You are here:

Personalization of a Theoretical Course in Extracurricular Activities
PROCEEDING

, , Middle East Technical University, Turkey

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, TX, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-27-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

In recent years, online learning environments and adaptive technologies make great progress. Therefore PLEs also have become advanced environments in terms of technology. However, in PLEs there is also a need in terms of pedagogy. This study aims to focus more attention on pedagogical aspect of PLEs and contribute PLE research at a case basis by examining student opinions and perceived learning through design and use of a PLE. A PLE implementation was conducted as extracurricular activity within a theoretical course through five weeks. Participation was a voluntary basis and ten students participated in the study. After PLE implementation student opinions and perceived learning outcomes explored. Students showed mainly positive opinions and perceived learning outcomes regarding PLE implementation.

Citation

Caner, S. & Kaplan Akilli, G. (2017). Personalization of a Theoretical Course in Extracurricular Activities. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1467-1472). Austin, TX, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 16, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Chookaew, S., Panjaburee, P., Wanichsan, D., & Laosinchai, P. (2014). A Personalized E-Learning Environment to Promote Student's Conceptual Learning on Basic Computer Programming. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 815-819.
  2. Cole, M.S., Feild, H.S., & Harris, S.G. (2004). Student learning motivation and psychological hardiness: Interactive effects on students' reactions to a management class. Academy of Management Learning& Education, 3(1), 64-85.
  3. Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
  4. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8.
  5. 6‐Fullwood, C., Sheehan, N., & Nicholls, W. (2009). Blog function revisited: A content analysis of MySpace blogs. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 685-689.
  6. Goktas, Y., & Demirel, T. (2012). Blog-enhanced ICT courses: Examining their effects on prospective teachers‘ ICT competencies and perceptions. Computers& Education, 58(3), 908-917.
  7. Hsu, L., & Hsieh, S.I. (2005). Concept maps as an assessment tool in a nursing course. Journal of Professional Nursing, 21(3), 141-149.
  8. Hsu, C.K., Hwang, G.J., Chuang, C.W., & Chang, C.K. (2012). Effects on learners' performance of using selected and open network resources in a problem based learning activity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 606-623.
  9. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., and Hall, C. (2016). NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
  10. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate?. Educational researcher, 17(2), 13-17.
  11. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M.J. (2008). Future learning landscapes: Transforming pedagogy through social software. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(5), 1.
  12. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2010). Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational…, 26(1), 28– 43. Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/mcloughlin.html
  13. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods.
  14. Neo, M., Neo, K.T.K., Lim, T.-L., Tan, H.Y.-J., & Kwok, W.-J. (2013). Instructional Relationships within a Webbased Learning Environment: Students’ Perceptions in a Malaysian Classroom. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 515–525.
  15. Petty, J. (2013). Interactive, technology-enhanced self-regulated learning tools in healthcare education: A literature review. Nurse education today, 33(1), 53-59.
  16. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of engineering education, 93(3), 223-231.
  17. Rahimi, E., vandenBerg, J., & Veen, W. (2014). A learning model for enhancing the student’s control in educational process using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, n/a-n/A. Http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12170Rahimi,E.,vandenBerg,J., & Veen, W. (2014). Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers& Education, 81, 235–246.
  18. Rogers, T.B., Kuiper, N.A., & Kirker, W.S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of personality and social psychology, 35(9), 677.
  19. Sart, G. (2014). The Effects of the Development of Metacognition on Project-based Learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 131-136.
  20. Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
  21. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills.
  22. Türker, M.A., & Zingel, S. (2008). Formative interfaces for scaffolding self-regulated learning in PLEs. ELearning Papers, 14.
  23. Valtonen, T., Hacklin, S., Dillon, P., Vesisenaho, M., Kukkonen, J., & Hietanen, A. (2012). Perspectives on personal learning environments held by vocational students. Computers& Education, 58(2), 732–739.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Slides