You are here:

Theories to Support You: Purposeful Use of Learning Management System Features
PROCEEDINGS

, Georgia Southern University, United States ; , University of South Carolina, United States

Global Learn, in Berlin, Germany Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Full Text

Abstract

Learning management systems (LMSs) are comprised of many tools and features. Promotional literature from LMS vendors frequently describes their latest innovations, additions, or revisions but is void of the learning theory on which the development or use of the tools should be grounded. The purpose of this paper is to make explicit why and how, the use of certain LMS features or tools would make good pedagogical sense. Examples will be provided from the behaviorist, cognitivist, and constructivist perspectives.

Citation

Hodges, C. & Grant, M. (2015). Theories to Support You: Purposeful Use of Learning Management System Features. In Proceedings of Global Learn Berlin 2015: Global Conference on Learning and Technology (pp. 481-486). Berlin, Germany: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 10, 2024 from .

© 2015 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved from: http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradelevel.pdf Anderson, R.S., Grant, M.M. & Speck, B.W. (2008). Technology to teach literacy: A resource for K-8 teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  2. Chen, S. (2007). Instructional design strategies for intensive online courses: An objectivist-constructivist blended approach. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1), 72–86.
  3. Clark, R.C. & Mayer, R.E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley& Sons.
  4. Collins, D., Weber, J., & Zambrano, R. (2014). Teaching business ethics online: Perspectives on course design, delivery, student engagement, and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(3), 513-529.
  5. Curry, J.H., & Cook, J. (2014). Facilitating online discussions at a MANIC pace: A new strategy for an old problem. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(3), 1–11.
  6. Dawley, L. (2007). The tools for successful online teaching. London: Information Science Publishing.
  7. Driscoll, M.P. (2005). The psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
  8. Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 6(4), 50-72.
  9. Falvo, D.A., & Johnson, B.F. (2007). The use of learning management systems in the United States. TechTrends, 51(2), 40–45.
  10. Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., Swan, K., & Shea, P. (2000). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with on-line courses: Principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 7-38.
  11. Gagne, R., Briggs, L. & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers.
  12. Grant, M.M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases and recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/win2002/514/index.html
  13. Grant, M.M. (2004). Learning to teach with the web: Factors influencing teacher education faculty. Internet and Higher Education, 7(4), 329-341.
  14. Grant, M.M., & Branch, R.M. (2005). Project-based learning in a middle school: Tracing abilities through the artifacts of learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 65-98.
  15. Helle, L., Tynjala, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in post-secondary education—theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education, 51, 287-314.
  16. Hew, K.F., & Cheung, W.S. (2012). Student participation in online discussions: Challenges, solutions, and future research. New York: Springer.
  17. Hodges, C.B., & Repman, J. (2011). Moving outside the LMS: Matching web 2.0 tools to instructional purpose. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative Brief. Retrieved from: https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELIB1103.pdf.
  18. Hodges, C.B., Way, R., & Shepherd, S.S. (2013). Online teaching: Recent perceptions of faculty at a doctoral research university. In A. Sigal (Ed.), Advancing Librarian Education: Technological Innovation and Instructional Design. (pp. 16-26). Hershey PA:IGI Global.
  19. Jones, S.A., Green, L., Hodges, C.B., Kennedy, K., Downs, E., Repman, J., & Clark, K. (2012). Supplementing the learning management system: Using web 2.0 for collaboration, communication, and productivity in the preparation of school leaders. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K.A. Persichitte (Eds.) Developing technology-rich teacher education programs: Key issues (pp. 118-134). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  20. Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructionaldesign theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory Volume II (pp. 215-240). Mahwah, NJ:
  21. Lockee, B.B., Larson, M.B., Burton, J.K., & Moore, D.M. (2008). Programmed technologies. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Van Merriënboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.) Handbook of research on educational communications (3rd ed.) (pp. 187-197). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  22. Macdonald, J., & Twining, P. (2002). Assessing activity-based learning for a networked course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 603–618.
  23. Mayer, R.E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Meyer, K.A., & Murrell, V.S. (2014). A national study of training content and activities for faculty development for online teaching. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(1). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1030527.pdf. Mitchell, S., Foulger, T.S., Wetzel, K., & Rathkey, C. (2009). The negotiated project approach: Project-based learning without leaving the standards behind. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 339-346.
  25. Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M., Kalman, H.K., & Kemp, J.E. (2013). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  26. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  27. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations. New York: Oxford University Press.
  28. Piaget, J. (1974). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York: Grossman.
  29. Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II (pp. 425-453). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  30. Sweller, J., & Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Slides