You are here:

Investigating the Effectiveness of Courseware Design: A Rasch-Measurement Approach PROCEEDING

, , RMIT University, Australia

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Washington, DC, United States Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

Higher education institutions around the world are taking opportunities presented by the eLearning community to design instructional environments that accommodate various learners’ educational needs. It appears that ‘technology enhanced instruction’ having the potential to facilitate life-long knowledge acquisition, has been taken for granted. Yet considerable time and effort has been expended by courseware designers to innovate information communications technology (ICT) tools to enhance the technology-enabled learning experiences. This study presents a systematic courseware design-validation procedure; giving preliminarily empirical results from learners’ cognitive performance outcomes. A series of 2x3 factorial quasi-experiments were conducted to validate the performance instrumentations and substantiate the effectiveness of the proposed courseware-design model. A total of 167-participants, from four higher education institutions took part in this research project. The cognitive style analyses (CSA) test was used to identify learners’ cognitive preference. Initial observations suggest that testing instruments were able to make reliable probabilistic inferences of the cognitive performance outcomes.

Citation

Barefah, A. & McKay, E. (2016). Investigating the Effectiveness of Courseware Design: A Rasch-Measurement Approach. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning (pp. 1-11). Washington, DC, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 18, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Adams, R., & Khoo, S. (1996). Quest. Australian Council for Educational Research.
  2. Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States: ERIC.
  3. Biggs, J. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong: Some comparative studies. Educational Research Journal, 6(1), 27-39.
  4. Boyle, E.A., Duffy, T., & Dunleavy, K. (2003). Learning styles and academic outcome: The validity and utility of Vermunt's Inventory of Learning Styles in a British higher education setting. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 267-290.
  5. Branch, R.M., & Kopcha, T.J. (2014). Instructional design models Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 77-87): Springer.
  6. Branson, R.K., Rayner, G.T., Cox, J.L., Furman, J.P., & King, F. (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development. Executive summary and model: DTIC Document.
  7. Cook, D.A. (2012). Revisiting cognitive and learning styles in computer-assisted instruction: not so useful after all. Academic Medicine, 87(6), 778-784.
  8. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The systematic design of introduction. Illinois: Scott& Co.
  9. Fan, F.W., & He, Y. (2011). Intellectual Styles and Academic Achievement. 2011). Handbook of Intellectual Styles: Preferences in Cognition, Learning, and Thinking. Springer Publishing Company: New York.
  10. Gagné, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction: Holt, Rinehart and Winston New York.
  11. Gregorc, A.F. (1984). Style as a symptom: A phenomenological perspective. Theory Into Practice, 23(1), 51-55.
  12. Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence.
  13. Heinich, R. (1996). Instructional media and technologies for learning: Simon& Schuster Books For Young Readers.
  14. Hoffman, B., & Ritchie, D. (1998). Teaching and Learning Online: Tools, Templates, and Training. Izard, J. (2005a). Overview of test construction. In N.R. Kenneth (Ed.), Quantitative Research Methods in Educational Planning. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
  15. Jizat, J.E.M. (2012). Investigating ICT-literacy assessment tools: Developing and validating a new assessment instrument for trainee teachers in Malaysia. RMIT University.
  16. Kagan, J., Pearson, L., & Welch, L. (1966). Conceptual impulsivity and inductive reasoning. Child Development, 583-594.
  17. Kinuthia, W. (2012). Reported challenges for socio-cultural curricula in instructional design. Multicultural Education& Technology Journal, 6(2), 87-99.
  18. Kiviniemi, M.T. (2014). Effects of a blended learning approach on student outcomes in a graduate-level public health course. BMC medical education, 14(1), 1.
  19. Kolb, D. (1976). Learning styles inventory: Boston.
  20. Kyei-Blankson, L., & Godwyll, F. (2010). An examination of learning outcomes in HyFlex learning environments. Paper presented at the World conference on e-Learning incorporate, government, healthcare& Higher education.
  21. McFarlin, B.K. (2008). Hybrid lecture-online format increases student grades in an undergraduate exercise physiology course at a large urban university. Advances in Physiology Education, 32(1), 86-91.
  22. McKay, E. (2000). Instructional Strategies Integrating the Cognitive Style Construct: A Meta-Knowledge Processing Model (Contextual components that facilitate spatial/logical task performance). (Doctoral Dissertation (Computer Science and Information Systems). Total fulfilment: Available online from http://tux.lib.deakin.edu.au/adt-VDU/public/adt-VDU20061011.122556/), Deakin Univ,
  23. Merrill, M.D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.
  24. Merrill, M.D., Drake, L., Lacy, M.J., Pratt, J., & Group, I.R. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.
  25. Mohamad, M. (2012). The effects of web-mediated instructional strategies and cognitive preferences in the acquisition of introductory programming concepts: a Rasch model approach: RMIT University.
  26. Nawaz, A., & Kundi, G.M. (2010). Digital literacy: An analysis of the contemporary paradigms. International Journal of Science and Technology Education Research, 1(2), 19-29.
  27. Rasch, G. (1993). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests: ERIC.
  28. Rayner, S., & Cools, E. (2011). Style differences in cognition, learning, and management: Theory, research, and practice (Vol. 10): Routledge.
  29. Reigeluth, C. (1983). Instructional theories and models. An overview of their current status: Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  30. Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles—an overview and integration. Educational psychology, 11(3-4), 193-215.
  31. Riding, R.J. (2000). Cognitive style: a strategic approach for advancement. International perspectives on individual differences, 1, 365-377.
  32. Riding, R.J., & Calvey, I. (1981). The assessment of verbal ‐imagery learning styles and their effect on the recall of concrete and abstract prose passages by 11‐year‐old children. British Journal of Psychology, 72(1), 59-64.
  33. Riding, R.J., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: understanding style differences in learning and behaviour. London: D. Fulton Publishers.
  34. Sternberg, R.J. (1999). Thinking styles: Cambridge University Press.
  35. Tayebinik, M., & Puteh, M. (2013). Blended Learning or E-learning? Tayebinik, M., & Puteh, M.(2012). Blended Learning or E-learning, 103110.
  36. Thomas, P.R., & McKay, J.B. (2010). Cognitive styles and instructional design in university learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(3), 197-202.
  37. Tsianos, N., Germanakos, P., & Mourlas, C. (2006). Assessing the importance of cognitive learning styles over performance in multimedia educational environments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Interdisciplinarity in Education (ICIE2006), Athens, May.
  38. Urtel, M.G. (2008). Assessing Academic Performance between Traditional and Distance Education Course Formats. Educational Technology& Society, 11(1), 322-330.
  39. Witkin, H.A., & Goodenough, D.R. (1980). Cognitive styles: essence and origins. Field dependence and field independence. Psychological issues(51), 1-141.
  40. Wynegar, R.G., & Fenster, M.J. (2009). Evaluation of alternative delivery systems on academic performance in college algebra. College Student Journal, 43(1), 170.
  41. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S.S. (2013). The impact of online learning on students’ course outcomes: Evidence from a large community and technical college system. Economics of Education Review, 37, 46-57.
  42. Young, P.A. (2008). Integrating Culture in the Design of ICTs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 6-17.
  43. Zavarella, C.A., & Ignash, J.M. (2009). Instructional delivery in developmental mathematics: Impact on retention. Journal of Developmental Education, 32(3), 2.
  44. Zhang, L., & Sternberg, R.J. (2009). Revisiting the value issue in intellectual styles. Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles, 63-85.
  45. Zhang, L.F., & Sternberg, R. (2001). Thinking styles across cultures: Their relationships with student learning. Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles, 197-226.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.