You are here:

Investigating Instructional Utility of e-Learning Modules
PROCEEDINGS

, , , Arizona State University/Technology Based Learning and Research, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Phoenix, Arizona, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-50-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

This study formatively evaluated online training modules in networking skills. These modules are part of the e-Learning Network (a curriculum covering Internetworking concepts), developed with the support of a grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education. The e-Learning Network modules are offered, nationwide, through universities, community colleges, and community technology centers. The e-Learning Network is providing adult learners low cost, anytime, anywhere quality networking instruction and preparing adult learners for two existing industry certification examinations: the Cisco Certified Networking Associate (CCNA) and the Cisco Certified Networking Professional (CCNP). This study investigated module utility using attitude, self-efficacy, assessment scores, and usability variables.

Citation

Stirling, D., Bitter, G. & Skiera, P. (2003). Investigating Instructional Utility of e-Learning Modules. In A. Rossett (Ed.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2003--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 317-320). Phoenix, Arizona, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 9, 2019 from .

© 2003 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bitter, G.G. (1993). Teaching mathematics methods using interactive videodisc: Research results from the TMMUIV project. Monograph of Technology Based Learning and Research, Arizona State University (Serial No. 5).
  2. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). The Systematic Design of Instruction. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
  3. Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology? In T. Duffy and D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  4. Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16, 233-240.
  5. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  6. Gagne, R., Briggs, L., & Wagner, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  7. Gartner Group. (1998, September). IT Staff Retention and Recruitment: Addressing a Critical Problem for the IS Organization. Strategic Analysis Report: Author.
  8. Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 13(9), 28-33.
  9. Kemp, J. (1985). The Instructional Design Process. New York: Harper and Row.
  10. Pryor, B.W. (1999). An Overlooked Focus for Evaluation: A Theory of Behavioral Motivation Mechanisms, 3(2), 21-25.
  11. Pryor, B.W., & Bitter, G.G. (2000, April). An overlooked focus in evaluation: Examining motivation, and its causal connections with attitude, norm, and external variables. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read