Dr
Neil Béchervaise
NB
Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd
Interactivity
and learning styles: an assumption challenged
Presented
to e-fest - e-learning conference - Wellington 2005
Neil
E BŽchervaise
Learning Design Coordinator
Wellington Institute of Technology
with
Mary Weddell
Learnzone Team Leader
and
Paulene Crook
e-learning systems administrator
LEARNZONE Manager and e-Learning Team Leader at WelTec, Mary
Weddell was head of the TEC-funded GeTTS project, successfully
completed in collaboration with WinTec. With extensive experience
as an IT librarian and a Graduate Diploma in e-Commerce, Mary has
many years experience teaching information management and computing.
In her present role, she applies her understanding and expertise
to support the development of excellent teaching online by assisting
teaching staff to focus on student learning outcomes and experience
instead of the tools through which they are learning.
Paulene
Crook manages the Learning Management System at WelTec. She
has a degree in Information Technology. With a keen interest in
current technology and security, she has already passed the international
ISACA Certified Information Systems Auditor exam. Paulene is a qualified
network administrator and balances the "inner-geek" with an interest
in information and semantic design and multimedia development. She
managed the technical team through the development and testing of
the eCDF Generic Trade Training project and enjoys sharing her knowledge.
She has taught databases and programming, and is currently the tutor
and e-facilitator for an online Diploma programme.
Abstract
One of the
great advantages of online access is its anonymity. Where students
in class are identifiable because they respond, or because they
don't, the online student has time to think, to consult and to prepare
the required response. Presuming they have the stamina, students
can consider and, where they need to, adapt the demands of materials
to their own needs.
This paper
explores an intersection between the promised potential of an ever-increasing
range of interactive design opportunities and our increasing understanding
of the complex demands of various student learning styles. User
testing results from the recently completed Generic Trade Training
Skills project are used to suggest that meeting student needs may
be more complicated than just addressing learning style differences.
Introduction
There is
a commonly held association in education between teaching and learning
that reflects a traditional or formal approach within which students,
usually children, are imagined in a classroom being taught by teachers.
In this context, formal instruction holds two principal objectives
for the cognitive development of the individual:
- the long term acquisition
and retention of stable, organised and extensive bodies of meaningful,
generalisable knowledge and
- growth in the ability
to use this knowledge in the solution of particular problems,
including those problems which, when solved, augment the learner's
original store of knowledge (Notar et al 2002).
In formal
learning, learners basically learn what is being taught to them
and the teacher decides on how best to impart this learning. Focusing
on adult, independent learning, Jarvis (1987) differentiates formal
learning from non-formal or informal learning by the degree of control
that learners have over what is to be learnt and how they learn.
In non-formal and informal learning, learners have control over
the objectives but not the means, or over the means but not the
objectives.
Experienced
users and developers within the e-learning forum readily recognise
that completion rates, engagement and interactivity levels and appropriateness
have provided the basis for increasing concern among e-learning
educators over the past decade. More disconcertingly, maybe, it
seems that technological capacity and educational demand are, largely,
failing to draw together to create more powerful learning opportunities
for e-learning students. At the same time, potential learners, and
their potential employers, are far more clearly identified with
Jarvis's (1987) independent adult learners. Regardless of these
observations, an ever-increasing and ever-more-expensive range of
proprietary commercial, and occasionally educational, solutions
has provided little evident increase in e-learning effectiveness
to match escalating development costs.
Notwithstanding
this relatively depressing e-learning climate, there is still little
research to challenge the assumptions underpinning either the business
model for developing e-learning materials or their effectiveness
in application (Chomley, 2005). More importantly, the division between
educators who would develop learning materials and instructional
designers who would put teaching materials online remains intact.
Indeed, divergent research streams have emerged. On one hand, instructional
design is a well theorised research field generously supported by
the megalithic multinational icons of the IT industry (eg Merrill,
2002). On the other, educational researchers projecting from substantial
data across generations of emerging learning theory have become
increasingly disenchanted with the misrepresentation and even aberrant
application of their findings (Laurillard 1993, Karl 2004).
This paper
briefly reports user response data from the recently completed TEC
funded collaboration between Wellington and Waikato Institutes of
Technology (WelTec and WinTec)to create engaging, interactive and
educationally sound pre-trade learning modules for cross-platform
delivery in distance mode with minimal tutor support. The paper
uses this data to identify formal response findings with informal
response patterns from the same data source to argue a disjunction
between our intention and our achievement as e-learning developers.
