Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30135
Design of Mobile Teaching for Students Collaborative Learning in Distance Higher Education

Authors: Lisbeth Amhag

Abstract:

The aim of the study is to describe and analyze design of mobile teaching for students collaborative learning in distance higher education with a focus on mobile technologies as online webinars (web-based seminars or conferencing) by using laptops, smart phones, or tablets. These multimedia tools can provide face-toface interactions, recorded flipped classroom videos and parallel chat communications. The data collection consists of interviews with 22 students and observations of online face-to-face webinars, as well two surveys. Theoretically, the study joins the research tradition of Computer Supported Collaborative learning, CSCL, as well as Computer Self-Efficacy, CSE concerned with individuals’ media and information literacy. Important conclusions from the study demonstrated mobile interactions increased student centered learning. As the students were appreciating the working methods, they became more engaged and motivated. The mobile technology using among student also contributes to increased flexibility between space and place, as well as media and information literacy.

Keywords: Computer self-efficacy, computer supported collaborative learning, distance and open learning, educational design and technologies, media and information literacy, mobile learning.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1110201

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1496

References:


[1] Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of the Research. Paper presented at the 120th ASEE Conference & Exposition.
[2] Long, T., Logan, J., & Waugh, M. (2014). Students’ Perceptions of Preclass Instructional Video in the Flipped Classroom Model: A Survey Study. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2014. VA: AACE.
[3] Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The Flipped Classroom: An Opportunity to Engage Millennial Students through Active Learning Strategies. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44-49.
[4] Amhag, L. (2011). Students´ Argument Patterns in Asynchronous Dialogues for Learning. In Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2011, (pp. 137-144): Ed/ITLib Digital Library http://storefront.acculink.com/aace.
[5] Amhag, L. (2012). High school students’ argument patterns in online peer feedback. E. Favaron, P. M. Pumilia-Gnarini, E. Pacetti, J. Bishop & L. Guerra (red.), In Handbook of Research on Didactic Strategies and Technologies for Education: Incorporating Advancements, Ch. 62, s. 711-723, vol 2. Retrieved Sep. 18, 2012 from http://www.igiglobal. com/chapter/high-school-students-argument-patterns/72113
[6] Amhag, L. (2013). Creativity in and between Collaborative Peer Assessment Processes in Higher Distance Education. In Creative Education, 4(7A2), pp. 94-104, (Special Issue on Higher Education), DOI: 10.4236/ce.2013.47A2011.
[7] Lee, K., & Salman, R. (2012). The Design and Development of Mobile Collaborative Learning Application Using Android. Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education, JITAE Vol.1 No. 1 2012 PP.1-8.
[8] Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2013). Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’ learning. Computers & Education (63), 259-266.
[9] Kiriakidis, P. (2010). How Does Skype, as an Online Communication Software Tool, Contribute to K-12 Administrators’ Level of Selfefficacy? International Journal of Leadership in Educational Technology, 1(9), 1-29.
[10] Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education (62), 24-31.
[11] Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice - Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[12] Bandura, A. (2002). Growing primacy of human agency in adaption and change in the electronic era. European Psychologist 7(1), 2-16.
[13] Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly 19 (2), 189– 211.
[14] Siirak, V. (2012). Moodle E-learning Environment as an Effective Tool in University Education. Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education, JITAE Vol. 1 Iss. 2 2012. pp.94-96 www.jitae.org
[15] Nelson, Leslie Susan (2010). Learning outcomes of webinar versus classroom instruction among baccalaureate nursing students: A randomized controlled trial. Dissertations and Theses, Graduate School of the Texas Woman´s University, Denton, Texas
[16] Rich, R. L. (2011). A framework for synchronous web based professional development. University of the Pacific. Stockton, California
[17] Baepler, P., Walker, J.D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It's not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78 (2014) 227-236.
[18] Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip your classroom to improve student learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(8), 12–17.
[19] Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching 42, (5): 62-66.
[20] Wallace, A. (2014). Social Learning Platforms and the Flipped Classroom. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(4), 293-296.
[21] Wagner, Doug, Laforge, Paul & Cripps, Douglas (2013). Lecture Material Retention: a First Trial Report on Flipped Classroom Strategies in Electronic Systems Engineering at the University of Regina. Paper presented at the Canadian Engineering Education Association Conference, Montreal, Canada.
[22] Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
[23] Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993). Technologies for knowledgebuilding discourse. Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 37–41.