A COMPUTER-AIDED METHODOLOGY FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT MONITORING OF THE LEARNING PROCESS

Erika Pigliapoco, Emanuele Lattanzi

2009

Abstract

Learning is a complex process that needs to be carefully taken under control by assessing its outcomes (direct monitoring) and by identifying the factors that might affect them (indirect monitoring). A large number of well-documented assessment techniques is available, but they are heterogeneous in nature and they are independently applied even within the same institution, so that they produce results which are not suitable for comparison and cross-processing. This paper presents an integrated computer-aided methodology that makes use of a comprehensive set of questionnaires (monitoring tools) administered within a unified framework (software assessment tool) in order to gather coherent data sets on which advanced statistical analyses can be performed. The applicability of the approach is demonstrated on a realworld case study.

References

  1. Carr, S., 2000. As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), A39-A41.
  2. Entwistle, N.J., 1998. Improving teaching through research on student learning. In JJF Forrest (ed.) University teaching: international perspectives. New York: Garland.
  3. Felder, R.M. and Soloman, B.A., 1999. Index of Learning Styles. Retried on November 15, 2008: http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f7felder/pub lic/
  4. Felder, R.M and Spurlin, J.E, 2005. Applications, Reliability and Validity of the Index of Leaning Styles, International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112.
  5. Frankola, K., 2001. The E-learning taboo-high dropout rates: Best practices for increasing online course completion rates. Syllabus, June 2001, 14-16.
  6. Gardner, J. (Ed.), 2005. Assessment and Learning, SAGE.
  7. Honey, P. and Mumford, A., 1992. The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publications.
  8. Johnston, J., Killion, J., and Oomen, J., 2005. Student Satisfaction in the Virtual Classroom. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 3(2).
  9. Joyce, A. et al 1996. Art: Activities and Standards. Handbook of Classroom Assessment: Learning, Achievement, and Adjustment. Ed. Gary Phye. San Diego: Academic Press.
  10. Keefe, J.W., 1979. Learning style: An Overview, in Keefe, J.W., ed., Student Learning Styles: Diagnosing and Prescribing Programs. National Association of Secondary School Principals.
  11. Khaled, S. and Baldwin, L., 2003. Web-based learning interaction and learning styles, British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 443-454.
  12. Kolb, D.A., 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  13. McMillan, D.W. and Chavis, D.M., 1986. Sense of Community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.
  14. Moore, M.G., 1993. Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of instance education, New York: Routledge, 22-38.
  15. Picciano, A.G., 2002. Beyond student perceptions: issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1).
  16. Pigliapoco, E. and Bogliolo A., 2007. The effects of the Psychological Sense of Community in on-line and face-to-face academic courses, Conference on Interactive Computer Aided Learning.
  17. Pigliapoco, E. and Bogliolo A., 2008. Learning Curve Monitoring, Conference on Interactive Computer Aided Learning.
  18. Riding, R. and Rayner, S., 1998. Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies: Understanding Style Differences in Learning and Behaviour, David Fulton, London.
  19. Riechmann, S.W. and Grasha, A.F., 1974. A rational approach to developing and assessing the constructive validity of a student learning style scales instrument. The Journal of Psychology, 87, 213-223.
  20. Rovai, A.P. 2002. Development of an Instrument to Measure Classroom Community. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197-211.
  21. Sadler-Smith, E., 1997. Learning Style: frameworks and Instruments, Educational Psychology 17, 51-63.
  22. Shea, P., Swan, K., Fredericksen, E., and Pickett, A., 2002. Student Satisfaction and Reported Learning in the SUNY Learning Network. Elements of Quality Online Education, Needham, MA: SCOLE.
  23. Wiers-Jenssen J., Stensaker B., and Gr√łgaard J. B., 2002. Student Satisfaction: towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept. Quality in Higher Education, 8(2), 183-195.
  24. Witkin, H., Moore C., Goodenough D., and Cox P., 1977. Field-dependent and Field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implication, Review of Educational Research, 47, 1-64.
  25. Zywno, M.S., 2003. A Contribution of Score Meaning for Felder-Soloman's Index of Learning Styles, the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Pigliapoco E. and Lattanzi E. (2009). A COMPUTER-AIDED METHODOLOGY FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT MONITORING OF THE LEARNING PROCESS . In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-8111-82-1, pages 33-40. DOI: 10.5220/0001949700330040


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu09,
author={Erika Pigliapoco and Emanuele Lattanzi},
title={A COMPUTER-AIDED METHODOLOGY FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT MONITORING OF THE LEARNING PROCESS},
booktitle={Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,},
year={2009},
pages={33-40},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0001949700330040},
isbn={978-989-8111-82-1},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,
TI - A COMPUTER-AIDED METHODOLOGY FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT MONITORING OF THE LEARNING PROCESS
SN - 978-989-8111-82-1
AU - Pigliapoco E.
AU - Lattanzi E.
PY - 2009
SP - 33
EP - 40
DO - 10.5220/0001949700330040