E-learning materials quality and its impacton the engagement in the learning process
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/TSB.2020.005Keywords
instructional design, teaching materials, learning materials, e-learning, e-learning methodsAbstract
The aim of this article is to discuss the crucial elements, influencing the quality of teaching and learning materials, used in e-learning courses, and thus – form and effectiveness of distance courses. What is crucial in preparing high-quality teaching and learning materials, supporting learners’ high motivation level, and their engagement in learning activities is the practical use of the research results on the cognitive learning processes. This, in turn, results in high-quality teaching and better learning outcomes. This approach is most important in designing e-learning courses, in which the teachers’ engagement, as well as social interactions between participants, cannot directly improve the learners’ motivation.
References
Alonso L. D., Blázquez F. E., Are the Functions of Teachers in e-Learning and Face-to-Face Learning Environments Really Different?, Journal of Educational Technology & Society 12/4 (2009), s. 331-343.
Andrade H., Valtcheva A., Promoting Learning and Achievement through Self-Assessment, Theory Into Practice 48/1 (2009), s. 12-19.
Ayres P., van Merriënboer J. J.G., Research on Cognitive Load Theory and Its Design Implications for E-Learning, Educational Technology Research and Development 53/3 (2005), s. 5-13.
Beißwenger M., Burovikhina V. , Meyer L., Förderung von Sprach- und Textkompetenzen mit sozialen Medien: Kooperative Konzepte für den Inverted Classroom, [w:] Soziale Medien in Schule und Hochschule: Linguistische, sprach- und mediendidaktische Perspektiven, M. Beißwenger, M. Knopp (red.), Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien 2019, s. 59-99.
Blonstein J., Letting Go: A Personal Perspective of Using Self-Assessment and Self-Evaluation, [w:] Teacher Educators Rethink Self-Assessment in Higher Education: A Guide for the Perplexed, J. McVarish, C. Milne (red.), Counterpoints 380, New York 2014, s. 97-113.
Brown G. D., Ellison W. C., What is Active Learning, [w:] The Seven Principles in Action: Improving Undergraduate Education, R. S. Hatfield (red.), Bolton 1995.
Clark M. J., Paivio A., Dual Coding Theory and Education, Educational Psychology Review 3/3 (1991), s. 149-210.
Eppler A. M., Harju L. B., Achievement Motivation Goals in Relation to Academic Performance in Traditional and Nontraditional College Students, Research in Higher Education 38/5 (1997), s. 557-573.
European Commission, Education and Training Monitor 2019, Luxembourg 2019.
Fung D., Connected Curriculum for Higher Education, London 2017.
Gerjets P., Scheiter K. , Catrambone R., Designing Instructional Examples to Reduce Intrinsic Cognitive Load: Molar versus Modular Presentation of Solution Procedures, Instructional Science 32/1/2 (2004), s. 33-58.
Glassick E. C., Huber T. M. , Maeroff I. G., Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate, Princeton 1997.
Hsu Y.S., Wu H.K. , Hwang F.K., Factors Influencing Junior High School Teachers' Computer-Based Instructional Practices Regarding Their Instructional Evolution Stages, Journal of Educational Technology & Society 10/4 (2007), s. 118-130.
Kalyuga S., Liu T.C., Managing Cognitive Load in Technology-Based Learning Environments, Journal of Educational Technology & Society 18/4 (2015), s. 1-8.
Kalyuga S., Cognitive Load Theory: How Many Types of Load Does It Really Need, Educational Psychology Review 23/1 (2011), s. 1-19.
Keller J., Motivational design for learning and performance : the ARCS model approach, New York - London 2010.
Keller M. J., Development and Use of the ARCS Model of Instructional Design, Journal of Instructional Development 10/3 (1987), s. 2-10.
Kupisiewicz C., Podstawy dydaktyki, wyd. drugie, Warszawa 2005.
Lee E. M., Distance Learning as “Learning by Doing”, Journal of Educational Technology & Society 2/3 (1999), s. 41-47.
Lee S., Barker T. , Kumar S. V., Effectiveness of a Learner-Directed Model for e-Learning, Journal of Educational Technology & Society 19/3 (2016), s. 221-233.
Lowery R. B., Young B. D., Designing Motivational Instruction for Developmental Education, Research and Teaching in Developmental Education 9/1 (1992), s. 29-44.
Mahony S., Open Education and Open Educational Resources for the Teaching of Classics in the UK, [w:] Digital Classics Outside the Echo-Chamber: Teaching, Knowledge Exchange & Public Engagement, G. Bodard, M. Romanello (red.), London 2016, s. 33-50.
McDonald B., Self Assessment for Understanding, The Journal of Education 188/1 (2007), s. 25-40.
McMillan H. J., Hearn J., Student Self-Assessment: The Key to Stronger Student Motivation and Higher Achievement, Educational Horizons 87/1 (2008), s. 40-49.
McTighe J., Brown L. J., Differentiated Instruction and Educational Standards: Is Détente Possible? , Theory Into Practice 44/3 (2005), s. 234-244.
Means B. T., Jonassen H. D. , Dwyer M. F., Enhancing Relevance: Embedded ARCS Strategies vs. Purpose, Educational Technology Research and Development 45/1 (1997), s. 5-17.
Melton R., Learning Outcomes for Higher Education: Some Key Issues, British Journal of Educational Studies 44/4 (1996), s. 409-425.
Merill C. D. i in., Tutoring: Guided Learning by Doing, Cognition and Instruction 13/3 (1995), s. 315-372.
Nelson C. B., Erlandson E. B., Managing Cognitive Load in Educational Multi-User Virtual Environments: Reflection on Design Practice, Educational Technology Research and Development 56/5/6 (2008), s. 619-641.
Paas F. i in., A Motivational Perspective on the Relation between Mental Effort and Performance: Optimizing Learner Involvement in Instruction, Educational Technology Research and Development 53/3 (2005), s. 25-34.
Paas F., Sweller J. , van Gog T., Cognitive Load Theory: New Conceptualizations, Specifications, and Integrated Research Perspectives, Educational Psychology Review 22/2 (2010), s. 115-121.
Song Y. i in., “HOW” to Design, Implement and Evaluate the Flipped Classroom? – A Synthesis, Journal of Educational Technology & Society 20/1 (2017), s. 180-183.
Song Y., Kapur M., How to Flip the Classroom – “Productive Failure or Traditional Flipped Classroom” Pedagogical Design?, Journal of Educational Technology & Society 20/1 (2017), s. 292-305.
Sweller J., Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load, Educational Psychology Review 22/2 (2010), s. 123-138.
Wang X., Hurley S., Assessment as a Scholarly Activity?: Faculty Perceptions of and Willingness to Engage in Student Learning Assessment, The Journal of General Education 61/1 (2012), s. 1-15.
Werring J. C., Responding to the older aged full-time student: Preferences for undergraduate education, College Students Affairs Journal 1 (1987), s. 13-20.
Wolfgang E. M., Dowling D. W., Differences in motivation of adult and younger undergraduates, Journal of Higher Education 52 (1981), s. 640-648.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 673
Number of citations: 0
