You are here:

Implementing online learning in Nepalese Teacher Education: Faculty use of Learning Management Systems PROCEEDING

, , Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway ; , Kathmandu University, Nepal ; , Tribhuvan University, Nepal

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Savannah, GA, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

QUANTICT is a joint project between two Nepalese and one Norwegian university that aims at developing open and distance learning in teacher education master programs in Nepal that can reach out to students living in remote areas, particularly women and underprivileged groups. This paper presents an action research plan related to the developmental goals of the project and briefly discusses the preliminary findings. Based on the initial training and conversations in workshops on online pedagogy, most faculties in both Nepalese universities in this project advocate a student-centered and dialogic pedagogy that demands social presence. The findings are discussed according to a socio-material approach, questioning the role of the LMS as an actor in the pedagogical change.

Citation

Johannesen, M., Øgrim, L., Pangeni, S.K. & Dhakal, B.P. (2016). Implementing online learning in Nepalese Teacher Education: Faculty use of Learning Management Systems. In G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2082-2094). Savannah, GA, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 24, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation Sociometry, 28, 289.
  2. Bente, G., Rüggenberg, S., Krämer, N.C., & Eschenburg, F. (2008). Avatar-Mediated Networking: Increasing Social Presence and Interpersonal Trust in Net-Based Collaborations. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 287-318. Doi:10.1111/J.1468-2958.2008.00322.x
  3. Boezerooij, P. (2006). Elearning strategies of higher education institutions. CHEPS/University of Twente. Czech Republik.
  4. Borup, J., West, R.E., & Graham, C.R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. Internet& Higher Education, 15(3), 195-203.
  5. Chih-Hsiung, T., Cherng-Jyh, Y., Blocher, J.M., & Junn-Yih, C. (2012). A Study of the Predictive Relationship Between Online Social Presence and ONLE Interaction. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 10(3), 53-66. Doi:10.4018/jdet.2012070104
  6. Dow, M.J. (2008). Implications of Social Presence for Online Learning: A Case Study of MLS Students. Journal of Education for Library& Information Science, 49(4), 231-242.
  7. Dysthe, O. (2013). Theoretical Perspective on Dialogue and Dialogue-Based Teaching. In O. Dysteh, N. Bernhardt& L. Esbjørn (Eds.), Dialogue-Based. Th art museum as a learning space. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget/Skoletjenesten.
  8. Fang-Wu, T., & Yi-Shin, D. (2006). Designing social presence in e-learning environments: Testing the effect of interactivity on children. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(3), 251-264. Doi:10.1080/10494820600924750
  9. Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P.H. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. London: Routledge.
  10. Gaebel, M., Kupriyanova, V., Morais, R., & Colucci, E.. (2014). E-learning in European Higher Education Institutions.. Brussels: European University Association.
  11. Gunavardena, C.N., & Zittle, F.J. (1997). Social Presence as a predictor o satisfaction within a computermediated conferencing environment. America Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.
  12. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography: Sage Publications.
  13. Imsen, G. (2014). Elevens verden: innføring i pedagogisk psykologi (5. Utg. Ed.). Oslo: Universitetsforl.
  14. Johannesen, M. (2013). The sociomateriality of teaching: Virtual learning environments in teaching practice (Vol. No. 169). Oslo: Unipub forl.
  15. Johannesen, M., & Øgrim, L. (2014). Online buzz-trip? Communication in MOOCs and Distance Education. Paper presented at the NERA 42nd Congress;, Iceland.
  16. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades: Twitter and student engagement. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,, 27(2), 119132.
  17. Kozma, R.B. (2008). Comparative analysis of policies for ICT in education. : Springer.
  18. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  19. Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  20. Nordahl, T. (2013). Eleven som aktør, i,. In S. Lillejord, T. Manger & T. Nordahl (Eds.), Livet i skolen: grunnbok i pedagogikk og elevkunnskap, 2, Lærerprofesjonalitet. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
  21. Ornellas, A., Sánchez, J.A., Alonso, K., & Moltó, O. (2009). Two decades of ICT Policy in Education. Changing discourses. Changing practices.. In A. Mendez-Vilas (Ed.), Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT in Education (Vol. 1, pp. 154–157.): Formatex.
  22. Rahimi, E., Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2014). A learning model for enhancing the student’s control in educational process using Web 2.0 personal learning environments.. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 780-792. Doi:10.1111/bjet.12170
  23. Schneckenberg, D., Ehlers, U., & Adelsberg, H. (2011). Web 2.0 and competence-oriented design of learning—Potentials and implications for higher education.. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 747–762.
  24. Schrum, L., English, M.C., & Galizio, L.M. (2012). Project DAVES: An exploratory study of social presence, e-mentoring, and vocational counseling support in community college courses. Internet& Higher Education, 15(2), 96-101. Doi:10.1016/J.iheduc.2011.08.001
  25. Short, J.A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
  26. Shurgers, J., Stam, G.V., Banda, S., & Labib, L. (2009). Opportunities and challenges of e-learning in Zambia: Experiences and Reflections.. Medical Journal of Zambia, 36(3), 119-124.
  27. Sung, E., & Mayer, R.E. (2012). Five facets of social presence in online distance education. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1738-1747.
  28. Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning. Technology and knowledge in educational practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Tan, C.-H., Sutanto, J., & Phang, C.W. (2012). An Empirical Assessment of Second Life vis-à-vis Chatroom on Media Perceptual Assessment and Actual Task Performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(3), 379-390.
  30. Usman, S.H., & Oyefolahan, I.O. (2014). Encouraging Knowledge Sharing Using Web 2.0 Technologies in Higher Education: A Survey. International Journal of Managing Information Technology, 6(2), 19-28.
  31. Yamada, M., & Akahori, K. (2007). Social presence in synchronous CMC-based language learning: How does it affect the productive performance and consciousness of learning objectives? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 37-65. Doi:10.1080/09588220601118503
  32. Øgrim, L., Johannesen, M., Engen, B.K., & Mifsud, L. (2013). Online learning for the present and future. Experiences from the employment of a diversity of methods and technologies.. Paper presented at the Education for the Future. 8th Annual Conference of the ATEE, Halden, Norway.

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.

Slides