You are here:

Journal of Interactive Learning Research

April 2008 Volume 19, Number 2


Gary H. Marks

Search this issue

Table of Contents

Number of articles: 8

  1. Why Students Engage in “Gaming the System” Behavior in Interactive Learning Environments

    Ryan Baker, Carnegie Mellon University, United States; Jason Walonoski, The MITRE Corporation, United States; Neil Heffernan, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, United States; Ido Roll, Albert Corbett & Kenneth Koedinger, Carnegie Mellon University, United States

    In recent years there has been increasing interest in the phenomena of "gaming the system," where a learner attempts to succeed in an educational environment by exploiting properties of the system'... More

    pp. 185-224

  2. Children’s Sense of Self: Learning and Meaning in the Digital Age

    Tyler Dodge, Sasha Barab & Bronwyn Stuckey, Indiana University, United States; Scott Warren, University of North Texas, United States; Conan Heiselt & Richard Stein, Indiana University, United States

    This research began with the premise that video game play, especially as it relates to participation in persistent virtual worlds, provides fictional spaces where players engage in cognitive and... More

    pp. 225-249

  3. Conversational Agents and Their Longitudinal Affordances on Communication and Interaction

    Aaron Doering & George Veletsianos, University of Minnesota, United States; Theano Yerasimou, Indiana University - Bloomington, United States

    In this study, we investigate the effects of conversational agents on communication and interaction when used to assist participants in developing an online portfolio. Data from 52 participants... More

    pp. 251-270

  4. Novice and Expert Collaboration in Educational Software Development: Evaluating Application Effectiveness

    Rob Friedman & Adam Saponara, New Jersey Institute of Technology, United States

    In an attempt to hone the role of learners as designers, this study investigates the effectiveness of an instructional software application resulting from a design process founded on the tenets of ... More

    pp. 271-292

  5. The Relationship Between Affective States and Dialog Patterns During Interactions With AutoTutor

    Arthur C. Graesser, Sidney K. D’Mello, Scotty D. Craig, Amy Witherspoon, Jeremiah Sullins, Bethany McDaniel & Barry Gholson, University of Memphis, United States

    Relations between emotions (affect states) and learning have recently been explored in the context of AutoTutor. AutoTutor is a tutoring system on the Internet that helps learners construct answers... More

    pp. 293-312

  6. A Three-Layered Cyclic Model of E-Learning Development and Evaluation

    Paul Lam & Carmel McNaught, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Evaluation is often depicted as being in a cyclic relationship, together with the planning, development, and implementation aspects of e-learning in higher education. This article supports this... More

    pp. 313-329

  7. Enhancing Case-Based Learning in Teacher Education Through Online Discussions: Structure and Facilitation

    Katherine Mitchem, California University of Pennsylvania, United States; Gail Fitzgerald, University of Missouri-Columbia, United States; Candice Hollingsead, Bethel College, United States; Kevin Koury, California University of Pennsylvania, United States; Kevin Miller, Buffalo State University, United States; Hui-Hsien Tsai, University of Missouri-Columbia, United States

    This multi-case study compares the experiences of students and instructors participating in three different online discussion formats used to support the collaborative and social aspects of case... More

    pp. 331-349

  8. Instructional Design by Novice Designers: Two Empirical Studies

    Daniëlle Verstegen, Risbo, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands; Yvonne Barnard, ITS, University of Leeds, United Kingdom; Albert Pilot, IVLOS, Utrecht University, Netherlands

    In many cases advanced instructional products, such as computer-based training, e-learning programs, simulations, and simulators are not designed by experienced instructional designers, but by... More

    pp. 351-383