. (2004). Information, products, and projects.

[19]. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2001). Millenials rising: The next great generation. New York: Vintage Books.

[20]. Jeffries, P. R., Woolf, S., & Linde, B. (2003). Technology-based vs. traditional instruction: A comparison of two methods for teaching the skill of per forming a 12-lead ECG. Nursing Education Perspectives, 24(2), 70-74.

[21]. LaPoint, J. F., & Roberts, J. (2000). Using VR for efficient training of forestry machine operators. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 237-250.

[22]. Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, W. L. (1987). Creative and th mental growth (8 ed.). New York: Macmillan.

[23]. Mantovani, F., Gaggiolo, A., Castelnuovo, G., & Riva, G. (2003). Virtual reality training for health-care professionals. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 6(4), 389- 395.

[24]. McConnas, J., Mackay, M., & Pivik, J. (2002). Effectiveness of virtual reality for teaching pedestrian safety. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 5(3), 185-190.

[25]. Mikropoulos, T. A., Chalkidis, A., Katsikis, A., & Kassivaki, P. (1997). Virtual realities in environmental eduction: The project LAKE. Education and Information Technologies, 2(2), 131-142.

[26]. Pantelidis, V. S. (1993). Virtual reality in the classroom. Educational Technology, 23, 23-27.

[27].Pantelidis, V. S. (1994). Suggestions on when to use and when not us use virtual reality in education. East Carolina University, VR and Education Lab.

[28]. Riva, G. (2003). Applications of virtual environments in medicine. Methods of Information in Medicine, 42, 524- 534.

[29]. Salomon, G. (1970). What does it do to Johnny? A cognitive-functionalistic view of research on media. Viewpoints: Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University, 46(5), 33-62.

[30]. Sandia National Laboratories. (1999). Virtual reality training tool pits emergency rescue teams against computerized terrorist attacks.

[31]. Scavuzzo, J., & Towbin, G. (1997). Amoco's PCbased virtual reality simulation enables it to cut driver training costs. Information Systems Analyzer Case Studies, 36(3), 2-7.

[32]. Selwood, I., Mikropoulos, T., & Whitelock, D. (2000). Guest editorial. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 233-236.

[33]. Seth, A., & Smith, S. S. (2002). PC-based virtual reality for CAD model viewing. Journal of Technology Studies, 30(4), 32-37.

[34]. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Systems Technical Journal, 27, 379- 423 and 623-656.

[35]. Simpson, R. L. (2003). Welcome to the virtual classroom: How technology is transforming nursing st education in the 21 century. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 27(1), 83-86.

[36]. Space, S. (2001). Gender gap shows cyberspace bias. TRN: Latest technology research news.

[37]. Study, N.E. (2001). The effectiveness of using the Successive Perception Test I to measure Visual-Haptic tendencies in engineering students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

[38]. Sulbaran, T., & Baker, N. D. (2000, October). Enhancing engineering education through distributed th virtual reality. Paper presented at 30 ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

[39]. SunriseVR. (2007). Welcome to learning in virtual reality.

[40]. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257- 285.

[41]. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

[42]. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

[43]. University of Washinton. (2001). Lost in virtual space: Gender differences are magnified.

[44]. Watson, D. (2000). Editorial. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 231-232.

[45]. Weaver, W., & Shannon, C. E. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

[46]. Williams, M. S. (2007). Pilot study of the effects of supraliminal bipolar primes on occupational educators' viewing time and perceived confidence with desktop virtual reality. Paper presented at the National Research and Professional Development Conference, Association of Career and Technical Education Research, Las Vegas, NV, USA.

[47]. Winn, W., Hoffman, H., Hollander, A., Osberg, K., Rose, H., & Char, P. (1997, March). The effects of student construction of virtual environments in the performance of high - and low-ability students. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, USA.

[48]. Wong, B. L. W., Ng, B. P., & Clark, S. A. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of animation and virtual reality in teaching operative dentistry. Journal of Dentistry: Educational Technology Section.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

The Process Of Adopting Electronic Portfolios In Schools Of Education

Linda Mensing Triplett* , Diane Judd, Davina Pruitt-mentle*, Arlene Bothwick**, Laura Turner*, Joyce Morris, Ann Cunningham***

* Asst Prof, Co-Director,Tech in Edu Program

College of Education, Valdosta State Univ

* Director, Educl Tech,College of Education, Univ of Maryland

** Prof Emeritus, national College of Edu, National-Louis Uni

* Asst Prof, and Tech Services Librarian, Black Hills State Univ, Computer Tech Instructor for the College of Edu

Univ of Vermont, College of Edu and Social Services, Elementary Edu, Univ of Vermont

*** Asste Prof, Instructional Design, Dept of Edu at Wake Forest Univ.

Linda Mensing Triplett, Diane Judd, Davina Pruitt-mentle, Arlene Bothwick, Laura Turner, Joyce Morris and Ann Cunningham (2008). The Process Of Adopting Electronic Portfolios In Schools of Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 62-74. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.586

Abstract

There have been many articles written about the variety of ways faculty and students define eportfolios, collect artifacts, write reflections, and use finished eportfolios. However, little has been written about the dynamic process of adopting electronic portfolios in schools of education. This study employs cross-case analysis to investigate implementation of electronic portfolio initiatives in seven schools of education. Case analysis shows the most commonly identified purpose for initiating an eportfolio system to be program evaluation for national accreditation. With program evaluation as the eventual goal of eportfolio development, at least eight design steps of an electronic portfolio process were found to be necessary for successful implementation. These steps are discussed and various methods of implementation are described. Case analysis results further suggest that the final step involving data gathering, aggregation and analysis has been most difficult for these schools to implement. None of the schools represented in this study have yet made use the data collected from eportfolios to make data driven decisions about their programs of study. Suggestions are made for further study into the use of eportfolio data for program evaluation, improvement and ongoing development.