In brief, it challenges the assumption that increased interactivity
and engagement necessarily address diverse learning styles
The GeTTS
Project
The Generic
Trade Training Skills programme [GeTTS] was designed to meet the
specific needs of
- High school students seeking to undertake trade training
- Early school leavers and unemployed seeking entry to trade training
- Workers from other occupations seeking to establish basic entry
levels for trade training
The GeTTS
programme was developed through collaboration between
- New Zealand Industry Training Organisations [ITOs],
- Wellington Institute
of Technology [WelTec]
- Waikato Institute
of Technology [WinTec], and the e-learning development company
- Learning Design Group
[LDG] in Wellington.
Collaborative
development of the GeTTS programme was funded by the Tertiary Education
Commission [TEC].
The GeTTS
programme provided a suite of 8 modules written and developed to
meet New Zealand trade training entry requirements. The 8 modules
include:
Basic Calculation [WelTec]
Self Management
[WelTec]
Problem Solving [WelTec]
Customer Service [WelTec]
Workplace Health and Safety [LDG]
Communication in the workplace [WinTec]
Writing for workplace purposes [WinTec]
Teamwork [WinTec]
The 8 modules,
developed independently by WelTec, WinTec and LDG, were tested for
cross-systems compatibility on both Janison and WebCT by WelTec
and WinTec, and quality assured by LDG.
The modules
were designed to meet New Zealand level 1 and 2 unit standards and
to be delivered online with high levels of interactivity, low levels
of tutor support and assessment provided through hosting institutions.
Two
war stories
The GeTTS
project taught us a huge amount about the range of ways we could
develop content, the ways we could design it and the ways we could
ultimately present it. Put simply at this level, the project told
us what we should have already known:
1. A learning
project cannot succeed without initial agreement on the pedagogical
imperatives underpinning the project. and
2.Module
identification needs to be made on the basis of its evident suitability
to e-learning mode development and delivery.
What the
user testing of the GeTTS project taught us, however, was rather
different. Two simple stories serve to illustrate this.
Story 1:
A highly engaging basic calculation game featured a meercat in a
fireworks factory. The meercat's job was to select appropriately
sized boxes to package bundles of fireworks coming off two conveyor
belts at the same time. Basically, this was a game confirming that
students could double numbers and halve them. If the correctly sized
box was selected, the meercat loaded its box of crackers into a
third hopper and they were taken away. If the wrong box was selected,
the fireworks fell to the ground and exploded in all directions,
the meercat ducked and hid under the hopper. The groups of year
12 students testing this part of the basic calculation module loved
the game. The game rules and maths theory we had laboured over,
they never accessed. As the game got faster they got faster. Motivation
was not a problem, engagement was not a problem. Success was its
own feedback.
Then the
game was changed to bring in the notion of near doubles - if 2x8=16
then it is easy to see that 8+9 is the same as 2x8 +1. Easy. Not
so! Suddenly there was a rapid increase in explosions and for each
failure, as before, a side screen explained how to get the right
answer. But hardly anyone read the screen. Instead, faced with failure,
they lost interest - and turned to look at the next element in the
module.
Recall,
these boys and girls were in year 12. Many were looking to come
into trade training courses next year. Some were already in pre-trade
courses. When we analysed their written assessments, they expressed
high levels of interest, they 'loved' the games. But they were not
willing to analyse their mistakes and read how to correct them.
The game, it appears, offered them sufficient satisfaction that
its learning elements were neglected. We must surely ask ourselves
what we were missing here; what assumptions we had made that just
didn't stack up in the reality of the real audience market-place.
Why were our target audiences so apparently superficial in their
learning behaviour? And why did our observers comment on the loss
of interest when the users did not?
Story 2:
Our high school user testing groups engaged with a fully flash-developed
unit on Anger Management as part of a three-part module on Self
Management. The screen opens with a title and a warning that the
unit may upset some people as it deals with potentially personal
and upsetting situations. The screen presentation throughout contains
a mainscreen on which multimedia cartoon strips illustrate the points
and a side screen or 'clipboard' carries the narrative content and
key points.
Our year
12 user groups from two local high schools - girls and boys - opened
the Anger unit, read the warning and began reading the clipboard.
They progressed as we would hope until they realized that it was
possible to skip by continually pressing the next button to get
to the next multimedia section. This continued, for the boys more
commonly, until they reached a frame showing sexual harassment in
the workplace. The response was graphic. Stopping to read the clipboard
and the turning to the next user to tell them about the image. At
this point, generally, the boys excitedly discussed what they had
seen while the girls tended to take in what was happening and return
to their own work.
