E-Learning: Psycho-Pedagogical Utility, Usability and Accessibility Criteria from a Learner Centred Perspective

  1. Marta Fuentes Agustí 1
  2. María José Hernández Serrano 2
  3. Margarida Romero Velasco 1
  1. 1 Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
    info

    Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

    Barcelona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/052g8jq94

  2. 2 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Libro:
Handbook of Research on E-Learning Standards and Interoperability
  1. Fotis Lazarinis
  2. Steve Green
  3. Elaine Pearson

Editorial: IGI Global

ISBN: 9781616927899,  9781616927905

Año de publicación: 2011

Páginas: 419-434

Tipo: Capítulo de Libro

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61692-789-9.CH021 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Resumen

Since the democratization of personal computers and Internet access formal and informal learning opportunities have multiplied, increasing the technological-supported contexts and contents. Despite the increasing opportunities for education, not all teachers have developed a satisfactory level of eCompetence (Schneckenberg, 2006), not being able to choose and implement a technology-supported learning solution efficiently. On the one hand we need to consider the phenomenon of digital emigrant teachers, which is linked to the avoidance of technologies; but on the other, we have a large number of technological-enthusiastic teachers that try to introduce tools and functionalities without assessing first: the cognitive load, the cost, the utility, the usability, the accessibility and the psycho-pedagogical criteria that must be considered before innovate with technologies. This chapter aims at both groups of teachers or instructional developers, by offering a review of the e-learning possibilities and criteria, based on several analyses carried out by the authors on higher educational settings. Based on the learner cantered perspective, this chapter purposes some criteria for assuring the quality in higher education e-learning contexts, mainly based on three categories: psycho-pedagogical utility, usability and accessibility. One of the principal goals of the chapter is to support -by means of the criteria- the selection of technologies and functionalities (collaborative tools, e-learning 2.0 solutions...), considering, above all, the learning objectives and the specific learning contexts. The chapter will introduce also some of the main technology-supported learning solutions and will provide a decision-framework to choose, implement and evaluate the integration of educational technology for e-learning.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Acton, T., Golden, W., Gudea, S. & Scott, M. (2004). Usability and Acceptance in Small-Screen Information Systems, CollECTeR (Europe), University of Surrey, Guildford, UK, 25 April.
  • Allum P. (2001). Principles applicable to the production of CALL-ware: learning from the field of Human Computer Interaction (HCI).ReCALL, 13(2), 146–166. 10.1017/S0958344001000222a
  • Amadieu F. Tricot A. Mariné C. (2009). Prior knowledge in learning from a non-linear electronic document: Disorientation and coherence of the reading sequences.Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 381–388. 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.017
  • Bandura A. (2002). Growing primacy of human agency in adaptation and change in the electronic era. European Psychologist, 7(1), 2–16. 10.1027//1016-9040.7.1.2
  • Bos-Ciussi. M, Augier, M. & Rosner, G. (2008). Learning Communities Are Not Mushrooms - or - How to Cultivate Learning Communities. In C. Kimble, P. Hildreth and I. Bourdon (Eds), Higher Education in Communities of Practice: Creating Learning Environments for Educators, (pp. 2, 14, 287-308). Hershey, PA: Information Age Publishing.
  • Bosco A. (2005). Las TIC en los procesos de convergencia europea y la innovación en la universidad: oportunidades y limitaciones.Aula Abierta, 86, 3–27.
  • Bremer, D., & Bryant, R. (2005). A Comparison of Two Learning management Systems: Moodle vs Blackboard. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications, Tauranga, New Zealand.
  • Cabero Almenara, J. (2000). La formación virtual: principios, bases y preocupaciones. In R. Pérez Pérez, (Ed.), Redes, multimedia y diseños virtuales, (pp. 83-102). Oviedo, Italy: Departamento de Ciencias de la Educación de la Universidad de Oviedo. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://tecnologiaedu.us.es/bibliovir/pdf/87.pdf
  • Cañellas, A. (2006). Impacto de las TIC en la educación: un acercamiento desde el punto de vista de las funciones de la educación. Quaderns Digitals: Revista de Nuevas Tecnologías y Sociedad, 43.
