Week 2: Evaluation of
Technology
Article I: A Conceptual Framework for Using and Evaluating
Web-Based Learning Resources in School Education by Said Hadjerrouit
This case study was highly stimulating and thought
provoking. In the reading of this study
several thoughts began to resonate in my mind; first, the idea that cultural
values can have such a profound effect on how WBLR’s (Web-based learning
resources) can affect how much students learn from interacting with different
types of tools. Their ability to use and understand the WBLR’s are based so
much on the student’s cognitive knowledge to make connections while using them.
Second, the little amount of attention that is paid by the
developers to pedagogical usability. Even in reviewing several WBLR’s I found
that some lacked adequate flexibility, not enough interactive spots, motivation
for the participant and no collaboration whatsoever. It has been proven in recent research that
the reason many Web 2.0 apps have become a major phenomenon is their ability to
offer collaboration in some form to its users. User input is important they
want to feel like they have control over their learning and how they learn. This
fosters the learner-centered approach which is more constructivist rather than
a teacher-centered method.
Third, again and again key criteria keep coming into play
when analyzing the pedagogical usability of any WBLR. Such things as “learner control, learning
activity, collaborative learning, goal orientation, applicability, added value,
motivation, previous knowledge, flexibility, and feedback. (Hadjerrouit, 2010) Twelve key criteria were listed in the
study as influences to this end.
- Understandability
- Added value
- Goal-orientation
- Time
- Interactivity
- Multimedia
- Motivation
- Differentiation
- Flexibility
- Autonomy
- Collaboration
- Variation
The tables that were used to explain the conceptual
framework of the study was easy to read and understand based on the key points
of features, criteria, and context of use/evaluation. The study used three
different classes and the findings showed:
1.
Most students agreed that the technical usability
of WBLR’s was well-designed and implemented
2.
All teachers indicated that the criteria
underlying the technical usability were well-designed
3.
Results suggest that students and teachers had
similar perceptions about the technical and pedagogical usability of WBLR’s,
except for interactivity, variation, and collaboration. (Hadjerrouit,
2010) (Lindell &
Donaldson, 2009)
After personally review approximately eight WBLR’s over the
last several days I agree with the findings of this study with one
exception. Things are gradually getting
better and more and more WBLR’s are offering the ability to add more
interactive components and the key aspect is collaboration. The designers want to know how the end users
feel and what their input might be. All of the WBLR’s that I reviewed where
related to science because that is my field of study and the ones I tested
covered several areas that I would be teaching in the average middle school
science class.
Web-sites reviewed:
www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/09_19523.pdfhttp://web20guru.wikispaces.com/Web+2.0+Resources
http://www.periodicvideos.com/
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/online_science/games
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/
References
Hadjerrouit, S. (2010, November). A conceptual
framework for using and evaluating web-based learning resources in school
education. Retrieved from Journal of Information Technology Education:
http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol9/JITEv9p053-079Hadjerrouit742.pdf
Lindell, L. A., & Donaldson, J. A. (2009). It's
magi using web 2.0 tools to create learning communities. Retrieved from 25th Annual conference on teaching and Learning: www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/09_19523.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment