Wpływ jakości materiałów dydaktycznych w e-learningu na zaangażowanie w procesie uczenia się

Stefan Nowicki

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/TSB.2020.005

Abstrakt


Celem artykułu jest omówienie najważniejszych elementów, mających wpływ na jakość materiałów dydaktycznych, a tym samym kształt i efektywność kursów e-learningowych. Wykorzystanie znajomości wyników badań związanych z procesami poznawczymi i motywacją osób uczących się oraz części składowych procesu dydaktycznego jest bowiem kluczowe w przygotowaniu wysokiej jakości materiałów, wspomagających osoby uczące się w utrzymaniu wysokiego poziomu motywacji i zaangażowania, co następnie przekłada się na jakość procesu kształcenia oraz wyniki uzyskiwane przez jego uczestników. Ma to największe znaczenie w przypadku projektowania kursów e-learningowych, w których zaangażowanie osób prowadzących, jak też interakcje między ich uczestnikami w mniejszym stopniu niż w przypadku kształcenia tradycyjnego mogą wpływać na zwiększenie motywacji osób uczących się.

Słowa kluczowe


instructional design; materiały dydaktyczne; e-learning; metodyka e-learningu

Pełny tekst:

PDF

Bibliografia


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.








ISSN 2080-1807 (print)
ISSN 2392-1633 (online)

Partnerzy platformy czasopism