  • Cenich, G., & Santos, G. (2005). Propuesta de aprendizaje basado en proyectos y trabajo colaborativo: experiencia de un curso en línea. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 7(2). Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://redie.uabc.mx/vol7no2/contenido cenich.html
  • Coimbra Group. (2002). European Union Policies and Strategic Change for e-learning in Universities. Brussels.
  • Coll C. Rochera M. J. Mayordomo R. M. Naranjo M. (2007). Evaluación continuada y apoyo al aprendizaje. Una experiencia de innovación educativa con el apoyo de las TIC en educación superior.Revista Electrónica de Investigación Psicoeducativa, 5(13), 783–804.
  • Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. (2001). Recoming a virtual professor: pedagogical roles and ALN. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  • De Pablos J. (2007). El cambio metodológico en el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior y el papel de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación.Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 10(2), 5–44.
  • European Comisión – Information Society and Media Directorate General. (2006). Benchmarking Access and Use of ICT in European Schools 2006. Final Report from Head Teacher and Classroom Teacher Surveys in 27 European Countries. Report was elaborated by Empirica. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/studies/final_report_3.pdf
  • Evans S. Douglas G. (2008). E-Learning and Blindness: A comparative study of the quality of an E-Learning experience.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 102(2), 77–88.
  • Fernández B. Suárez L. Alvárez E. (2006). El camino hacia el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior: deficiencias metodológicas y propuestas de mejora desde la perspectiva del alumno.Aula Abierta, 88, 85–105.
  • Friesen, N. (2005). Interoperatibility and Learning Objects: An Overview of E-learning Standardization. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1.
  • Fuentes M. Feixas M. Monereo C. Gairín J. (2006). Guia didàctica pel disseny virtual de cursos de postgrau en modalitat e-learning. III Jornada de Campus d’Innovació Docent. Barcelona, Spain: UAB.
  • Gardner H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
  • Garrison D. R. Akyol Z. (2009). Role of instructional technology in the transformation of higher education.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 19–30. 10.1007/s12528-009-9014-7
  • Gómez A. F. García M. E. Martínez M. A. (2003). Nuevas tecnologías y herramientas en la teleformación. In MartínexF. (Ed.), Redes de formación en la enseñanza. Las nuevas perspectivas del trabajo coopertativo (pp. 231–235). Barcelona, Spain: Paidós.
  • Goodyear P. Salmon G. Spector M. Tickner S. (2001). Competences for Online Teching: A Special report. Educational Techonology Research ¬ Development. ETR&D, 1(49), 65–72. 10.1007/BF02504508
  • Gunawardena C. N. Zittle F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment.American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. 10.1080/08923649709526970
  • Hassenzahl M. Wessler R. (2000). Capturing Design Space From A User Perspective: The Repertory Grid Technique Revisited.International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3-4), 441–459. 10.1207/S15327590IJHC1203&4_13
  • Hernández-Serrano, M. J., González-Sánchez, M. & Muñoz-Rodríguez, J. M. (2009). Designing learning environments improving social interactions: essential variables for a virtual training space. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (ISSHP/ISI Proceedings-SSCI), 1(1), 2411-2415.
  • IMS Global Learning Consortium Inc. (2003). IMS Learning Design Standard Specification. Retrieved July 23, 2009 from http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/index.html
  • Kavanaugh A. Carroll J. M. Rosson M. B. Reese D. D. Zin T. T. (2005). Participating in civil society: the case of networked communities.Interacting with Computers, 17(1), 9–33. 10.1016/j.intcom.2004.10.006
  • Kettner-Polley, R. B. (1999). The making of a virtual professor. ALN Magazine, (3)1.
  • Kljun, M., Vicic, J., Kavsek, B., & Kavcic, A. (2007). Evaluating Comparisons and Evaluations of Learning Management Systems. Information Technology Interfaces, 2007. In 29th International Conference on Information Technology Interface, 25-28 June 2007, (pp. 363-368).
  • Koper, R. (2006). Current Research in Learning Design. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 13-22. Retrieved July 23, 2009 from http://ifets.info/journals/9_1/3.pdf
  • Landon, B. (2000). On-line educational delivery applications: a web tool for comparative analysis. A web site for the project supported by SCET, OLT and The Center for Learning Technologies at Mount Allison University. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://www.c2t2.ca/landonline/
  • Laurillard D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203304846