This reaction,
on its own, is probably fairly unsurprising. These are 16-17 year
old boys. The girls are more mature and, probably aware of the reality
of the scene anyway. What was more interesting was the boys following
behaviour. Some continued their skipping until they arrived at a
scene depicting a violent confrontation, others returned to the
beginning of the unit and began to work through it in detail.
The violent
confrontation showed two faces close to each other and obviously
shouting. One face was red, the other blue. There were no identifiers
for gender, race or age. The users coming to this image began an
animated discussion about the identity of the pair - they wereÓ
brother and sister - see the coloursÓ. ÒNo, they're two gangsÓ.
ÒNo, they're not, they're mother and fatherÓ. The discussion led
to a hunt back and forwards around the area to identify the couple.
Without success in identification, the users generally continued
reading the clipboards closely from this point. Again, as we would
have hoped they would do from the beginning.
User reporting
on this unit maintained that the students felt the unit contained
material they could use later, that it was highly engaging and that
the difficulty level of the materials was appropriate to their needs
and ability. As developers, we might feel smugly satisfied at the
reportedly high levels of engagement with, and perceived appropriateness
of the materials. Observing the user testing groups as students
in charge of and engaged with their own learning we have mixed feelings.
The obvious interest sparked by the two images suggests we were
on the right wavelength with our intended audience - of male teenagers
at least. The discussion the materials generated, however, suggests
that we may have developed materials that would be better used in
small group presentation modes. As we have previously observed,
we need a basis for the evident suitability of materials for e-learning
mode development and delivery.
User testing
stories from the meercat and anger management units confirm, for
us, the difficulty of developing the kind of process-line approach
to theorizing e-learning characterized by much of the instructional
design research currently in vogue but seriously questioned from
differing perspectives by researchers such as Bechervaise and Chomley
(1993), Laurillard (1993) and Mayes (1995). Instead, it is argued,
a clearer representation of the pedagogy underpinning e-learning
development is long overdue. Apparently convergent paths still fail
to meet in our integration of independent, adult learning principles
with fundamental teaching principles. Do we teach so they may learn?
Is failure to learn a clear quantification of failure to teach?
Is learning even related to teaching? And if, as seems increasingly
likely, it is not, then perhaps - as Jarvis (1987) implied almost
20 years ago, we should be focusing on how to create learning materials
than teaching materials.
Teaching
or Learning
Considerable
effort was applied across the GeTTS project to developing a constructivist
learning experience where student-centred activities support student
experience and commonly identified pre-trade student needs. User
testing of representatives from within the target audience have
suggested that these have been more successful in engaging the younger
groups (school student and early school leavers) than those already
experienced in employment.
The range
of tutor [or peer] support demand represented in module development
(see fig 1) reflects early recognition of both the range of potential
presentation opportunities and, more importantly, the range of learning
demands placed upon students seeking to undertake these modules
in distance learning mode.
Where teaching
objectives were considered as the primary focus of module development
[the instructivist model] because content had been prioritized (eg
Legal responsibilities in Customer service and OSH regulations),
the demand for tutor involvement tended to become central to the
effective maintenance of student engagement. Where meaningful development
grounded in student experience [the constructivist model] provided
the basis for module development (eg Self Management), demands for
tutor involvement were minimized and scaffolding from known to new
skills and content was prioritized (Applebee and Langer, 1983).
This was then clearly reflected in the levels of engagement of the
student user testing group.
Figure 1:
Facilitation of learning
The constructivist
demand for an essentially learner-centred based engagement requiring
high motivation levels were balanced across the modules, where practicable,
against tutor-centred content delivery approaches assuming high
engagement. This apparent tension, we believe, was resolved by recognizing
that constructivism and instructionism are not necessarily opposing
ends of a learning continuum.
Instead,
it has been accepted that the role of the tutor and the role of
the instructional materials are continuous. Rather than drawing
from one approach or another, the GeTTS modules assume that adult
learners are largely self-directed and motivated by the need to
establish just-in-time approaches to the management of their own
learning. More importantly, the tutor and the design of the materials
fulfil a facilitation role. In the GeTTS programme, adult learning
principles were assumed. Strong motivation to learn relevant skills
was assumed. The learning to be gained from active engagement with
the GeTTS modules, however, was seen to be facilitated by offering
a blended learning environment.
