You are here:

Assessment in E-Learning Environments: A Comparison of three Methods
PROCEEDINGS

, IICM, Graz University of Technology, Austria ; , Karl-Franzens University Graz, Austria ; , IICM, Graz University of Technology, Austria

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Orlando, Florida, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-58-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Considering didactics, assessment is necessary to evaluate the learning process and, thus, also of relevance for the e-learning situation. In fact, it is harder and more problematic to realise them within online courses. This paper examines important didactical aspects, such as defining competencies, determining learning objectives and assessing learners' achievements within the scope of e-learning, and, furthermore, it reports about a case study comparing three different assessment methods to each other. In particular, the depicted methods are evaluated in terms of the most relevant factors of the teaching process within the area of adult education.

Citation

Mödritscher, F., Spiel, S. & Garcia-Barrios, V.M. (2006). Assessment in E-Learning Environments: A Comparison of three Methods. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2006--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 108-113). Orlando, Florida, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 29, 2022 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. AdeLE (2005). AdeLE – Adaptive e-Learning with Eye Tracking, website, http://adele.fh-joanneum.at (2005-07-29).
  2. ADL (2004). Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) 2004 2nd Edition, Advanced Distributed Learning, http://www.adlnet.org/downloads/70.cfm (2005-08-04).
  3. Akhras, F.N. And Self, J.A. (2000). System intelligence in constructivist learning. In: International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 11, pp. 344-376.
  4. Bhalerao, A. And Ward, A. (2001). Towards Electronically Assisted Peer Assessment: A Case Study. In: Association for Learning Technology journal (ALT-J), vol. 9, pp. 26-37.
  5. Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., and Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Education Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. David McKay, New York. Campus02 (2005). University of Applied Sciences Business Studies, website, http://www.campus02.at (2005-08-04).
  6. Durand, T. (1998). Forms of incompetence. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on CompetenceBased Management, Oslo, Norway.
  7. Gredler, M.E. (2003). Games and simulations and their relationship to learning. In: Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 21, pp. 571-582.
  8. Gunawardena, C.N. And McIsaac, M.S. (2003). Distance education. In: Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 14, pp. 355-396.
  9. IDS (2002). Instruction at FSU: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Practices. Instructional Development Services, Florida State University.
  10. Jain, L.C., Howlett, R.J., Ischalkaranje, N.S., and Tonfoni, G. (2002). Virtual Environments for Teaching& Learning. In: Series of Innovative Intelligence, vol. 1, preface.
  11. Lennon, J. And Maurer, H. (2003). Why it is Difficult to Introduce e-Learning into Schools And Some New Solutions. In: Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS), vol. 9, pp. 1244-1257.
  12. Mödritscher, F., García-Barrios, V.M., and Gütl, C. (2004). The Past, the Present and the Future of adaptive ELearning: An Approach within the Scope of the Research Project AdeLE. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Computer Aided Learning (ICL2004), Villach, Austria.
  13. Mödritscher, F. And Sindler, A. (2005). Quizzes are not enough to reach high-level learning objectives. In: Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia& Telecommunications (EDMEDIA 2005), Montreal, Canada, pp. 3275-3278.
  14. Park, O. And Lee, J. (2003). Adaptive Instructional Systems. In: Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 25, pp. 651-684.
  15. Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. Viking-Penguin, New York.
  16. Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. In journal Higher Education, vol. 35, pp. 453-472.
  17. Spector, J.M. And Ohrazda, C. (2003). Automating instructional design: Approaches and limitations. In: Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 26, pp. 685-700.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References