In the article of “Out of class—out of mind? The use of a
virtual learning environment to encourage student engagement in out of class
activities”, the subject of this
article was to adapt modern learning and alter it to an online program called Wolverhampton
Online Learning Framework (WOLF). This program brought a diversified student
group and split them into three work groups to complete weekly assignments.
These students were to meet up weekly and had face-to-face meetings, peer
review sessions, and could e-mail a support team if help was needed. Also their
assessments were the only item focused on with the weekly workload, so not to
throw off students. Another focus was for the students to create presentations
at the end of the weeks to peer-teach the other groups what they learned to
spread the information, but in a way that their pupils could easily articulate.
However, there was a more central, and hidden, claim within this article. It
seemed that the author implicitly applied the fact that online learning was a
better teaching method rather than in the classroom, and also to remove the use
of teachers. This program was used to further improve students’ communication
and includes a support system ran by a student body from the School of
Education at the University of Wolverhampton. (Page 72; Lessie, Maggie; 2009). It was also quoted from page 73 of
this article that, “Although this project was clearly linked to an
increased use of technology, the pedagogical underpinning was much more about a
move from teacher-led delivery to student-centred learning.” This explicitly
portrays that the author is obviously trying to remove teachers and move to
online modules to advance literacy. The author also cites and notes that
students are more likely to work due to increased motivation with use of
technology, as well as students becoming more responsible for their work
assignments without any teacher nagging them about coursework (Page 73, Lessie,
Maggie; 2009). The author induced the
Biggs (2003) method, which involves the 3P’s: The presage, the process, and the
product. What this does is provide an equal chance to all of the test students,
whether they have used online education modules or not. Also, the author seems
to claim that this module is superior by the results, saying, ‘students
commented more about the skills that they gained from the group work, including
doing presentations and using technology.” Even though there were a few
negative comments either based on the slow replies of the support team and
lackadaisical peers in certain groups, the author clearly makes it believable
for the WOLF, and other learning programs, to be superior. Overall, the author’s
true argument is underlying beneath the surface argument, yet it still ties
into my topic as one of the views that show technology as a learning resource
and the effects it provides. And I can back up using technology as a positive
and constructive tool with this source and also use the backfiring comments
used from the students’ negative feedback about the program.
Works Cited
Their
sources used:
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: what
the student does (2nd ed.). Buck- ingham: SRHE & Open University Press.
Booth, A., Sutton, A. & Falzon, L. (2003). Working together:
supporting projects through action learning. Health Information and
Libraries Journal, 20, 225–231.
Boyle, F. (2005). The implementation of a VLE: not so virtual after all.
Serials, 18, 3, 179–183. Chou, S. & Liu, C. (2005). Learning
effectiveness in a web-based virtual learning environment: a
learner control perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
21, 65–76.
Clegg, S., Hudson, A. & Steel, J. (2003). The Emperor’s
new clothes: globalisation and e-learning
in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24,
1, 39–53.
Dutton, W., Cheong, P. & Park, N. (2004). The social shaping of a
virtual learning environment: the case of a university-wide course management
system. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2, 1,
69–80.
Fox, S. & MacKeogh, K. (2003). Can eLearning promote
higher-order learning without tutor
overload. Open Learning, 18, 2, 121–134.
Gilbert, J.,
Morton, S. & Rowley, J. (2007). e-Learning: the student experience. British
Journal of
Educational Technology, 38, 4, 560–573.
Hughes, G. (2005).
Learning to learn online: fostering student engagement with online pedago-
gies. In P. Hartley, A. Woods & M. Pill (Eds), Enhancing teaching
in higher education—new
approaches for improving student learning (pp. 69–79). London:
Routledge.
Hunt, N. P. (1999). PROJECT LEARN: supporting on-campus learning
with on-line technologies.
Interactive Learning Environments, 7, 2–3, 269–282.
Keller, C.
(2005). Virtual learning environments: three implementation perspectives. Learning,
Media and Technology, 30, 3, 299–311.
Macdonald, C. &
Stratta, E. (2001). From access to widening participation in higher education
in
the UK. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25, 2,
249–258.
Molesworth, M. (2004). Collaboration, reflection and selective
neglect: campus-based marketing
students’ experiences of using a virtual learning environment. Innovations
in Education and
Teaching International, 41, 1, 79–92.
Nicol, D. (2007). Laying a
foundation for lifelong learning: case studies of e-assessment in large
1st-year classes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38,
4, 668–678.
Oblinger, D. & Hawkins, B. (2005). The myth about e-learning. Educause
Review, 40, 4, July/
August, 14–15.
Oliver, R. (2007). Exploring an inquiry-based learning
approach with first-year students in a
large undergraduate class. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 44, 1, 3–15. Smedley, J. (2005). Working with blended
learning. In P. Hartley, A. Woods & M. Pill (Eds), Enhancing teaching in
higher education—new approaches for improving student learning (pp.
80–92). London: Routledge.
Tavangarian, D., Leypold, M., Nolting, K.,
Roser, M. & Voigt, D. (2004). Is e-Learning the solution
for individual learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2,
2, 273–280.
Thurston, A. (2005). Building online learning communities. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education,
14,
3, 353–369.
Weller, M., Pegler, C. & Mason, R. (2005). Students’ experience
of components versus integrated
virtual learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
21, 253–259. Whitworth, A. (2005). The politics of virtual learning
environments: environmental change,
conflict and e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology,
36, 4, 685–691.
0 comments:
Post a Comment