Learning
styles and learning needs
e-learning
strategies are necessarily grounded in assumptions of:
- high motivation level
- facility with computers
- familiarity with
online game-playing and internet instructional design conventions
, and
- engagement with the
materials presented.
From an
instructional design viewpoint, learning access engaged in the development
of e-learning materials includes visual, auditory and, to a necessarily
limited extent, kinaesthetic styles. The learning style tends to
be individual while the most frequently engaged pedagogy tends to
be instructional.
Meanwhile,
the capacity to engage interactively with learning materials, to
apply them directly and in context is restricted, and the potential
to receive tutor-mediated real-time response is unusual.
In this
context, the breadth of the target audience for the GeTTS program
has provided an extensive range of pedagogical challenges.
To access
the range of learning styles anticipated across the GeTTS target
student audience, modules have been developed with a range of emphases
from highly interactive with low text density and literacy demand
through reduced interactivity with average-level text and literacy
demand to low interactivity level with higher-level text but controlled
literacy demands (see fig 2 below).
Read
level Module Author/Designer Tutor support level Low reading demand
Mid-read demand High read demand Basic Calculation WelTec Low High
Problem Solving WelTec Self Management WelTec Occ. Health & Safety
LDG Report Writing WinTec Communication WinTec Teamwork WinTec Customer
Service WelTec
Figure 2:
Designing for literacy
Applying
a largely constructivist learning approach (Bruner, 1966), the modules
address a range of emphases based on Mayes Conceptualisation Cycle
(1995) where blended learning [mixed mode] approaches offer a mix
of on-line and face-to-face interaction. As previously indicated
[see fig 1], the anticipated level of face-to-face tutor support
has been established in recognition of the varying demands of the
content to be presented and the level of complexity of the concepts
to be engaged within a single module.
Most people
become familiar with numbers, addition, subtraction and multiplication
as part of their normal growing through childhood. Their learning
is formalized through primary school levels so that by High school,
they have a strong grasp of most basic mathematical concepts. Unfortunately,
this is not true for all people. Failure to grasp basic concepts
before their abstract manipulation becomes a necessity is a common
characteristic among high school drop-outs and unemployed. As has
been frequently observed by ITO representatives, trade tutors and
employers of pre-trade workers, the assumption of basic calculation
and measurement skills cannot be assumed.
Piaget (1957)
established that cognitive development proceeds from pre-concrete
through concrete stages towards conceptual abstraction. His work
informed the later theories of Bruner (1960, 1966) and Gagne (1967)
that underpin mathematics syllabus development in New Zealand (Hunter,
1998).
Mathematical
development, as a special case of cognitive development, has been
the focus of a wide range of initiatives since the 1960s (eg Dienes
1963, 1967) in Canada and UK, Clements (1972) in Australia and Roe
(1962), Adler (1972) and Niedermeyer (1968, 1969) in America). In
particular, these are reflected in the theoretical basis for the
new maths syllabus that is currently being introduced into New Zealand
primary schools.
The GeTTS
Basic Calculation module (Unit Standard 8489) has been developed
on the basis of research evidence and on strong advice from secondary
maths specialist, Michael Drake at Victoria University, to align
with those features of the new New Zealand maths syllabus which
focus on basic concept development for addition and subtraction,
multiplication and division.
The approach,
at first glance, appears to be over-simplified. Consistent research
findings, however, have confirmed that a failure to establish fundamental
concepts make it almost impossible to develop the later, more complex,
concepts which are built on them if they are missing. In essence,
every ladder needs a first rung.
The modules
Basic
Calculation
Basic Calculation
has been identified as the most conceptually demanding module. In
response to this identification, levels of text density and reading
demand have been maintained at the simplest levels, concepts have
been identified and developed at fundamental levels and engagement
has been maintained as a priority. The resulting development is
focused on providing an integrated learning experience for an engaged
adult learner (Knowles, 1998) whose identified needs have been established
in a diagnostic pre-test and for whom an individual path through
the module is established by the staged programme of formative testing
that is integrated into the module as specific basic calculation
strategies are mastered.
Self
Management & Problem Solving
User testing
with the target audience has established that, conceptually, these
modules have considerable potential to engage the learner at a personal
level. In consequence, a more distanced, less necessarily engaged
approach has been employed to reduce their potential for generating
stress and/or motivating disengagement from difficult and unpleasant
memories or lived experiences. The modules introduce generic cartoon
characters in familiar domestic and work situations, a glossary
of technical, medical and potentially unfamiliar terms is presented
onscreen as the module develops and this glossary is repeated as
a static and continuous reference site from the navigation bar.
