RICH ENVIRONMENTS FOR ACTIVE OPEN DISTANCE LEARNING: LOOKS GOOD IN THEORY BUT IS IT REALLY WHAT LEARNERS WANT

D R Queiros; M R de Villiers; C van Zyl; N Conradie; L van Zyl

doi:10.25159/0256-8853/599

Authors

D R Queiros Department of Transport Economics, Logistics and Tourism University of South Africa Pretoria, South Africa
M R de Villiers School of Computing, University of South Africa Pretoria, South Africa
C van Zyl Department of Transport Economics, Logistics and Tourism University of South Africa Pretoria, South Africa
N Conradie Department of Transport Economics, Logistics and Tourism University of South Africa Pretoria, South Africa
L van Zyl Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology University of South Africa Pretoria, South Africa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25159/0256-8853/599

Keywords:

open distance learning (ODL), rich environment for active learning (REAL), constructivism, engagement, motivation, interactivity, learner activities, course design, relevance, application, bonding, ownership

Abstract

In the open distance learning environment, efforts are made to engage students and provide rich environments for active learning (REALs). This article describes exploratory research undertaken on a fourth-year Tourism Management module. The research investigated two different study guides for different years â€“ 2012 students using an innovative guide with learner engagement tools designed in line with current learning theory, to achieve a REAL; and 2011 learners using a traditional study guide with far fewer engagement tools. The two consecutive cohorts completed a quantitative survey designed from theory on learner engagement, motivation and interactivity. The survey investigated learnersâ€™ experiences of the implementation of four constructs, namely course design; engagement; learning activities; and the integrated construct of relevance, application, bonding and ownership. Data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics, non-parametric correlations and cross-tabulations. Results suggest that this REAL does aid learning but not to the extent anticipated, and that it may be too rich. In light of the greater debate regarding the design of ODL material to maximise learning, recommendations are made to discerningly regulate the richness and depth of learning material, avoid overload of isolated learners, and gradually introduce REALs.

References

Alessi, S. M. and S. R. Trollip. 2001. Multimedia for learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ambe-Uva, T. N. 2006. Interactivity in distance education: The National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) experience. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 7(4): 101â€“109.

Baniulus, K., V. Kersiene, V. Petreikiene and A. Slotkiene. 2010. A case study: Impact of the interactivity level to e-learning outcomes. Paper presented at the 16th International Conference on Information and Software Technologies IT 2010. Available at http://isd.ktu.lt/it2010//material/Research/5_ITTL_1.pdf (accessed 18 September 2011).

Bloom, B. S. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Boekarts, M., P. R. Pintrich and M. Ziedner. (Ed.). 2000. Handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50030-5

Carlson, S. 2005. The net generation goes to college. The Chronicle of Higher Education 7 October 2005. Available at http://chronicle.com/article/The-Net-Generation-Goes-to/12307 (accessed 27 June 2013).

Carnahan, C., S. Musti-Rao and J. Bailey. 2009. Promoting active engagement in small group learning experiences for students with autism and significant learning needs. Education and Treatment of Children 32(1): 37â€“61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0047

Chi, M. T. H. 2009. Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 73â€“105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x

Coles, C. 2011. The use of wikis and online classrooms to promote deeper learning. Paper presented at the International Conference on E-Learning in the Workplace 2011. Available at http://www.icelw.org/program/ICELW%202011%20Proceedings/Papers/Coles.pdf (accessed 6 September 2013).

Dobrovolny, J. 2006. How adults learn from self-paced, technology-based corporate training: New focus for learners, new focus for designers. Distance Education 27(2): 155â€“170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910600789506

Epstein, J. L. and J. M. McPartland. 1976. The concept and measurement of the quality of school life. American Educational Research Journal 13: 15â€“30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312013001015

Fredricks, J. A., P. C. Blumenfeld and A. H. Paris. 2004. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74(1): 59â€“110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Glenn, J. M. 2000. Teaching the Net Generation. Business Education Forum 54(3): 6â€“14.

Grabinger, R. S. and J. C. Dunlap. 1995. Rich environments for active learning: A definition. Association for Learning Technology Journal 3(2): 5â€“34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0968776950030202

Hsi, S. and E. Soloway. 1998. Learner-centered design: Addressing, finally, the unique needs of learners. Paper presented at the CHI 98 conference 18â€“23 April. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/286498.286697

Louw, W. 2010. Africanisation: A rich environment for active learning on a global platform. Progressio 32(1): 42â€“54.

Mayer, R. E. 2001. Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moley, P. F., P. E. BandrÃ© and J. E. George. 2011. Moving beyond readability: Considering choice, motivation and learner engagement. Theory into Practice 50(3): 247â€“253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.584036

Ngâ€™ambi, D. and K. Johnston. 2006. An ICT-mediated constructivist approach for increasing academic support and teaching critical thinking skills. Educational Technology & Society 9(3): 244â€“253.

Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Oud, J. 2009. Guidelines for effective online instruction using multimedia screencasts. Reference Services Review 37(2): 164â€“177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320910957206

Paechter, M. and B. Maier. 2010. Online or face-to-face? Studentsâ€™ experiences and preferences in e-learning. Internet and Higher Education 13: 292â€“297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.004

Rhode, J. F. 2009. Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 10(1): 2â€“23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i1.603

Salkind, N. J. 2012. Exploring research. 2nd ed. Salt River, NJ: Pearson.

Schussler, D. L. 2009. Beyond content: How teachers manage classrooms to facilitate intellectual engagement for disengaged students. Theory into Practice 48: 114â€“121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840902776376

Shea, P. and T. Bidjerano. 2009. Cognitive presence and online learner engagement: A cluster analysis of the community of enquiry framework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 21: 199â€“217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9024-5

SPSS Inc. 2012. SPSS 20.0 for Windows. Chicago, IL: Author.

Tabbers, H. K., R. L. Martens and J. J. G. van MerriÃ«nboer. 2010. Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology 74(1): 71â€“81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904322848824

Taylor, L. and J. Parsons. 2011. Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education 14(1). Available at http://cie.asu.edu/ (accessed 20 September 2011).

Willms, J. D. 2003. Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).