References

[1]. Barrett, H. C. (2005). Information about electronic portfolio development.

[2]. Barrett, H.C. (2005). The reflect initiative.

[3]. Danielson, C., & Abrutyn, L. (1997). An introduction to using portfolios in the classroom. In H. Barrett, Introduction to electronic assessment portfolios.

[4]. Fact Sheet: No Child Left Behind.

[5]. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational rd change, 3 Edition. New York: Teachers College Press.

[6]. Gibson, D. & Barrett, H. (2002). Directions in electronic portfolio development.

[7]. Love, D., McKean, G. & Gathercoal, P. (2004). Portfolios to webportfolios and beyond: Levels of maturation. Educause Quarterly, 27 (2).

[8]. Jafari, A. (2004). The "sticky" ePortfolio system: tackling challenges and identifying attributes. Educause Review, 39 (4) July/August, p. 38–49.

[9]. Reeves, D. B. (2004). Taking data analysis to the next level. Focus on Achievement, Vol. 5(3).

[10]. Stiggins, R. J. (2002). "Assessment crisis: the absence of assessment FOR learning." Phi Delta Kappan, June 2002.

[11]. Thorn, Christopher A. (2001). Knowledge management for educational information systems: what is the state of the field? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(47).

[12]. Tosh, D. & Werdmuller, B. (2004). ePortfolios and weblogs: one vision for ePortfolio development.

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

Current Issue Vol. 20 Issue 4

Most Read

Most Cited

Volume 4 Issue 4 January - March 2008

Dawn Lorraine Mcbride* , Paul M.Muhlbach**

* Assistant Professor at University of Lethbridge. ** Computer Network Administrator.

Dawn Lorraine Mcbride and Paul M. Muhlbach (2008). Strategies To Integrate Web Videoconferencing Software Into An Online Counselor Education Course. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.568

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Melodee Landis*

Associate Professor, Teacher Education, University of Nebraska at Omaha.

Melodee Landis (2008). Improving Learning With Constructivist Technology Tools. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.571

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Tom Page* , Gisli Thorsteinsson**, Lorna Uden***, Milka Lehtonen****

* Lecturer, Dept.of Design & Technology, Loughborough University, UK. ** Assistant Professor, Dept. of Design and Craft, Iceland University of Education. *** Staffordshire University, UK. **** Researcher, MOMENTS and Associate Professor, Media Education, University of Finland.

Tom Page, Gisli Thorsteinsson, Lorna Uden and Milka Lehtonen (2008). A Methodology For The Evaluation Of Online Learning Resources. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.574

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan*

English Department, College of Humanities, University of Zanjan, Iran

Dr. Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan (2008). The Quantum Human Computer (QHC) Hypothesis. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 28-32. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.575

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Jace Hargis* , Kathleen Schofield **, David Wilson***

* Assistant Provost for Faculty Development, University of the Pacific, Pacific Avenue Stockton, CA. ** Teacher, Science & Technology, Clay County School District, Spencer Plantation Blvd, Orange Park, Florida. *** Coordinator of Educational Media, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive.

Jace Hargis, Kathleen Schofield and David Wilson (2008). Fishing For Learning With A Podcast Net. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 33-38. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.576

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Teresa J.Franklin*

* Assistant Professor, Instructional Technology, Ohio University

Teresa J. Franklin (2008). Teaching Digital Natives: 3-D Virtual Science Lab In The Middle School Science Classroom. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 39-47. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.577

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Lynna J. Ausburn* , Floyd B. Ausburn**

* Assistant Professor of Occupational Education Studies, College of Education, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA ** Adjunct Faculty in Occupational Education Studies, College of Education, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA

Lynna J. Ausburn and Floyd B. Ausburn (2008). New Desktop Virtual Reality Technology In Technical Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 48-61. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.582

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Linda Mensing Triplett* , Diane Judd**, Davina Pruitt-mentle***, Arlene Bothwick****, Laura Turner*****, Joyce Morris******, Ann Cunningham*******

Linda Mensing Triplett, Diane Judd, Davina Pruitt-mentle, Arlene Bothwick, Laura Turner, Joyce Morris and Ann Cunningham (2008). The Process Of Adopting Electronic Portfolios In Schools of Education. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 62-74. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.4.4.586

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

* Assistant Professor at University of Lethbridge.

** Computer Network Administrator.

Tom Page* , Gisli Thorsteinsson, Lorna Uden*, Milka Lehtonen****

* Lecturer, Dept.of Design & Technology, Loughborough University, UK.

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Design and Craft, Iceland University of Education.

* Staffordshire University, UK.

**** Researcher, MOMENTS and Associate Professor, Media Education, University of Finland.

Jace Hargis* , Kathleen Schofield , David Wilson*

* Assistant Provost for Faculty Development, University of the Pacific, Pacific Avenue Stockton, CA.

Teacher, Science & Technology, Clay County School District, Spencer Plantation Blvd, Orange Park, Florida.

* Coordinator of Educational Media, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive.

* Assistant Professor of Occupational Education Studies, College of Education, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA

** Adjunct Faculty in Occupational Education Studies, College of Education, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA

Linda Mensing Triplett* , Diane Judd, Davina Pruitt-mentle*, Arlene Bothwick**, Laura Turner*, Joyce Morris, Ann Cunningham***