Language
demands and text density are increased as the modules develop and
as familiarity with terminology and concepts is established.
The two
modules are considered together because they were scripted and developed
by the same team. Each applies extensive multi-media solutions to
engage learners and each provides a series of external reference
points for students who wish to extend their learning or identify
support beyond the scope of the unit or module.
Occupational
Health and Safety
The module
has been developed according to traditional e-learning principals
with a range of mainly drag and drop interactivity at the end of
each of a number of subsections. The module contains considerable
text, direct reference to extracts from government legislation,
and a variety of descriptive sections and still images from available
OSH publications.
Communication
The module
offers a range of exemplars and activities describing and demonstrating
common communication tasks including questioning, offering information
and engaging in semi-formal discussion. The module is developed
with audio clips and regular sub-headings to support the denser
text presentation created by a scrolling screen presentation while
maintaining the reduced literacy levels identified as appropriate
to the GeTTS target audience.
Workplace
writing
The module
addresses the demands for precise, concise and accurate writing,
the need for correctness, a basic range of common workplace and
community report writing forms and the structural principals of
report writing. Scrolling across a range of downloadable report
forms, examples of completed forms and interactive cartoon examples
supports interactivity with an offsite tutor and regular section
headings and subheadings assist navigation through the module.
Teamwork
The module
provides a wide range of interactive learning opportunities promoting
student involvement, encouraging responsibility for, and rewarding
student choice. The module requires tutor engagement in the learning
process and presents opportunities for online engagement with tutors
and fellow students through chat-room interaction. To the extent
that learning about teamwork without becoming involved in a team
at a physical level can be overcome in an e-learning environment,
the module provides a substantial learning resource.
Customer
Service
The module
presents a wide range of information from basic meeting and greeting
of a customer to the consideration of legislation underlying all
customer service transactions. As a result, the approaches developed
within the module range from simply illustrated, low text density,
low reading demand engagements through to essentially text-on-screen,
low interactivity content presentation. The resulting form of the
module is similarly varied to meet the varying demands of the module.
Teaching
or Learning
Considerable
effort has been applied across the GeTTS project to developing a
constructivist learning experience (Brown, 2004) where student-centred
activities support student experience and commonly identified pre-trade
student needs. User testing of representative groups from within
the target audience suggests that these have been more successful
in engaging the younger groups (school student and early school
leavers) than those already experienced in employment. Even so,
the motivators have not necessarily been intended and the levels
of engagement have not necessarily come from predicted and consciously
designed materials.
The range
of tutor [or peer] support demand represented in module development
(see fig 2), however, reflects early recognition of both the range
of potential presentation opportunities and, more importantly, the
range of learning demands placed upon students seeking to undertake
these modules in distance learning mode.
Where teaching
objectives have been considered as the primary focus [the instructivist
model] because content has been prioritized (eg Legal responsibilities
in Customer service and OSH regulations), the demand for tutor involvement
has been seen as central to the effective maintenance of student
engagement. Where meaningful development from student experience
[the constructivist model] provides the basis for module development
(eg Self Management, demands for tutor involvement appear to be
minimized.
Within the
GeTTS project, concept complexity has determined the fundamental
approach to module development, text density, content density and
interactivity (see Fig 2).
Figure 2:
Designing for complexity
Expectations
and e-learning design assumptions
The difference
in approach between the partnering organisations to both funding
and staffing contributed to the tensions that arose within and across
the GeTTS project team.
In consequence,
it became clear that:
1. A learning
project cannot succeed without initial agreement on the pedagogical
imperatives underpinning the project.
2. Module
identification needs to be made on the basis of its evident suitability
to e-learning mode development and delivery.
independent
and empowered or lonely and isolated?
In abstracting
this paper, we observed that one of the great advantages of online
access is its anonymity. We noted that while students in class may
identifiable because they respond, or because they don't, the online
student has time to think, to consult and to prepare the required
response. Observations from the GeTTS user testing program with
the target secondary school audience strongly suggests that students
became engaged with specific elements of the modules because they
were strongly motivated by individual (and not necessarily intentional)
aspects of the module. In one sense, this is exciting news. It confirms
the constructivist view that students build from what they know
towards what they need to know. In another sense, it is a deeply
pessimistic observation. Regardless of our best intentions, it is
the learner who holds the trump cards, the learner who decides whether
the materials are engaging, meaningful,
.