  • Learning, A. D. (ADL) Initiative. (2001). Sharable Courseware Object Reference Model (SCORM). The SCORM Overview, October 1, 2001. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://www.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm
  • Lepori B. Cantoni L. Succi C. (2003). The introduction of e-learning in European universities: models and strategies. In KerresM.VossB. (Eds.), Digitaler Campus. Vom Medienprojekt zum nachhaltigen Medieneinsatz in der Hochschule (pp. 74–83). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
  • Marqués P. (2001). Algunas notas sobre el impacto de las TIC en la universidad.Educcar, 28, 83–98.
  • Mayer R. (2000). Diseño educativo para un aprendizaje constructivista. In ReigeluthC. (Ed.), Diseño de la Instrucción. Teorías y modelos (pp. 154–171). Madrid, Spain: Aula XXI Santillana.
  • Monereo C. Romero M. (2008). Los entornos virtuales de aprendizaje basados en sistemas de emulación cognitiva. In CollC.MonereoC. (Eds.), Psicología de la educación virtual. Aprender y enseñar con las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación. Editorial Morata.
  • Nielsen J. (1993). Usability Engineering. London: Academic Press. Parlangeli O. Marchigiani E. Bagnara S. (1999). Multimedia systems in distance education: effects of usability on learning.Interacting with Computers, 12, 37–49. 10.1016/S0953-5438(98)00054-X
  • Peters O. (2000). Digital learning environments:New possibilities and opportunities.International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1).
  • Preece J. Rogers Y. Sharp H. Benyon D. Holland S. Carey T. (1994). Human-Computer Interaction. Harlow, UK: Addison-Wesley.
  • Redish J. (2000). Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses.Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 132–137. 10.1145/344599.344637
  • Reeves, T.C. (1997). Evaluating what really matters in computer-based education. Learning with Software-Pedagogies an practice.
  • Romero M. (2009). Metacognition on the Educational Social Software, new challenges and opportunities. In LambropoulosN.M. Romero (Eds.), Educational Social Software for Context-Aware Learning: Collaborative Methods and Human Interaction. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  • Romero, M., & Wareham, J. (2009). Just-in-time mobile learning model based on context awareness information. Learning Technology Newsletter. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Learning Technology (TCLT).
  • Ronteltap F. Eurelings A. (2002). Activity and interaction of students in anelectronic learning environment for problem based learning.Distance Education, 23(1), 11–22. 10.1080/01587910220123955
  • Salinas, J. (1999). Qué se entiende por una institución de educación superior flexible. EDUTEC´99, Universidad de Sevilla, Spain. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://www.uib.es/depart/gte/edutec99.html
  • Sangrà, A. (2001). La calidad en las experiencias virtuales de educación superior. Cuadernos para la Educación Superior. Barcelona, Spain: UOC. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://www.uoc.edu/web/esp/art/uoc/0106024/sangra.html
  • Santángelo H. N. (2003). Modelos pedagógicos en los sistemas de enseñanza no presencial basados en nuevas tecnologías y redes de comunicación. In Martínez SánchezF. (Ed.), Redes de Comunicación en la Enseñanza: Las Nuevas Perspectivas del Trabajo Corporativo (pp. 63–91). Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.
  • Schenkman B. N. Jonsson F. U. (2000). Aesthetics and preferences of web pages.Behaviour & Information Technology, 19(5), 367–377. 10.1080/014492900750000063
  • Schneckenberg, D. (2006). Towards a Conceptualisation of eCompetence in Higher Education. In EDEN 2006 Conference Proceedings 'E-Competences for Life, Employment and Innovation (pp. 39-45). Vienna: European Distance and E- Learning Network.
  • Sicilia, M. A., & Garcia, E. (2003). On the Concepts of usability and Reusability of Learning Objects. The Internacional of research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/155/702
  • Soto F. J. Fernández J. J. (2003). Realidades y retos de inclusión digital.Comunicación y Pedagogía, 192, 34–40.
  • Sweller J. Chandler P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn.Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233. 10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1
  • Tractinsky, N. (1997) Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. In Conference Proceedings on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA USA, March 22 - 27, (pp. 115-122).
  • Tricot, A. (2007). Utility, usability and acceptability: an ergonomic approach to the evaluation of external representations for learning. EARLI Symposium «Understanding the role of external representations in supporting learning», Budapest, August 28 – September 1.