The need
to share observed in the first war story described in this paper
suggests that distance learners are likely to need easy access to
chat rooms, direct access to tutors and a sense of sharing with
'other humans'. In this context, as has been frequently observed,
distance learning remains remote, isolate, lonely. The capacity
to skim a well-structured module, to determine where to start and
what to value, on the other hand, empowers students to become their
own teachers, to determine what is useful and what is not, to defy
the apparently natural order determined by the course developer.
Notwithstanding the models and exhortations of Mayes, Laurillard,
et al, the user testing groups informing this study are strongly
independent and, having control over what they present to themselves
and how they assess it, they remain in control of their own learning.
They are Jarvis's 'informal learners' and their informality that
guarantees their independence remains our greatest single challenge
as e-learning educators.
Conclusion
Traditionally,
we have designed e-learning materials from two established cornerstones:
that teachers teach so students must learn; and, that instructional
design is the link between effective content and motivational delivery.
Almost unconsciously, we have maintained that what works in a classroom
should work beyond that space. We have assumed that we are designing
for highly motivated and highly computer-literate users, and that
access to high end technology is the province of every e-learner.
This paper
has applied user testing data from the 2005 GeTTS project to offer
a loose coupling of formal survey responses with informal response
patterns from the same data source to argue a disjunction between
our intention and our achievement as e-learning developers. In doing
so, it has challenged the assumption that increased interactivity
and engagement necessarily address diverse learning styles. Instead,
it has been argued that careful attention to the capacities and
interests of the learner, the intended learning experiences and
styles of these users, and their access to and familiarity with
the technology are crucial to establishing relevant content for
effective development and optimum delivery mode. The GeTTS experience
suggests, once again, that we neglect these apparently obvious lessons
at our peril.
References
Adler, Irving.
(Ed.) (1972) Readings in Mathematics. Book 2. Lexington, MA: Ginn
BŽchervaise, N.E. and Chomley, P. (2003) e-lusive learning: innovation
forced choice and reflexivity. Second Forum on e-Learning Design
& Development, FELDD 2003. Melbourne.
Brown, C. (2004) Constructivist Learning Waikato Institute of Technology,
Hamilton.
Bruner, J.S. (1960) The Process of Education. New York: Vintage
Books. Bruner, J.S. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press
Bruner, J. (1973) Going Beyond the Information Given. New York:
Norton.
Clements, M.A.K. & Ellerton, N. (2000) Mathematics Education Research:
Past Present and Future. Unesco: Geneva Dienes, ZP (1963). An Experimental
Study of Mathematics. London: Hutchinson Educational
Dienes, Z.P. (1967). Building Up Mathematics. (3rd edition). London:
Hutchinson Publishing Group, Ltds.
Gagne, R.M. (1977) The Conditions of Learning (3rd Ed.). New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Hunter, J.J. (1998) Mathematics in New Zealand: Past, Present and
Future. Ministry of Research, Science and Technology: Wellington
Jarvis (1987) Adult Thinking in the Social Context. London: Croom
Helm
Knowles, M. S.; Holton, E. F.; and Swanson, R. A. (1998) The Adult
Learner: the Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource
Development. Houston, TX: Gulf
Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking university teaching: A framework
for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge
Lesh R. (Ed.) (1979) Applied Mathematical Problem Solving, ERIC
Mayes, J.T. (1995) Learning Technology and Groundhog Day. In: Strang,
W., Simpson, V., Slater, D. (eds) Hypermedia at Work: Practice and
Theory in Higher Education. Canterbury: University of Kent Press
(1995)
Niedermeyer, F.C. (1968) The Relevance of Frame Sequence in Programmed
Instruction: An Addition to the Dialogue. Teaching Machines and
Programmed Instruction,16(3), 301-317
Niedermeyer, F.C., Brown, J., & Sulzen, R. (1969) Learning and Varying
Sequences of Ninth-Grade Mathematics Material. Journal of Experimental
Education, 37, 61-6
Notar, CE., Wilson, JD., Restauri, SL. & Friery, KA. (2002) Going
the Distance: Active Learning. Education, 122(4). 649-655
Piaget, J. (1957) Construction of Reality in the Child, London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul
Roe, A. (1962).
A Comparison of Branching Methods for Programmed Learning. Journal
of Educational Research, 55(8), 408-416
Websites
developed - Academic index
- Biography - Contact
|
